Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog

The human origin of Muhammad’s legislation and teachings –

Responding to the bluster of a Muslim dawagandist Pt. 1

Sam Shamoun

In one of his blog posts, our dear brother and fellow Christian apologist David Wood provided evidence that Muhammad’s commands didn’t come from God but from his own thought processes and interactions with various groups such as Jews and Christians. Professor Wood writes that:

The following Hadith gives us a glimpse of Muhammad's method of forbidding and accepting various practices:

Sunan an-Nasa’i 3328--It was narrated from Aishah that Judamah bint Wahb told her that the Messenger of Allah said: “I was thinking of forbidding Ghilah until I remembered that it is done by the Persians and Romans”--(one of the narrators) Ishaq said: “(They) do that--and it does not harm their children.”

Ghilah refers to having sex with a woman who is breastfeeding. Muhammad says that he was thinking of forbidding the practice. But then he remembered that the Persians and Romans do it, so he didn't forbid the practice. Apparently, if he hadn't remembered that the Persians and Romans practice Ghilah, he would have condemned it, and Muslims today would say that Allah forbids Ghilah.

Isn't it obvious that this had nothing to do with any divine insight on Muhammad's part, and that what he rejected and accepted was simply a matter of his all-too-human thought processes? If so, why are Muslims so obsessed with following Muhammad's regulations (especially when they include pagan practices, such as bowing to the Ka'ba, etc.)? Here Muslims will say, “We follow Muhammad's regulations because he commanded us to follow his regulations.” But that's exactly my point. As this Hadith shows, Muhammad's reasoning had nothing to do with revelation. Why, then, accept his command to follow his regulations? (Muhammad's Reason for Not Forbidding Ghilah, Sunday, January 25, 2009)

Not surprisingly, Muslims weren’t pleased with Wood’s statements and so one of them in particular decided to write a “reply” that was roughly 20 pages in length. The article, which is written by Salafi propagandist Jalal Abualrub, was published on Bassam Zawadi's website (*).

Both Jalal and his cohorts actually think that he has provided the “definitive response” to Wood. In light of this we have decided to address his key points in order to see whether Jalal achieved his goal of “refuting” Wood’s argument.


Evidence that Islam’s best propagandists and defenders repeatedly contradict themselves

In this “rebuttal” Jalal contradicts what he has written both here and in his booklets. He states that:

Prophet Muhammad stated that sometimes he offers his own opinion which can sometimes be mistaken. When he passed by a people who were grafting date trees by combining the male with the female trees so that the trees yield more fruit he said that he did not think it is useful to do so. When he passed by them later on, he found that they had abandoned that practice, even though he did not tell them to do that, and the produce declined. He said,

"If there is any use of it, they should do it. It was just a personal opinion of mine; do not go after my personal opinion (if it was mistaken). However, when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious." (Muslim)

Muslims firmly follow Prophet Muhammad's regulations when they are a part of the religion. The Hadeeth about Ghilah was not about legislating in Islam based on what Romans do so as to claim afterwards it was a revelation from Allah that came to the Prophet through the Romans. It was about the effect of Ghilah on nursing mother and suckling baby.

However, Jalal went on to say in this same section that even Muhammad’s human wisdom is humanly perfect!

Also, Prophet Muhammad, salla-llahu alaihi wa-sallam, did not give any regulation in this Hadeeth except to affirm that Ghilah is allowed as a practice, since it does not greatly affect mother and baby. If anything, this Hadeeth proves that the Prophet's human wisdom is humanly perfect [sic], since he did not outlaw for Muslims what did not prove to carry substantial health risks. If anything, this makes it even more convincing to Muslims that the Prophet of Allah, Muhammad, the Final and Last Prophet and Messenger, was rightly guided and had qualities that did not only touch religion, but also matters of life and health.

The problem that Jalal faces is that if his prophet’s wisdom were truly perfect then why was Muhammad so badly mistaken concerning agriculture issues? Why did he give incorrect advice concerning grafting trees for a more productive yield? If his wisdom were truly complete and sound then he surely would have been knowledgeable in all areas of life, not just religion, which as we see wasn’t the case at all.

