Menj has just recently posted two articles,

which respond to articles written by the late Arthur Jeffery and myself:

MENJ’s articles are taken and adapted from Muhammad Mohar Ali’s work, Sirat Al-Nabi and the Orientalists: With Special Reference to the Writings of William Muir, D.S. Margoliouth and W. Montgomery Watt, Vol. IA (1st ed., 1997).

We plan on addressing the claims made in these articles by breaking down our rebuttal into six parts in order to make it easier for our readers to follow the discussion. This will also help the readers to skip over any part and go directly to the sections dealing with the evidence supporting Muhammad’s idolatry:

1. Addressing Some Underlying Muslim Presuppositions and Claims
2. The Inconsistent Methodology of Muslim Polemicists
3. Muhammad’s Idolatrous Tendencies Examined: Evidence From the Quran
4. Evidence From the Hadith Collections
5. Variations Within Narrations and the Authenticity of Hadith Reports
6. To Kiss or Not to Kiss: That is the Question

1. Addressing Some Underlying Muslim Presuppositions and Claims

The matter goes beyond this, however. It is obvious to any instructed intelligence that in the case of many a great man the signs of his subsequent greatness were discernable even in his early life. And in so far as a great religious figure is concerned it is not at all unlikely that God sets his mind in the right direction from his boyhood. Enquiries made with persons newly embracing a monothestic (sic) religion but previously belonging to another religious community reveal that in many cases they had developed an abhorrence of the polytheistic practices of their communities and avoided those practices since an early stage of their lives... (Source)

It maybe the case that some people develop an abhorrence of paganism at an early age, but this still tells us nothing about Muhammad’s early life and experiences. It is just as likely for a person to be indulged in pagan practices and only abandon these practices much later in life.

Furthermore, just because a person happens to be a great religious figure doesn’t necessarily mean that he is a true prophet or spokesperson of the true God. There have been and continue to be many great religious figures and teachers that teach contradictory and conflicting views of God, man, salvation, the afterlife, etc. Now these conflicting religious worldviews cannot all be correct, but can all be wrong since logically it is possible that there is no God and therefore atheism would be true. The contradictions of these systems of belief demonstrate that God cannot be the source of all these spiritual teachings.

The author’s statements show that he has already presupposed that Muhammad was a great religious figure, a prophet, and that God therefore was somehow setting his mind in the right direction. Yet it is precisely this underlying assumption that is in debate.

For instance, Muhammad claimed to be following the footsteps of the prophets of the Holy Bible. Yet his claims and teachings directly conflict with the teachings of the Holy Bible. This means that from a biblical perspective Muhammad was not guided by the true God and, hence, was not necessarily protected since childhood from the pagan influences of his society.

Both MENJ and Ali must first prove that Muhammad was a prophet, not simply assume that he was. But even this wouldn’t necessarily prove that God always protected Muhammad from his family’s paganism. It would be just as possible that God allowed Muhammad to engage in idolatrous rites and only later in his life bring him to a point where he sees the futility in such pagan practices.

In fact, this is exactly what the Qur’an reports about Abraham, that he first worships the moon, and the sun, before he realizes the futility of such worship:

(Remember) when Abraham said unto his father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he might be of those possessing certainty: When the night grew dark upon him he beheld a star. He said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not things that set. And when he saw the moon uprising, he exclaimed: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless my Lord guide me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray. And when he saw the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is greater! And when it set he exclaimed: O my people! Lo! I am free from all that ye associate (with Him). Lo! I have turned my face toward Him Who created the heavens and the earth, as one by nature upright, and I am not of the idolaters. S. 6:74-79 Pickthall

Therefore, there is no reason that Muhammad could not undergo a similar development. More importantly, there is no evidence in the Qur’an that he did not. As we will see shortly, the Muslim sources report that he did engage in idolatry.

The same Muslim author, Ali, goes on to say:

... There never was any attempt to suppress anything. On the contrary, the attempt was to collect and preserve anything and everything that was available and in circulation. In fact there could be no attempt as such to suppress anything; for the writing down or circulation of traditions was no centralized affair and there conceivably be no machinery to prevent an individual from writing down and transmitting a report or information he cared to collect. Suppression of anything under the circumstances was out of the question. It was because of this absence of any plan or feasibility to supervise and control the issuance of tradition, and because it was found that many spurious traditions were led of necessity to formulate criteria to distinguish the genuine from the spurious traditions. The sheer historical fact is that there was no means of controlling the issuances of traditions while there was an abundance and unbridled growth of spurious traditions. The emphasis on isnâd is an outcome of this historical fact; and it is this fact which makes it absolutely necessary to strictly examine especially those very traditions that seem to run counter to the generally accepted facts about the Prophet's life or supply contradictory and inconsistent information on any particular point.

Contrary to Ali’s assertions, there is evidence that orthodox Muslims suppressed and tampered with the Islamic traditions, especially traditions which presented Muhammad in a negative light. A case example would be Ibn Hisham, the man who edited Ibn Ishaq’s biography on Muhammad, Sirat Rasulullah. The translator of Ishaq’s biography, Islamic scholar Alfred Guillaume, writes in his Introduction:

It has been my aim to restore so far as is now possible the text of I.I. [Sam: Ibn Ishaq] as it left his pen or as he dictated it to his hearers, from excerpts in later texts, disregarding the Mabda’ section as I.H. [Sam: Ibn Hisham] did and for at least one of his reasons. At first I was tempted to think that a great deal of the original had been lost - and it may well be that it has been lost - for it is clear that the scurrilous attacks on the prophet which I.H. mentions in his Introduction are not be found anywhere. (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], pp. xxx-xxxi)

Guillaume mentions Ibn Hisham’s claim that Ibn Ishaq said nothing about Abu Sufyan’s assassination:

What remains to be explained is why I.H. should assert that I.I. had said nothing about the abortive attempt to assassinate Abu Sufyan and the equally unsuccessful effort to recover Khubayb’s body. If I.I. said nothing at all about either matter how came it that I.H. dealt with them? Since we know that I.I. reported what had happened from traditions that were transmitted by ‘Amr’s own family and that they existed in oral and written form for centuries afterwards, we cannot but suspect that I.H. has tampered with the evidence. (p. xlii)

Christian writer and apologist John Gilchrist mentions the removal of the "Satanic Verses" from Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s work:

... The record of his reliance on Ibn Ishaq for the narrative suggests that Ibn Hisham may well have expunged it from the original text and prompts one writer to say:

There is reason to suspect that Ibn Hisham was not quite so trustworthy as his great authority Ibn Ishac. Certainly there is one instance which throws suspicion upon him as a witness, disinclined at least to tell the whole truth. We find in Tabari a quotation from Ibn Ishac, in which is described the temporary lapse of Mahomet into idolatry; and the same incidents are also given by Wakidy from other original sources. But no notice whatever of the fact appears in the biography of Ibn Hisham, though it is professedly based upon the work of Ibn Ishac. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. lxx).

This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Ibn Hisham's edition contains no unfavourable stories about Muhammad...

There are many evidences in other works, which quote from the Sirat, that Ibn Hisham's edition is incomplete and the story of the "satanic verses" was almost certainly one of those expunged from the text by him. Recently a Muslim publishing house in India has reprinted Hughes' great work, A Dictionary of Islam, and has introduced the reprint with these words in a "Publisher's Note":

The Publisher has very meticulously gone through the pages and has expunged the remarks derogatory to Islamic faith, published in the original edition. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. vi).

This statement seems to sum up perfectly the similar action taken by Ibn Hisham against the original text of Ibn Ishaq's work... (Gilchrist, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, "Satan’s Interjection and Its Implications")

Ibn Hisham himself wrote:

God willing I shall begin this book with Isma'il son of Ibrahim and mention those of his offspring who were the ancestors of God's apostle one by one with what is known about them, taking no account of Isma'il's other children, omitting some of the things which I.I. has recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Quran says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation of it or evidence for it; poems which he quotes that no authority on poetry whom I have met knows of; things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakka'i told me he could not accept as trustworthy — all these things I have omitted. But God willing I shall give a full account of everything else so far as it is known and trustworthy tradition is available. (Guillaume, p. 691; underline emphasis ours)

More on Ibn Hisham a little later.