But it gets worse for Jalal. Jalal must have forgotten what he had stated in one of the books he wrote in response to Pope Benedicts’ comments regarding Islam:

{Wa-ma yantiqu ‘ani-l-huwa, in huwa illa wa’hyum yu’ha (He, Muhammad, does not speak of his own desire, it is only a revelation revealed)} (53:3-4)

Prophet Muhammad did not only speak, or ‘Nataqa (in the present tense: Yantiqu)’ the Quran, he also spoke the Sunnah. Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Aas used to write everything the Prophet said, meaning, his Hadeeth or religious statements. Muslims from the tribe of Quraish – the Prophet’s tribe – criticized Abdullah for doing this, claiming that sometimes the Prophet might say things in anger. Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr asked the Prophet about it, and he said, while pointing to his mouth

"Rather, write! For by He (Allah) in Whose Hand is my soul, NOTHING SAVE THE TRUTH COMES OUT OF IT." (A Sahih Hadeeth; Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud [3646]) (Introduction to: Muhammad The Prophet of Mercy – Muhammad’s Role in Islam, by Jalal Abualrub, edited by Alaa Mencke [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], p. 35; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Here is the hadith in question:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:
I used to write everything which I heard from the Apostle of Allah. I intended (by it) to memorise it. The Quraysh prohibited me saying: Do you write everything that you hear from him while the Apostle of Allah is a human being: he speaks in anger and pleasure? So I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Apostle of Allah. He signalled with his finger to his mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 25, Number 3639)

Pay careful attention to the criticism of the Quraish tribe concerning Abdullah ibn Amr writing down everything Muhammad said. They warned that he shouldn’t write down everything he heard from Muhammad since the latter may speak in anger or in pleasure, meaning off the cuff. Instead of agreeing with them Muhammad encourages Abdullah to continue writing down what he hears since he claimed that nothing but the truth comes out of his mouth. Note that Muhammad didn’t limit this to religious matters and therefore suggests that he believed that he always spoke the truth on any issue. That’s precisely what Jalal’s quote from the Quran implies.

Yet unfortunately for both Muhammad and Jalal, the Quraish tribe was right and Jalal’s prophet was wrong since he didn’t always speak the truth or give sound advice, just as Jalal’s own example proves! In fact, not only was Muhammad often mistaken he even got angry to the point of cursing people!


A'isha reported that two persons visited Allah's Messenger and both of them talked about a thing, of which I am not aware, but that annoyed him and he invoked curse upon both of them and hurled malediction, and when they went out I said: Allah's Messenger, the good would reach everyone but it would not reach these two. He said: Why so? I said: Because you have invoked curse and hurled malediction upon both of them. He said: Don't you know that I have made condition with my Lord saying thus: O Allah, I am a human being and that for a Muslim upon whom I invoke curse or hurl malediction make it a source of purity and reward? (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6285)

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying: O Allah, I make a covenant with Thee against which Thou wouldst never go. I am a human being and thus for a Muslim whom I give any harm or whom I scold or upon whom I invoke curse or whom I beat, make this a source of blessing, purification and nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6290)

Thus, the Quraish were right to be concerned since not only was Muhammad wrong in the advice he gave concerning agriculture but he also cursed people in his anger!

For more on this issue we suggest reading this article.

Jalal further proves Wood’s case since he writes:

Ghilah was not discussed as part of divine inspiration, but as a health issue as the Hadeeth clearly indicates. In contrast, here is part of divine inspiration and why it is part of divine inspiration, "It was revealed to me that you will be tested in the grave" (Bukhari, and, Muslim). The topic is: being tested in the grave; why it is a revelation: because the Prophet, peace be upon him, said so!

Actually, this wasn’t a “revelation” but something which Muhammad learned and “borrowed” from the Jews!