Other examples would include al-Bukhari who is said to have collected anywhere from over 300,000 to 600,000 hadiths. Out of these, he rejected roughly 99% of them. (See this article)

Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, in his English translation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, writes:

Many a story has been told about Imam Bukhari regarding his struggles in collecting Hadith literature. He travelled to many different places and gathering the precious gems that fell from the lips of the noble Prophet Muhammad... It is said that Imam Bukhari collected over 300,000 Ahadith and he himself memorized 200,000 of which some were unreliable. He was born at a time when Hadith was being forged either to please rulers or kings or to corrupt the religion of Islam.

It is said that Imam Bukhari (before compiling Sahih Al-Bukhari) saw in a dream, standing in front of Prophet Muhammad... having a fan in his hand and driving away the flies from the Prophet... Imam Bukhari asked some of those who interpret dreams and they interpreted his dream that he will drive away the falsehood asserted agaisnt [sic] the Prophet...

So it was a great task for him to sift the forged Ahadith from the authentic ones. He laboured day and night and although he had memorized such a large number he only chose approximately 7,275 with repetition and about 2,230 without repetition of which there is no doubt about their authenticity. (Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, translated by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Islamic University, Al-Madina Al-Munawwara, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; compilation: Al-Imam Zain-ud-Din Ahmad bin Abdul-Lateef Az-Zubaidi [Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, 1994], pp. 18-19)

Now one of the reasons given for rejecting a specific hadith would be its contents (matn). For instance, in one of his articles, MENJ quotes a Muslim who presents several reasons why the contents of a hadith will determine whether it is to be rejected. The last one is pertinent to our discussion:

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:

(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur'an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.

(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected. (Source: bismikaallahuma.org/Hadith/Exegesis/she-monkey.htm; bold emphasis ours)

Therefore, it is highly probable that many hadiths were rejected on the basis of some negative statements made in reference to Muhammad. It is not probable that every hadith was rejected due to a deficiency in the chain of transmission or because they were untrustworthy.

We therefore have ample reasons to believe that Muslims, both in the past and the present, have indeed suppressed certain evidence which reflected negatively on Muhammad and his followers. Thankfully, not all of these references disappeared.

2. The Inconsistent Methodology of Muslim Polemicists

[(*) Muhammad ibn `Umar al-Waqidi (d. 207), Ahmad ibn Hanbal said of him: "He is A LIAR." Al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim al-Razi said: "DISCARDED." Ibn `Adi said: "His narrations ARE NOT RETAINED, AND THEIR BANE COMES FROM HIM." Ibn al-Madini said: "HE FORGES HADITHS." Al-Dhahabi said: "CONSENSUS HAS SETTLED OVER HIS DEBILITY." Mizan al-I`tidal (3:662-666 #7993).] (Source: bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/haddad.htm; capital emphasis ours)

At the same time, MENJ’s colleagues, Hesham Azmy and Usman Sheikh (a.k.a. Johnny Bravo), will use al-Waqidi to discredit one of our papers!

Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar told us: Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah, Az-Zuhri’s nephew, told us on authority of his father that he said: an amount of one milk drink was collected in a pot or glass, so Salîm used to drink it every day, for five days. After this, he used to enter at her while her head is uncovered. This was permission from Messenger of Allah to Sahla bint Suhail. (bismikaallahuma.org/Hadith/Exegesis/nursing.htm)

Muhammad Ibn Umar is none other than al-Waqidi! Note how Al-Waqidi is good enough to discredit our position but not reliable enough to establish the veracity of the Satanic verses.

MENJ and his sources are obviously using a double standard since on the one hand they attack the Christian "missionaries" for appealing to allegedly "weak" or "fabricated" narrations. But when it comes to them, it is fine to use such narrations so long as it helps them accomplish their goals of discrediting those "evil missionaries."

What MENJ and his colleagues conveniently forget to mention is that these so-called "weak" or "fraudulent" traditions were written and published by Muslims, not Jews or Christians. Therefore, they need to explain why Muslims would concoct such damaging statements against their prophet if they didn’t have a ring of truth to them?

Now they may say that there have been (and continue to be) hypocrites masquerading as Muslims who introduced false material within the Islamic corpus. But if these Muslims could successfully introduce such fraudulent and incriminating statements within the Islamic literature, then what is to say that they didn’t do the same thing to the Quran?

For instance, many Muslim scholars admit that Jews, and even Christians, introduced stories from their writings into the hadith material. Yet, the fact of the matter is that we find many such Jewish and Christian stories, fables, etc. reported as history within the Quran itself! See for instance the following link:

Hence, if Jews, Christians, hypocrites etc., could get away with corrupting the hadith literature, then they could also get away with corrupting the Quranic text as well without Muslims having the ability to prevent or identify these corruptions, additions and omissions, etc. For the evidence that the Quran has suffered textual corruption please consult the following link:

We will be highlighting some more of MENJ’s inconsistency and use of a double standard throughout this paper.

3. Muhammad’s Idolatrous Tendencies Examined: Evidence From the Quran

4. Evidence From the Hadith Collections

Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish of meat to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused to eat of it and then said, "I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stone altars (Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 407)

We had quoted this hadith in our paper, with the difference being that we have omitted the parenthetical comments which are not part of the original Arabic text. In fact, here is the online Arabic version of Al-Bukhari, with commentary provided by ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. The hadith number is 5075, the chapter on Hunting and Sacrifices. The title is, "What has been slaughtered from Images and to Idols":

Narrated by Mu’ty Ibn Asad, narrated by Abd Al-Aziz Ibn Al-Mukhtar, narrated by Musa Ibn Akbah, narrated by Salim who heard Abdullah narrating that the prophet – pbuh – met Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail at the bottom of Baldah, and this was the time before the prophet – pbuh – received revelation. So the prophet presented to him (Zaid) a table on which was served meat. However, Zaid refused to eat from it and said, "I do not eat what you sacrifice to your idols, and I do not eat except what Allah’s name have been mentioned on."

Explanation of Hadith Bukhari in Fath Al-Bari

The Hadith of Ibn Amr found in the story of Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail has been transmitted with some variation. According to the majority (of narrators) the phrase "The prophet – pbuh – presented to him (Zaid) a table" IS THE CORRECT ONE.

According to Al-Kash-mihni the phrase should read, "To the prophet – pbuh – was presented a table."

However, Ibn Al-Manbar tried to reconcile this difference by stating that the people who were there presented to the prophet the table (with food sacrificed to idols) and he in turn presented it to Zaid (Ibn Amr). Therefore, Zaid gave his response to the people. (Source)

According to the above source, the majority of narrators agreed that it was Muhammad who presented the meats to Zaid. Apparently, some Muslims were so troubled by this that they tried to change it around and claim that Muhammad was presented with the meats. Others sought to reconcile both these statements, presumably out of their belief in Muhammad’s impeccability, by suggesting that Muhammad was offered the meats which he in turn gave to Zaid.

We will show a little later why these harmonizations do not comport with the facts.

Here, now, is the particular hadith MENJ mentioned in regards to Muhammad refusing the meats:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah's Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering." Zaid bin 'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, "Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as something abominable.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to Sham, inquiring about a true religion to follow. He met a Jewish religious scholar and asked him about their religion. He said, "I intend to embrace your religion, so tell me something about it." The Jew said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah's Anger." Zaid said, "'I do not run except from Allah's Anger, and I will never bear a bit of it if I have the power to avoid it. Can you tell me of some other religion?" He said, "I do not know any other religion except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and he used to worship none but Allah (Alone)." Then Zaid went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him the same as before. The Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid replied, "I do not run except from Allah's Curse, and I will never bear any of Allah's Curse and His Anger if I have the power to avoid them. Will you tell me of some other religion?" He replied, "I do not know any other religion except Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He replied, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian and he used to worship none but Allah (Alone)." When Zaid heard their Statement about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that place, and when he came out, he raised both his hands and said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the religion of Abraham."

Narrated Asma bint Abi Bakr: I saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing with his back against the Ka'ba and saying, "O people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of Abraham except me." He used to preserve the lives of little girls: If somebody wanted to kill his daughter he would say to him, "Do not kill her for I will feed her on your behalf." So he would take her, and when she grew up nicely, he would say to her father, "Now if you want her, I will give her to you, and if you wish, I will feed her on your behalf." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169)

From this hadith, MENJ draws the erroneous conclusion that Muhammad refused to eat the idol meats even before Zaid. On the contrary, the only thing this hadith proves is that after Muhammad’s experience with Zaid the former declined to eat any more sacrifices made to the idols.

When one reads this narration in light of the previous one from al-Bukhari, we can safely conclude that Muhammad had given some meat to Zaid. When the latter refused to accept these idol sacrifices, Muhammad became convicted which in turn led him to abandon the eating of such sacrifices. The Meccans then tried to offer Muhammad some of their sacrificial meat which he clearly refused in light of his newfound conviction prompted by Zaid.

The next set of "weak" traditions provides additional support for our interpretation. For instance, Alfred Guillaume noted:

The only authentic story of Muhammad’s early years is contained in an unpublished manuscript of his first biographer Ibn Ishaq. It reads as follows:

I was told that the apostle of Allah said, as he was talking about Zayd son of ‘Amr son of Nufayl, ‘He was the first TO UPBRAID ME FOR IDOLATRY AND FORBADE ME TO WORSHIP IDOLS. I had come from al-Ta’if along with Zayd son of Haritha when we passed Zayd son of ‘Amr who was in the highland of Mecca. Quraysh had made a public example of him for abandoning their religion, so that he went out from their midst. I sat down with him. I had a bag containing meat WHICH WE HAD SACRIFICED TO OUR IDOLS - Zayd b. Haritha was carrying it - and I offered it to Zayd b. ‘Amr - I was but a lad at the time - and I said, "Eat some of this food, my uncle." He replied, "Surely it is part of those sacrifices of theirs which they offer to their idols?" When I said that it was, he said, "Nephew mine, if you were to ask the daughters of ‘Abd al-Muttalib they would tell you that I never eat of these sacrifices, and I have no desire to do so." THEN HE UPBRAIDED ME FOR IDOLATRY and spoke disparagingly of those who worship idols and sacrifice to them, and said, "They are worthless: they can neither harm nor profit anyone," or words to that effect.’ The apostle added, ‘AFTER THAT I NEVER KNOWINGLY STROKED ONE OF THEIR IDOLS NOR DID I SACRIFICE TO THEM UNTIL GOD HONOURED ME WITH HIS APOSTLESHIP.’

This tradition clearly shows how the boy Muhammad was influenced by a monotheist of whom we know but little. The prohibition against the eating of meat offered to idols is of course originally Jewish, but as it was taken over into Christianity it is impossible to say whether Zayd was a Jewish or Christian proselyte. Arabic tradition represents him as a man dissatisfied with both Judaism and Christianity and utterly hostile to heathenism. (Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books, reprinted 1990], pp. 26-27; capital emphasis ours)

Additionally, Alfred Guillaume writes in his book, New Light on the Life of Muhammad:

A tradition of outstanding importance follows (fos. 37b – 38)1. It is the only extant evidence of the influence of a monotheist on Muhammad by way of admonition. Ibn Ishaq says: ‘I was told that THE APOSTLE OF GOD while speaking of Zayd ibn 'Amr ibn Nufayl SAID, ‘He was the first TO BLAME ME FOR WORSHIPPING IDOLS AND FORBADE ME TO DO SO. I had come from al-Ta'if with Zayd ibn Haritha when I passed by Zayd ibn 'Amr on the high ground above Mecca, for Quraysh had made a public example of him (shaharathu) for abandoning their religion, so that he went forth from among them and (stayed) in the high ground of Mecca. I went and sat with him. I had with me a bag of meat from OUR SACRIFICES to OUR IDOLS which Zayd ibn Haritha was carrying, and I offered it to him. I was a YOUNG LAD at that time. I said, ‘Eat some of this food, O my uncle.’ He replied ‘Nephew, it is a part of those sacrifices OF YOURS which you offer to YOUR IDOLS, isn’t it?’ When I answered that it was he said, ‘If you were to ask the daughters of ‘Abdu’l-Mutalib they would tell you that I never eat of these sacrifices and I want nothing to do with them.’ Then he blamed me and those who worship idols and sacrifice to them saying ‘They are futile: they can do neither good nor harm,’ or words to that effect.’" The apostle added, "After that with that knowledge I never stroked an idol of theirs nor did I sacrifice to them until God honoured me with His apostleship."

This tradition has been expunged from Ibn Hisham’s recension altogether, but there are traces of it in S. (p. 146) and Bukhari (K. p. 63, bab 24) where there is an imposing isnad going back to ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar to the effect that the prophet met Zayd in the lower part of Baldah before his apostleship. "A bag was brought to the prophet or the prophet brought it to him and he refused to eat of it saying ‘I never eat what you sacrifice before your idols. I eat only that over which the name of God has been mentioned.’ He blamed Quraysh for their sacrifices", etc.

Suhayli discusses the question as to how it could be thought that God allowed Zayd to give up meat offered to idols when the apostle had the better right to such a privilege. He says that the hadith does not say that the apostle actually ate of it; merely that Zayd refused to do so. Secondly Zayd was simply following his own opinion, and not obeying an earlier law, for the law of Abraham forbade the eating of the flesh of animals that had died, not the flesh of animals that had been sacrificed to idols. Before Islam came to forbid the practice there was nothing against it, so that if the apostle did eat of such meat he did what was permissible, and if he did not, there is no difficulty. The truth is that it was neither expressly permitted nor forbidden. (Ibid., Manchester University Press, pp. 27-28; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The preceding is based on a manuscript, in the Qarawiyun mosque library at Fez in Morocco, containing a report of Ibn Ishaq's lectures on the life of Muhammad. It also contains over 200 traditions from other sources. A Muslim who listened to Ibn Ishaq’s lectures wrote the document. It has much the same material of Ibn Hisham, but it also includes information that Ibn Hisham expunged. Thus, here is a tradition reported by Ibn Ishaq which was omitted by Ibn Hisham in his version of the Sira! So much for Ali’s claim that no evidence exists to show that Muslims edited out negative information from their sources.

As far as eating meats sacrificed to idols is concerned, the Holy Bible clearly condemns this practice:

"Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood... For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 15:19-20, 28-29

"But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 21:25

"But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality... But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols." Revelation 2:14, 20

One brief comment here regarding Guillaume’s comments on Muhammad’s age. It is highly unlikely that Muhammad was a boy when this event occurred since Zaid Ibn Haritha was with him. This implies that Muhammad’s encounter with Zaid ibn Amr occurred sometime after he was married to Khadijah. In light of this, Muhammad’s comment that he was a lad need not refer to his age, but to his spiritual maturity. Muhammad may have been suggesting that he was spiritually immature, a babe when it came to religious matters, during the time this event transpired. Muhammad may have seen this encounter as the one event which sparked a spiritual awakening within him which eventually culminated his alleged prophethood, just as the text itself suggests.

But even if Muhammad were young at age, the point still remains that he offered sacrifices to his idols.