Narrated Masruq:
Aisha said that a Jewess came to her and mentioned the punishment in the grave, saying to her, “May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave.” ‘Aisha then asked Allah’s Apostle about the punishment of the grave. He said, “Yes, (there is) punishment in the grave.” ‘Aisha added, “AFTER THAT I never saw Allah’s Apostle but seeking refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave in every prayer he prayed.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 454)

Narrated 'Amra bint 'AbdurRahman:
A Jewess came to 'Aisha to ask her about something and then she said, “May Allah give you refuge from the punishment of the grave.” So 'Aisha asked Allah's Apostle, “Would the people be punished in their graves?” Allah's Apostle asked Allah's refuge from the punishment of the grave (indicating an affirmative reply). Then one day Allah's Apostle rode (to leave for some place) but the sun eclipsed. He returned on the forenoon and passed through the rear of the dwellings (of his wives) and stood up and started offering the (eclipse) prayer and the people stood behind him. He stood for a long period and then performed a long bowing and then stood straight for a long period which was shorter than that of the first standing, then he performed a prolonged bowing which was shorter than the first bowing, then he raised his head and prostrated for a long time and then stood up (for the second Raka) for a long while, but the standing was shorter than the standing of the first Raka. Then he performed a prolonged bowing which was shorter than that of the first one. He then stood up for a long time but shorter than the first, then again performed a long bowing which was shorter than the first and then prostrated for a shorter while than that of the first prostration. Then he finished the prayer and delivered the sermon and said what Allah wished; and ordered the people to seek refuge with Allah from the punishment of the grave. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 164)

How ironic that Jalal chose this specific example when it ends up establishing Wood’s contention that Muhammad wasn’t inspired or receiving any revelations from God. Rather, Muhammad was simply “borrowing” his stories and instructions from Jews, Christians, pagans, Romans etc., and passing them off as divinely revealed truths. It seems that the disbelievers were correct after all when they accused Muhammad of plagiarizing his information from preexisting earthly sources which he claimed were sent down to him from Allah:

The unbelievers say, ‘This is naught but a calumny he has forged, and other folk have helped him to it.’ So they have committed wrong and falsehood. They say, ‘Fairy-tales of the ancients that he has had written down, so that they are recited to him at the dawn and in the evening.’ Say: ‘He sent it down, who knows the secret in the heavens and earth; He is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.’ S. 25:4-6

With the foregoing in perspective we move to the next section where we address Jalal’s claims concerning the origins of the Kaba.

Al-Kabah – Islam’s pagan shrine

As a further example of the logically fallacious and desperate nature of Jalal’s “rebuttals” he chides Wood for accusing Muslims of worshiping the Kaba, the black cube structure in Mecca which was originally built by pagans for the worship of their false gods.

I am surprised, though, at David Wood for repeating the sick joke that Muslims bow to the Ka'bah, insinuating that Muslims worship the Ka'bah. I and other Muslims have repeatedly refuted this utter lie and in various ways, but these people just can't stop repeating false claims about Islam…

What Jalal has done here is to erect a straw man by accusing Wood of something he did not say and then proceeds to refute it in order to give the semblance that he is actually rebutting Wood’s point. This is sheer desperation and exposes Jalal’s inability to both read carefully and to accurately represent the position of his opponents.

We invite the readers to go back and read Wood’s statement and see for themselves that Wood said nothing about Muslims worshiping the Kaba. He simply stated a fact, namely, that Muslims do bow to the Kaba. It is a gigantic leap to extract from this that Wood was “insinuating that Muslims worship the Ka’bah.”

Is Jalal denying that this is what they do during their five daily prayers? Isn’t it required of Muslims to bow in the direction of the Kaba when they pray no matter where they are in the world?

Jalal mentions that Abraham and Ishmael initially built the Kaba for the worship of the one true God and that their later descendants perverted the true religion by placing hundreds of gods within it.

For Wood to claim that bowing in the direction of the Ka'bah is a pagan tradition that Muslims imitate, he needs to bring proof that the pagans bowed to the Ka'bah to begin with, as well as, they bowed to it whether they saw it or were far away from it. It's possible that some pagans bowed towards the Ka'bah because their idols were present in them. However, their intention was to bow down to the idols, not to Ka'bah. For at times they would bow down to an idol that was not present in the Ka'bah. Just because the pagans introduced idols to the Ka'bah does not diminish in any way its value as being a house build on Islamic Monotheism from the first day. Just because the pagans introduced idols to the Ka'bah, does not mean that Muslims cannot pray in its direction as being the house of monotheistic worship started by the Prophets of Monotheism, Ibrahim and Isma'eel, peace be upon them.