One early Muslim chronicler of Arab pagan idols unabashedly acknowledged that Muhammad even sacrificed to the goddess al-Uzza during a time when he was a practicing pagan:

We have been told that the Apostle of God once mentioned al-Uzza saying, "I have offered a white sheep to al-'Uzza, while I was a follower of the religion of my people." (Hisham Ibn al-Kalbi, Kitab Al-Asnam (The Book of Idols), translated by Nabih Amin Faris, 1952, pp. 16-17; online edition)

There are more hadiths on Muhammad’s encounter with Zaid:

Narrated by Yazid, narrated by Al-Masudi, narrated by Nufail Ibn Hisham Ibn Sa’id Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail, narrated by his father, narrated by his grandfather who related that the prophet – pbuh – was in Mecca with Zaid Ibn Haritha. Then Zaid Ibn Amr passed by them so THEY invited him to (dine) at a table they had. Zaid (Ibn Amr) said, "O my nephew! I do not eat what was sacrificed to images and idols."

He then said that he did not see the prophet – pbuh – again eat anything that was offered as a sacrifice to images or idols ...

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏يزيد ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏المسعودي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏نفيل بن هشام بن سعيد بن زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبيه ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏جده ‏ ‏قال ‏‏كان رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏بمكة ‏ ‏هو ‏ ‏وزيد بن حارثة ‏ ‏فمر بهما ‏ ‏زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل ‏ ‏فدعواه ‏ ‏إلى ‏ ‏سفرة ‏ ‏لهما فقال يا ابن أخي ‏ ‏إني لا آكل مما ذبح على ‏ ‏النصب ‏ ‏قال فما رئي النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏بعد ذلك أكل شيئا مما ‏ ‏ذبح على ‏ ‏النصب ‏ ‏قال قلت يا رسول الله إن أبي كان كما قد رأيت وبلغك ولو أدركك لآمن بك واتبعك فاستغفر له قال نعم فأستغفر له فإنه يبعث يوم القيامة أمة واحدة

مسند أحمد .. مسند العشرة المبشرين بالجنة .. ‏مسند سعيد بن زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل رضي الله عنه

(Source: Musnad Ahmad, Hadith Number 1561. Found in section: Musnad of the 10 promised paradise, Musnad Sa’id Ibn Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail – may Allah be please with him; online edition)

The following hadiths can all be found at www.muhaddith.org.

From the book titled "Treasure of the Workers" written by Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi:

Narrated by Nufail Ibn Hisham Ibn Sa’id Ibn Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail, narrated by his father, narrated by is grandfather who related that Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail came to the prophet (pbuh), who had Zaid Ibn Haritha with him, and they were both eating from a Sufra (dining blanket) that belonged to them. So THEY BOTH invited Zaid Ibn Amr to eat with them, but Zaid (Ibn Amr) replied to the prophet, "O son of my brother! We do not eat what has been sacrificed to images."

كنز العمال - للمتقي الهندي

{مسند سعيد} عن نفيل بن هشام بن سعيد بن زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل عن أبيه عن جده أن زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل وورقة بن نوفل خرجا يلتمسان الدين حتى انتهيا إلى

قال: وجاء ابنه إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله! إن أبي كان كما رأيت وكما بلغك فاستغفر له، قال: نعم، قال: فإنه يبعث يوم القيامة أمة وحده، قال: وأتى زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومعه زيد بن حارثة وهما يأكلان من سفرة لهما فدعواه لطعامهما فقال زيد بن حارثة للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: يا ابن أخي! إنا لا نأكل مما ذبح على النصب.

From the book titled "The Greater Dictionary of Al-Tabarani" written by Imam Al-Tabarani:

Narrated by Ali Ibn Abdul Aziz, narrated by Abdullah Ibn Raja’, narrated by Al-Masudi, narrated by Nufail Ibn Hisham Ibn Sa’id Ibn Zaid, narrated by his father, narrated by his grandfather who related that Waraqa Ibn Naufal and Zaid Ibn Amr went out seeking the true religion until they came to Syria. Waraqa adopted Christianity, but Zaid was told, "The one you seek is in front of you, so depart until you arrive at Mosul." When He arrived he found a monk who asked him, "From where have you journeyed from?" Zaid replied, "From the house of Abraham." The monk asked, "What are you seeking?" Zaid answered, "The (true) religion."

Thus the monk offered to him Christianity but Zaid did not accept and said, "I have no need of it." The monk then said, "The one you seek shall appear in your land." So Zaid departed (to his land)...

Then Zaid Ibn Amr passed by the prophet (pbuh), who also was accompanied by Zaid Ibn Haritha, and BOTH were eating from a Sufra they had. So THEY BOTH invited Zaid (Ibn Amr) to join them, but he responded, "O son of my brother! I do not eat what was sacrificed to images."

He then related that from that day, the prophet was never again seen eating what was sacrificed to an idol till the day he was sent (as a prophet). Sa’id Ibn Zaid came to the prophet and said, "O prophet of Allah! Zaid was as you saw him and as you heard about him, so pray for forgiveness for him." So the prophet agreed and prayed for him and said, "He shall be raised on judgment day as one community."

معجم الطبراني الكبير، - للإمام الطبراني

حدثنا علي بن عبد العزيز ثنا عبد الله بن رجاء أنبأ المسعودي عن نفيل بن هشام بن سعيد بن زيد عن أبيه عن جده قال خرج ورقة بن نوفل وزيد بن عمرو يطلبان الدين حتى مرا بالشام فأما ورقة فتنصر وأما زيد فقيل له إن الذي تطلب أمامك فانطلق حتى أتى الموصل فإذا هو براهب فقال من أين أقبل صاحب المرحلة قال من بيت إبراهيم قال ما تطلب قال الدين فعرض عليه النصرانية فأبى أن يقبل وقال لا حاجة لي فيه قال أما إن الذي تطلب سيظهر بأرضك فأقبل وهو يقول لبيك حقا حقا تعبدا ورقا البر أبغي لا الحال وهل مهاجر كمن قال عذت بما عاذ به إبراهيم وهو قائم وأنفى لك اللهم عان راغم مهما تجشمني فإني جاشم ثم يخر فيسجد للكعبة قال فمر زيد بن عمرو بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وزيد بن حارثة وهما يأكلان من سفرة لهما فدعياه فقال يا بن أخي لا آكل مما ذبح على النصب قال فما رؤي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يأكل مما ذبح على النصب من يومه ذلك حتى بعث قال وجاء سعيد بن زيد إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله إن زيدا كان كما رأيت أو كما بلغك فاستغفر له قال نعم فأستغفر له فإنه يبعث يوم القيامة أمة وحده (1/ 152)

From the book "The Collection of the Excess" written by Al-Hafith Al-Haithami:

It was narrated by Sa’id Ibn Zaid who said, "The prophet (pbuh) was in Mecca with Zaid Ibn Haritha when Zaid Ibn Amr passed by them while THEY WERE BOTH eating from a Sufra that belonged to them. So THEY BOTH invited Zaid Ibn Amr to eat with them, but Zaid (Ibn Amr) replied, "O son of my brother! We do not eat what has been sacrificed to images."

He then related that from that day, the prophet was never again seen eating what was sacrificed to an idol till the day he was sent (as a prophet). Sa’id Ibn Zaid came to the prophet and said, "O prophet of Allah! Zaid was as you saw him and as you heard about him, so pray for forgiveness for him." So the prophet agreed and prayed for him and said, "He shall be raised on judgment day as one community."

مجمع الزوائد. الإصدار 2.05 - للحافظ الهيثمي

16180- وعن سعيد بن زيد قال: كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بمكة هو وزيد بن حارثة، فمر بهما زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل، فدعواه إلى سفرة لهما فقال: يا ابن أخي إني لا آكل ما ذبح على النصب.
قال: فما رئي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعد ذلك يأكل شيئاً مما ذبح على النصب.
قال: قلت: يا رسول الله إن أبي كان كما قد رأيت وبلغك، ولو أدركك آمن بك واتبعك فاستغفر له، قال:
"نعم فاستغفروا له فإنه يبعث يوم القيامة أمة وحده".
رواه أحمد وفيه المسعودي وقد اختلط، وبقية رجاله ثقات.

From the Book "Musnad Ahmad" written by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:

Narrated by Abdullah, narrated by his father, narrated by Abu Usama Hamad Ibn Usama, narrated by Hisham Ibn Urwah, narrated from his father who related that a neighbor of Khadija bint Khuwaylid heard the prophet say, "O Khadija! By Allah I do not worship Allat nor Al-Uzza. By Allah I will not worship (them) at all." Khadija replied, "Leave Allat and leave Al-Uzza." He said this was their statue WHICH THEY USED TO WORSHIP after which they would lay down to sleep.

مسند الإمام أحمد. الإصدار 2.04 - للإمام أحمد ابن حنبل

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا أبو أسامة حماد بن أسامة حدثنا هشام يعني ابن عروة عن أبيه قال:
-حدثني جار لخديجة بنت خويلد أنه سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو يقول لخديجة أي خديجة والله لا أعبد اللات والعزى والله لا أعبد أبدا قال فتقول خديجة خل اللات خل العزى قال كانت صنمهم التي كانوا يعبدون ثم يضطجعون.

From the book "The Collection of the Excess" written by Al-Hafith Al-Haithami:

Narrated by Urwah Ibn Al-Zubair who narrated that a neighbor of Khadija bint Khuwaylid heard the prophet (pbuh) say to Khadija, "O Khadija! By Allah I do not worship Allat! By Allah I do not worship Al-Uzza." Khadija replied, "Leave Al-Uzza." He said this was their statue WHICH THEY USED TO WORSHIP after which they would lay down to sleep.

This was narrated by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and his disciples AND BY MEN OF SAHIH (correct hadith).

مجمع الزوائد. الإصدار 2.05 - للحافظ الهيثمي

13861- عن عروة بن الزبير قال: حدثني جار لخديجة بنت خويلد قال: سمعت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لخديجة: "أي خديجة ، والله لا أعبد اللات أبداً، والله لا أعبد العزى أبداً". قال: تقول [خديجة]: خل العزى.
قال: وكان صنمهم الذي يعبدون ثم يضطجعون.
رواه أحمد ورجاله رجال الصحيح.

Ibn Sa'd provides an explanation of surah 93:7:

Muhammad Ibn 'Abd Allah al-Asadi informed us: Sufyan al-Thawri informed us; he said: I heard al-Suddi saying about God's words, "Did He not find thee wandering and direct (thee)?" that he (Prophet) was following the customs of his people FOR YEARS. (Ibn S'ad, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 110 002 India], Volume I, parts I & II, p. 219; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Thus, we aren't the only ones who took this Quranic verse to be an affirmation that Muhammad was steeped in the pagan customs of his people!

It seems that Muhammad wasn’t the only one in his family to sacrifice to idols. According to a more recent Muslim biographer even Muhammad’s wife Khadija would offer sacrifices to her gods:

Muhammad's Sons

The years passed while Muhammad participated in the public life of Makkah and found in Khadijah, the loving woman who gave him many children, the best of all woman companions. She gave him two sons, al Qasim and 'Abdullah the last of whom was nicknamed al Tahir and al Tayyib-and four daughters, Zaynab, Ruqayyah, Umm Kulthum and Fatimah. Hardly anything is known of al Qasim and `Abdullah except that they died before the coming of Islam, while still infants. Undoubtedly their loss caused their parents great grief and affected them deeply. As their mother, Khadijah must have received a permanent wound at their loss. She must have turned to her idols, inquisitively asking why the gods did not have mercy on her, and why they did not prevent her happiness from repeated shipwreck by the loss of her children. Certainly, Muhammad must have shared her grief and unhappiness. It is not difficult for us to imagine the depth of their tragedy in an age when daughters used to be buried alive and male descendants were sought after as the substance of life itself indeed more. Sufficient proof of this grief is the fact that Muhammad could not last long without a male heir. When he saw Zayd ibn Harithah offered for sale, he asked Khadijah to buy him; no sooner was the new slave bought than Muhammad manumitted and adopted him as a son. He was called Zayd ibn Muhammad, lived under his protection, and became one of his best followers and companions. There was yet more grief ahead for Muhammad when his third son Ibrahim passed away in the Islamic period, after Islam had prohibited the burial of live daughters and declared paradise to stand under the feet of mothers. It is not surprising, therefore, that Muhammad's losses in his children should leave their deep mark upon his life and thought. He must, have been quite shocked when on each of these tragic occasions, Khadijah turned to the idols of the Ka'bah, and sacrificed to Hubal, to al Lat, al `Uzza, and Manat in the hope that these deities would intercede on her behalf and prevent the loss of her children. But Muhammad must have then realized the vanity and futility of these hopes and efforts in his tragic bereavement and great sorrow. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, Translated by Isma'il Razi A. al-Faruqi [American Trust Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], 4. From Marriage to Prophethood, pp. 68-69; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Finally, Ibn Kathir also provides evidence for Muhammad's dabble with idolatry:

It continues: "And Zayd b. 'Amr b. Zayd came to the Messenger of God when the latter was in the company of Zayd b. Haritha; THE TWO MEN WERE EATING FROM A DINING-TABLE SET OUT FOR THEM. They invited Zayd b. 'Amr to eat with them, but he replied, ‘I am not one who eats what has been slaughtered ON SACRIFICIAL STONES.’" (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, South Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], Volume 1, p. 113; bold and capital emphasis ours)

As for the tradition given by the hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, Abu Sa'd al-Malini informed us, Abu Ahmad b. 'Adi, the hafiz told us, Ibrahim b. Asbat related to us, as did 'Uthman b. Abu Shayba, as did Jarir, from Sufyan al-Thawri, from Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. 'Uqayl, from Jabir b. 'Abd Allah, God bless him, as follows: "The Prophet (SAAS) used to attend the ceremonies of the polytheists along with them. But once he heard two angels behind him, one saying to the other, ‘Let's move up and stand right behind the Messenger of God (SAAS).’ But the other objected, ‘How can we stand right behind WHEN HE IS IN THE HABIT OF SALUTING IDOLS?’"

He went on, "And thereafter he never AGAIN attended such ceremonies with the polytheists."

This is a tradition several authorities deny being attributed to 'Uthman b. Abu Shayba. Regarding it Imam Ahmad commented: "His brother would never speak any such words."

Al-Bayhaqi reported from various sources that his meaning was that he witnessed those who saluted idols, and that that was before God made revelation to him. But God knows best.

Similarly Yunus b. Bukayr said, from Muhammad b. Ishaq, that 'Abd Allah Jubayr b. Mut'im, from his father Jubayr who said, "I saw the Messenger of God (SAAS) while he was a member of his people's religion. He would station himself there on a camel of his at 'Arafat, among his people until he raced away with them, God the Almighty and Glorious giving him blessing thereby."

Al-Bayhaqi stated, "The meaning of the words ‘a member of his people's religion’ refers to the remnants of the heritage of Abraham and Ishmael, on both of whom be peace. The Prophet (SAAS) never at any time associated with Allah any other god."

I also comment, that from these words (of al-Bayhaqi) it is to be understood that he did attend the assembly at 'Arafat before he received revelation. And it was this that was a "blessing" to him from God the Almighty and Glorious.

The Imam Ahmad related this tradition from Ya'qub, from Muhammad b. Ishaq. The words he used were: "I saw the Messenger of God (SAAS) before he received revelation while he was positioned on a camel of his with his people on 'Arafat so that he would move forward with them, this being a blessing from God."

The Imam Ahmad said that Sufyan related to him, from 'Amr, from Muhammad b. Jubayr b. Mut'im, from his father, saying, "I lost track of a camel of mine in the 'Urana valley (close to 'Arafat) and went off to look for it. I found the Prophet (SAAS) in the assembly there. I said, ‘He's one of the hums (a word used for Quraysh). What's he doing here?’"