The readers should be able to see that Jalal’s “reply” is nothing more than question begging, being a clear example of circular reasoning. Jalal is reading back into pre-Islamic history the Islamic belief that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaba. The problem he faces is that, apart from Muhammad’s claims in the Quran, he has absolutely no proof that Abraham went to Mecca or that Ishmael personally settled there. We therefore challenge Jalal to stop begging the question and invite him to produce his evidence. We want Jalal to provide some pre-Islamic archeological or textual data to prove the assertion that the Kaba wasn’t originally a pagan shrine erected for the worship of false gods.

The fact is that he has none and he knows it. He only believes this because he erroneously assumes that Muhammad was a prophet who spoke the Quran by revelation. However, all the data is against this assertion since it shows that this is a myth created by Muhammad or the author(s) of the Quran.

And this is precisely the point Wood was trying to make. Why should we take anything Muhammad says when the evidence shows that his information was often mistaken and didn’t come from heaven but from the people around him? Muhammad observed and adopted into his religious system many of the practices of the various religious groups and peoples that he came into contact with, and then proclaimed that these were God’s revelations and ordinances sent down to him.

The one thing we do know regarding the Kaba, which even Muslim authorities themselves admit, is that the pagans were already observing most, if not all of, the rites associated with this pagan shrine such as running around it seven times, and that it was a place contaminated by idols.

What makes this more troubling is that Muhammad would run around this pagan structure when all of the idols were still contained inside it!

And when the apostle of God had finished his period of seclusion and returned (to Mecca), in the first place he performed the circumambulation of the Ka'ba, as was his wont. While he was doing it, Waraqa met him and said, ‘O son of my brother, tell me what thou hast seen and heard.’ (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 107; bold emphasis ours)

Notice that right after Gabriel supposedly first appeared to Muhammad the latter went to perform circumambulation around the Kaba, something which he would often do. It must be kept in mind that at this period in Muhammad’s life he hadn’t received any “revelations” alleging that Abraham and Ishmael originally built the Kaba. That came later in his “prophetic” career. As far as the people in Mecca were concerned, the Kaba was nothing more than a pagan shrine erected in honor of their deities. Yet in performing the rites associated with the Kaba during the period when there were still 360 idols inside it Muhammad did considerable damage to his prophetic claims.

In fact, there were several Kabas which the pagans venerated, one of which Muhammad had destroyed:

CLI: Burning houses and palm-trees

2857. It is related that Qays ibn Abi Hazim said, "Jarir said to me, 'The Messenger of Allah said to me, "Will you not relieve me of Dhu'l-Khalasa?"' which was a house of Khath'am which was called the Yamani Ka'ba. 'I set out with one hundred and fifty horsemen from Ahmas. They are good horsemen. I could not sit firm on a horse and he (the Prophet) struck me in my chest so that I saw the marks of his fingers on my chest. He said, "O Allah, make him firm and make him a guided guide."' He went to it, broke it up and burnt it. Then he sent the news to the Messenger of Allah. Jarir's messenger said, 'By the One who sent you with the truth, I did not come to you until I left it as if it was an emaciated - or scabby - camel.' He said, 'May Allah bless the horses and riders of Ahmas' five times."


CLXXXVIII: Good news of victories

2911. It is related that Qays said, "Jarir ibn 'Abdullah said to me, 'The Messenger of Allah said to me, "Will you not relieve me from Dhu'l-Khalasa?"' which was a house where Khath'am stayed which was called the Yamani Ka'ba I set out with one hundred and fifty horsemen from Ahmas. They are good horsemen. I told the Prophet that I could not sit firm on a horse and he (the Prophet) struck me in my chest so that I saw the marks of his fingers on my chest and said, "O Allah, make him firm and make him a guided guide."' He went to it, smashed it and burnt it down. Then he sent the good news to the Messenger of Allah. Jarir's messenger said, 'By the One who sent you with the truth, I did not come to you until I left it as if it was a scabby camel.' He said, 'May Allah bless the horses and riders of Ahmas' five times." (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 61. Book of Jihad and Military Expeditions; underline emphasis ours)