They both derived this from a tradition of Sufyan b. 'Uyayna to that effect. (Ibid., pp. 182-183; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir provides some background data regarding the meaning and use of the word hums:

Ibn Ishaq related how Quraysh began the practice of calling themselves al-Hums, a word implying intensity in religion, and intolerance.

This is because they gave extreme veneration to the holy places, to the extent that they required people not to leave there on the night of the procession to 'Arafat. They would say, "We are men of the holy places, the haram, and Quttan, those who dwell at God's house."

They would not make the halt on Mt. 'Arafat, though they knew that was the wish of Abraham, peace be upon him, in order not to abandon the corrupt innovative practices they themselves established. They would not put away for storage sour cheese made from milk or butter, or clarify fat while they were in a state of ritual uncleanliness. While in this state, they would not enter any tent made of hair, and would seek shelter from the sun only under tents made of leather. Similarly they prevented those making the greater or smaller pilgrimage from eating any but Quraysh food while in that state, and these people could not find a gown from one of the Hums, who were Quraysh either by birth or by having joined Quraysh from Kinana and Khuza'a, they would have to circumambulate naked, even if they were women. A woman who happened to go round in this manner would place her hand over her vagina and recite:

"Today all of my part may appear, but visible though it may be, I do not make it available!"

If anyone who had access to the garment of a Hums person were too proud to use it, then he could go round in his own clothes, but when he had finished he had to throw them aside; thereafter, they could not be used again, either by them or by anyone else, nor ever touched. The Arabs used to call such clothes al-luqa, "cast-offs". A certain poet spoke the lines:

"How sad it is, my returning to it, it being like a proscribed thing cast off before the pilgrims."

Ibn Ishaq stated, "They continued in these practices until God sent Muhammad (SAAS) and revealed the Qur'an to him, as a retort to them and their innovations. God said, ‘Hasten forth from the place where people hasten from’ (surat al-Baqara, II, v.199). By this is meant the masses of the Arabs from 'Arafat. And also that same verse reads, ‘and ask the forgiveness of God; surely God is forgiving, merciful.’"

As we have previously shown, the Messenger of God (SAAS) would make the halt at 'Arafat before he received his prophethood, this being an award granted by God to him.

God also revealed to him a response to their practice of forbidding people certain actions and foods in the words, "O mankind attend to your dress at every prayer meeting and eat and drink, but do not be extreme. God does not love extremists. Say, ‘Who made forbidden clothing (from) God that He brought forth for His worshippers, along with all good provisions?’" (surat al-A'raf, VII, v.31-2).

Ziyad al-Bakka'i stated from Ibn Ishaq, "But I don't know whether their making these innovations preceded or followed the battle of the elephant." (Ibid., pp. 205-206)

Hence, Muhammad was associated and involved with a group of innovators who were engaged in pagan practices.

Summary Analysis of the Hadith Data

Despite the obviously desperate interpretations concocted by Muslims (such as Ibn Kathir's source saying that Muhammad never saluted the idols even though the tradition itself claims that the angel allegedly said that he did!) these traditions make it clear that many Muslims had no problem admitting that Muhammad did engage in the idolatrous practices of his people.

The hadiths unabashedly admit that Muhammad ate meats offered to idols and only stopped when confronted by the Hanif Zaid ibn Amr ibn Nufail. The most authenticated collection of traditions, Sahih al-Bukhari, even admits that Muhammad offered Zaid the sacrificial meats!

Other traditions state clearly that both Muhammad and Khadija, his first wife, use to worship the idols al-Lat and al-Uzza. In fact, the men of Sahih (i.e. men who only narrate sound traditions) even narrated one of these traditions! This means that MENJ has actually misunderstood and misinterpreted Muhammad’s statement to his first wife about not worshiping al-Lat and al-Uzza. MENJ erroneously assumed that Muhammad’s statement meant that he NEVER worshiped these pagan deities, whereas what the reports actually say is that he later abandoned his worship of them. In other words, Muhammad was in fact worshiping these false gods and only stopped doing so later on in life sometime after he was married.

Apparently, Muhammad refrained from worshiping the daughters of Allah after being upbraided by Zaid. If we were to take all the data and try to put it in some type of chronological fashion, this is what we would have:

1. Muhammad, at first, worshiped idols and even made sacrifices to them.
2. Muhammad met Zaid the Hanif and offered him meats which both Muhammad and Zaid ibn Haritha had sacrificed to their idols.
3. Zaid the Hanif refused to eat the meats and rebuked Muhammad for sacrificing to false gods.
4. After this experience, Muhammad abandoned his worship of the idols and later on would tell his first wife that he did not worship al-Lat and al-Uzza.
5. Muhammad’s entire family then follows his example and abandons their worship of the pagan gods and goddesses.

MENJ’s attempt of trying to pass off all these hadiths as weak is an unsatisfactory response for at least three reasons. First, as was just noted, some of these narrations come from Sahih Al-Bukhari, considered to be THE most authentic collection of narrations by the majority of Sunni Muslim scholars:

It has been UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that Imam Bukhari's work is the most authentic of all the other works in Hadith literature PUT TOGETHER. The authenticity of Al-Bukhari's work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam said concerning him: "The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e., Al-Qur'an) is Sahih Al-Bukhari." ...

Before he recorded each Hadith he would make ablution and offer two Rak’at prayer and supplicate his Lord (Allah). Many religious scholars of Islam tried to find fault in the great remarkable collection - Sahih Al-Bukhari, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. It is for this reason, they UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that the most authentic book after the Book of Allah IS Sahih Al-Bukhari. (Al-Hilali, Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, pp. 18-19; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Second, a weak hadith isn’t necessarily a false hadith. It may simply mean that there was a weakness within the chain of transmitters, making one cautious of accepting it completely, without this implying that the report is an outright lie. Besides, even if some of the transmitters and compilers were considered untrustworthy, this doesn’t mean that everything they reported was untrue. As we had stated in response to Hesham Azmy’s and Usman Sheikh’s use of al-Waqidi:

However, we do need to put this in perspective. Al-Waqidi may have been considered a liar without this necessarily implying that everything he reported was a lie. As the following Muslim writes:

Al-Waqidi is reliable for purely historical reports. Ahl al-Hadith consider him too honest and too rich a source to be discarded especially in light of Ibn Sa`d's accreditation, which lent him huge credit--but they unanimously discard him with regard to ahkam reports which are uncorroborated by other narrators e.g. wiggling the index finger in Salat. It is the latter category they meant when they called him a liar, i.e. thoroughly unreliable and/or inaccurate in his isnads, not at all that he was dishonest. Al-Dhahabi said: "I have no doubt in his sidq." And Allah knows best. (Source: http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/f/Al-Waqidi%20and%20Sira.htm; bold emphasis ours)

It may be the case that this narration from al-Waqidi is sound. But the burden of proof is upon the authors to show that it is, especially when the other so-called "sound" collections do not report this version of the story. (Source)

Therefore, when these weaker narrations are supported by the so-called sound traditions, then the authenticity of these reports becomes all the more sound.

Third, it must be remembered that pious Muslims, who wouldn’t deliberately impugn the character of their prophet, transmitted these reports. That these Muslims narrated such traditions strongly argues for their historical veracity. After all, what Muslims would want to willfully incriminate and tarnish the image of their prophet, especially in light of orthodox Muslim claims that Muhammad was divinely protected from the worship of idols?

These points strongly demonstrate how untenable and weak the Muslim reasons for rejecting these reports truly are.

5. Variations Within Narrations and the Authenticity of Hadith Reports

Then he ascended with me till he reached the second heaven and he (Gabriel) said to its gatekeeper, 'Open (the gate).' The gatekeeper said to him the same as the gatekeeper of the first heaven had said and he opened the gate. Anas said: "Abu Dhar added that the Prophet met Adam, Idris, Moses, Jesus and Abraham, he (Abu Dhar) did not mention on which heaven they were but he mentioned that he (the Prophet) met Adam on the nearest heaven and Abraham on THE SIXTH HEAVEN. Anas said, "When Gabriel along with the Prophet passed by Idris, the latter said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious brother.' The Prophet asked, 'Who is he?' Gabriel replied, 'He is Idris.' The Prophet added, 'I passed by Moses and he said, "Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious brother.'" I asked Gabriel, "Who is he? "Gabriel replied, "He is Moses." Then I passed by Jesus and he said, "Welcome! O pious brother and pious Prophet." I asked, "Who is he?" Gabriel replied, "He is Jesus." ... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345)

The order of greeting presumes that Jesus was in a higher heaven than Moses, Idris, and Adam, with Abraham being higher than all of them. Sahih Muslim supports this:

Anas b. Malik said: He (the Holy Prophet) mentioned that he found in the heavens Adam, Idris, Jesus, Moses and Abraham (may peace be on all of them), but he did not ascertain as to the nature of their abodes except that he had found Adam in the lowest heaven and Abraham in the sixth heaven. When Gabriel and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed by Idris (peace be upon him) he said: Welcome to the righteous apostle and righteous brother. He (the narrator) said: He then proceeded and said: Who is he? Gabriel replied: It is Idris. Then I passed by Moses (peace be upon him) and he said: Welcome to the righteous apostle and righteous brother. I said to (Gabriel): Who is he? He replied: It is Moses. Then I passed by Jesus and he said: Welcome to the righteous apostle and righteous brother. I said (to Gabriel): Who is he? He replied: Jesus, son of Mary. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Then I went to Ibrahim (peace be upon him). He said: Welcome to the righteous apostle and righteous son. I asked: Who is he? He (Gabriel) replied: It is Abraham. Ibn Shihab said: Ibn Hazm told me that Ibn 'Abbas and Abd Habba al-Ansari used to say that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Thereafter he ascended with me till I was taken to such a height where I heard the scraping of the pens... (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0313)

Returning to al-Bukhari:

Then we ascended to THE SECOND HEAVEN. It was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel said, 'Gabriel.' It was said, 'Who is with you?' He said, 'Muhammad' It was asked, 'Has he been sent for?' He said, 'Yes.' It was said, 'He is welcomed. What a wonderful visit his is!" Then I met Jesus and Yahya (John) who said, 'You are welcomed, O brother and a Prophet.' Then we ascended to THE THIRD HEAVEN. It was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel said, 'Gabriel.' It was asked, 'Who is with you? Gabriel said, 'Muhammad.' It was asked, 'Has he been sent for?' 'Yes,' said Gabriel. 'He is welcomed. What a wonderful visit his is!' - (The Prophet added:). - There I met Joseph and greeted him, and he replied, 'You are welcomed, O brother and a Prophet!' Then we ascended to THE 4TH HEAVEN and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in the previous heavens. There I met Idris and greeted him. He said, 'You are welcomed O brother and Prophet.' Then we ascended to THE 5TH HEAVEN and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in previous heavens. There I met and greeted Aaron who said, 'You are welcomed O brother and a Prophet". Then we ascended to THE 6TH HEAVEN and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in the previous heavens. There I met and greeted Moses who said, 'You are welcomed O brother and a Prophet.' When I proceeded on, he started weeping and on being asked why he was weeping, he said, 'O Lord! Followers of this youth who was sent after me will enter Paradise in greater number than my followers.' Then we ascended to THE SEVENTH HEAVEN and again the same questions and answers were exchanged as in the previous heavens. There I met and greeted Abraham who said, 'You are welcomed O son and a Prophet.' Then I was shown Al-Bait-al-Ma'mur (i.e. Allah's House). I asked Gabriel about it and he said, This is Al Bait-ul-Ma'mur where 70,000 angels perform prayers daily and when they leave they never return to it (but always a fresh batch comes into it daily).' Then I was shown Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. a tree in the seventh heaven) and I saw its Nabk fruits which resembled the clay jugs of Hajr (i.e. a town in Arabia), and its leaves were like the ears of elephants, and four rivers originated at its root, two of them were apparent and two were hidden. I asked Gabriel about those rivers and he said, 'The two hidden rivers are in Paradise, and the apparent ones are the Nile and the Euphrates.' (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 429)

When I went over THE SECOND HEAVEN, there I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and 'Isa (i.e. Jesus) who were cousins of each other. Gabriel said (to me), 'These are John and Jesus; pay them your greetings.' So I greeted them and both of them returned my greetings to me and said, 'You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.' Then Gabriel ascended with me to the third heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied, 'Gabriel.' It was asked, 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, 'He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!' The gate was opened, and when I went over THE THIRD HEAVEN there I saw Joseph. Gabriel said (to me), 'This is Joseph; pay him your greetings.' So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said, 'You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.' Then Gabriel ascended with me to the fourth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied, 'Gabriel.' It was asked, 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, 'He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!'

The gate was opened, and when I went over THE FOURTH HEAVEN, there I saw Idris. Gabriel said (to me), 'This is Idris; pay him your greetings.' So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said, 'You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.' Then Gabriel ascended with me to the fifth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied, 'Gabriel.' It was asked. 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, 'He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!' So when I went over THE FIFTH HEAVEN, there I saw Harun (i.e. Aaron), Gabriel said, (to me). This is Aaron; pay him your greetings.' I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said, 'You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.' Then Gabriel ascended with me to the sixth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied, 'Gabriel.' It was asked, 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. It was said, 'He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!' When I went (over the sixth heaven), there I saw Moses. Gabriel said (to me),' This is Moses; pay him your greeting. So I greeted him and he returned the greetings to me and said, 'You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.' When I left him (i.e. Moses) he wept. Someone asked him, 'What makes you weep?' Moses said, 'I weep because after me there has been sent (as Prophet) a young man whose followers will enter Paradise in greater numbers than my followers.' Then Gabriel ascended with me to the seventh heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied, 'Gabriel.' It was asked,' Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, 'He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!'

So when I went (over the seventh heaven), there I saw Abraham. Gabriel said (to me), 'This is your father; pay your greetings to him.' So I greeted him and he returned the greetings to me and said, 'You are welcomed, O pious son and pious Prophet.' Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the Lote Tree of the utmost boundary) Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said, 'This is the Lote Tree of the utmost boundary.' Behold! There ran four rivers; two were hidden and two were visible. I asked, 'What are these two kinds of rivers, O Gabriel?' He replied, 'As for the hidden rivers, they are two rivers in Paradise and the visible rivers are the Nile and the Euphrates.' (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 227)

... Then he ascended with him to the fourth Heaven and they said the same; and then he ascended with him to the fifth Heaven and they said the same; and then he ascended with him to the sixth Heaven and they said the same; then he ascended with him to the seventh Heaven and they said the same. On each Heaven there were prophets whose names he had mentioned and of whom I remember Idris on THE SECOND HEAVEN, Aaron on THE FOURTH HEAVEN, another prophet whose name I don't remember, on the fifth Heaven, Abraham on THE SIXTH HEAVEN, and Moses on THE SEVENTH HEAVEN because of his privilege of talking to Allah directly. Moses said (to Allah), "O Lord! I thought that none would be raised up above me." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 608)

Now turning to Sahih Muslim we read the following:

... Then we came to Adam (peace be upon him). And he (the narrator) narrated the whole account of the hadith. (The Holy Prophet) observed that he met Jesus in the second heaven, Yahya (peace be on both of them) in THE THIRD HEAVEN, Yusuf in THE THIRD, Idris in the fourth, Harun in the fifth (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them). Then we travelled on till we reached the sixth heaven and came to Moses (peace be upon him) and I greeted him and he said: Welcome unto righteous brother and righteous prophet. And when I passed (by him) he wept, and a voice was heard saying: What makes thee weep? He said: My Lord, he is a young man whom Thou hast sent after me (as a prophet) and his followers will enter Paradise in greater numbers than my followers. Then we travelled on till we reached the seventh heaven and I came to Ibrahim... (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0314)

Note the glaring contradictions between these reports:

1. Was Jesus in a higher heaven than either Moses or Idris, or wasn’t he?
2. Were Jesus and John in the second heaven together, or was Jesus there by himself, while John was in the third heaven?
3. Was Joseph by himself in the third heaven or was John with him also?
4. Was Idris in the second heaven or the fourth?
5. Was Moses in the seventh heaven or the sixth?
6. Or was it Abraham who was in the seventh heaven? Or was he in the sixth one?

Now these are the so-called sound narrations. Yet these alleged sound reports are contradicting one another. But do Sunni Muslims reject the story of Muhammad’s alleged ascension throughout the seven heavens because of these glaring contradictions? Of course not. They believe that, despite the variations within these reports, the event truly occurred. They will argue that in this case the exact details are unimportant as long as the gist of the story is the same in all these reports.

Another problem with MENJ’s criticism is that his assertion would also call the Quran into question since it often repeats the same story with major additions and alterations! See, for instance, the following articles:

In other words, MENJ’s pointing to additions and alterations as a basis to question Muhammad’s worship of the idols is nothing more than a canard, a ruse. In point of fact these reports are more uniform, as we saw above, than MENJ would have his readers believe. They all agree that Muhammad offered Zaid meats which were sacrificed to idols, with some of the other reports indicating that Muhammad himself offered these meats to the pagan deities.

For more examples of so-called sound reports contradicting each other, please read our response to Usman Sheikh: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r4bc_add.htm.

6. To Kiss or Not to Kiss: That is the Question

Furthermore, looking through MENJ's two articles discussing the Black Stone (1, 2) we could not find even one reference to any early Muslim source stating that Abraham KISSED that stone. They only claim that Abraham put it there in order to mark the beginning and end of one round of the circuit around the Kabah. But why is this stone being KISSED? If Abraham did not kiss it, then where does it come from? Does this not show that this is a later practice, i.e. a practice originating in pagan times?

In fact, in the second of these two articles on the topic of the Black Stone, MENJ refers to a certain incident when Umar makes a statement regarding this stone, but seems to completely miss the significance of it. Let's quote two of the traditions refering to this:

Narrated 'Abis bin Rabia:
'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." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 667)

Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said:
"Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, 'By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you.' Then he kissed it and said, 'There is no reason for us to do Ramal (in Tawaf) except that we wanted to show off before the pagans, and now Allah has destroyed them.' 'Umar added, '(Nevertheless), the Prophet did that and we do not want to leave it (i.e. Ramal).' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 675)

Clearly, Umar was very UNCOMFORTABLE with kissing the Black Stone. He recognized that this act of kissing is just too much reverence for a mere stone! He only did it because Muhammad had done it, but he didn't know any reason that would really justify such an act. In this case it is also important to note what Umar doesn't say.

Umar was one of Muhammad's closest followers, yet he was not aware of those reasons that MENJ wants to make us believe! However, doing things without a clear reason is an unsatisfactory situation. Most likely the claims that MENJ seeks to promote about the Black Stone are simply later inventions, trying to supply some honorable reasons for the practice, even though Muhammad never said so.

Until MENJ provides some evidence for his assumptions, our argument remains unchallenged. Abraham would not have instituted the kissing of a stone which would have been idolatry in the eyes of the true God. Quoting Islamic sources that were written thousands of years after Abraham lived does not constitute as proof.

MENJ’s claim that they didn’t worship the stone is absurd in light of the fact that both the pagans and Muhammad KISSED IT, which is a form of veneration and worship. MENJ may try to justify this practice by claiming that kissing the stone is no more idolatrous than the kissing of one's wife or children would be classified as idolatry as well. He may argue that kissing does not necessarily imply worship, but simply demonstrates affection. The only problem behind this logic is that showing affection to one's wife or children is never condemned in the Holy Bible, yet the showing of affection of any kind to stones or idols is condemned completely. Therefore, this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation and of false analogy.

MENJ concludes with:

... Further, it is even by the admission of the missionary himself that "he [the Prophet Muhammad^(P)] entered the Kaba and destroyed every icon or sculptured idol". Such a blatant contradiction of the purpose of his article with this open admission of his makes us wonder whether the missionary is actually "concerned" for the so-called "idolatry" reminiscent in Islamic practices today, or is he simply (mis)using the hadîth literature for the sole aim of disparaging Muslims and the Religion that they adhere to. This is further evident when we read what William Muir has to say on the subject:

We may freely concede that it [Islam] banished forever many of the darker elements of superstition for ages shrouding the [Arabian] Peninsula. Idolatry vanished before the battle-cry of Islam; the doctrine of the Unity and infinite Perfections of God, and a special all-pervading Providence, became a living principle in the hearts and lives of the followers of Mohammad, even as in his own...Nor are social virtues wanting. Brotherly love inculcated towards all within the circle of the faith; infanticide proscribed; orphans to be protected, and slaves treated with considerations; intoxicating drinks prohibited, so that Mohammadanism [Islam] may boast of a degree of temperance unknown to any other creed.

The answer is certainly obvious to all except for those mired in their welling hatred for Islam and what it stands for.

MENJ seems to assume that Muhammad destroying the idols somehow justifies the kissing of the black stone. The fact is that even though Muhammad "purified" the Kabah from pagan idols, he still retained other pagan practices and tried to justify it by claiming that these rites originated from a monotheistic context. But as we said, none of the ceremonies of the Hajj can be traced back to either Abraham or Ishmael.

Besides, according to certain traditions not every idol or image was effaced. As we had mentioned in our paper, there were images of Abraham, Mary and Christ which Muhammad left intact. And guess who narrated this tradition? Al-Waqidi of course!

[After the conquest of Mecca] "Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus, and a painting of an old man, said to be Abraham, the walls inside [Kaaba] had been covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand protectively over the icon, the Prophet told 'Uthman to see that all other paintings, except that of Abraham, were effaced." (Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, p. 300; ref.- al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi 834, and Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah vol. 1, p. 107. Martin Lings is a practicing Muslim.)

This is the very same al-Waqidi whom Usman Sheikh and Hesham Azmy used against me, and the very same gent that Mr. Haddad cited as a reason for rejecting the Satanic verses! We anticipate that MENJ will question this tradition on the basis that it is weak, in the same way he has called into question the traditions which speak of Muhammad’s idolatrous observances. As we said, it will always be convenient for Muslims to simply toss out the "weak" or "fraudulent" narrations canard when they can’t deal with their own traditions.

Finally, it is apparent that MENJ wants to have his cake and eat it too. In one of his responses (here) he seeks to deny that the pagan Meccans worshiped Allah. But he now wants to deny that the rites of Hajj are pagan in origin by connecting them to Abraham:

... It is certainly not the result of "[t]he number of circumambulation seemingly corresponded to the number of planets which the pagans venerated as deities" as the missionary fantasizes, but it is the continuation of the Abrahamic tradition in Islam. The retention of pre-Islamic practices in Islam are seen as the reaffirmation of the Abrahamic practices and a return to its original pristine purpose, and not as a capitulation to prevailing pagan Arab innovations...

In so doing he indirectly argues that the Meccans did worship the same God of the Muslims since they performed the very same rites that Muslims are now performing in veneration of the Deity! The only difference being is that they added other gods in their worship.

For more on this subject, please read the following articles:

If the Lord Jesus permits, our responses to MENJ’s interaction with the above papers will be forthcoming.

This concludes this part of our rebuttal. Lord Jesus willing, part 2 to follow next.

Continue with Part 2.

Responses to Bismikaallahuma
Examining Muhammad's Claim to Prophethood
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page