To read a different translation of these same reports please go here: 1, 2

Jalal may source certain Islamic reference works to prove that the people before Muhammad’s birth knew that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaba. Here are three major objections which Jalal will have to contend with just in case he decides to appeal to such sources. The first problem that Jalal will have to address is that, as we mentioned earlier, there is no credible evidence which conclusively proves that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael or that Ishmael ever settled in Mecca. As one author put it:

“… Ishmael is considered the progenitor of the Arabs. Dagon (1981) has shown that this idea is an Islamic construction AND THAT NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ISHMAEL AND THE ARABS HAD EVER BEEN MADE IN THE PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD. Already in the first Islamic century, however, Ishmael came to symbolize the Islamic Umma, and biblical passages about Ishmael were taken to refer to Muhammad, the Arabs, or the Muslim community.” (Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm [E.J. Brill Academic Publishers; August 1997 ISBN: 9004100342], p. 147, fn. 37; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Noted Islamicist Alfred Guillaume agrees,

“… there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.” (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], pp. 61-62)

Ibn Warraq, a former Muslim turned atheist, quotes specific authorities who also deny that Abraham or Ishmael were ever in Mecca,

We are told that [Abraham] was born in Chaldea, and that he was the son of a poor potter who earned his living by making little clay idols. It is scarcely credible that the son of this potter went to Mecca, 300 leagues away in the tropics, by way of impassable deserts. If he was a conqueror he no doubt aimed at the fine country of Assyria; and if he was only a poor man, as he is depicted, he founded no kingdoms in foreign parts. — Voltaire

For the historian, the Arabs are no more the descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham, than the French are of Francus, son of Hector. — Maxime Rodinson

It is virtually certain that Abraham never reached Mecca. — Montgomery Watt

The essential point ... is that, where objective fact has been established by sound historical methods, it must be accepted. — Montgomery Watt

According to Muslim tradition, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, the cube-like structure in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. But outside these traditions there is absolutely no evidence for this claim whether epigraphic, archaeological, or documentary. Indeed Snouck Hurgronje has shown that Muhammad invented the story to give his religion an Arabian origin and setting; with this brilliant improvisation Muhammad established the independence of his religion, at the same time incorporating into Islam the Kaaba with all its historical and religious associations for the Arabs. (Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY 1995], p. 131; bold emphasis ours)

Besides, Muslim scholars themselves admit that they could only trace Muhammad’s genealogy back to a person named Adnan, and that anything beyond that is pure conjecture and fabrication:

… on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas; he said: Verily the Prophet, WHENEVER he related his genealogy, DID NOT GO BEYOND MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN IBN UDAD, then he kept quiet and said: The narrators of genealogy ARE LIARS, since Allah says: “There passed many generations between them.”

Ibn ‘Abbas says: The Prophet would have been informed of the genealogy (prior to Adnan by Allah) if he (Prophet) had so wished.

… on the authority of ‘Abd Allah. Verily he recited “(The tribes of) ‘Ad and Thamud and those after them; NONE SAVETH ALLAH KNOWETH THEM.” The genealogists ARE LIARS.

… between Ma‘add and Isma‘il there were more than THIIRTY GENERATIONS; but he did not give their names, nor described their genealogy, probably he did not mention it because he might have heard the Hadith of Abu Salih on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas who narrated about the Prophet (may Allah bless them) THAT HE KEPT QUIET AFTER MENTIONING MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN.

Hisham said: A narrator informed me on the authority of my father, but I had not heard it from him, that he related the genealogy thus, Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad Ibn al-Hamaysa’ Ibn Salaman Ibn ‘Aws Ibn Yuz Ibn Qamwal Ibn Ubayyi Ibn al-‘Awwam, Ibn Nashid Ibn Haza Ibn Buldas Ibn Tudlaf Ibn Tabikh Ibn Jahim Ibn Nahish Ibn Makha Ibn ‘Ayfa Ibn ‘Abqar Ibn ‘Ubayd Ibn al-Du‘a Ibn Hamdan Ibn Sanbar Ibn Yathriba Ibn Nahzan Ibn Yalhan Ibn Ir‘awa Ibn ‘Ayfa Ibn Dayshan Ibn ‘Isar Ibn Iqnad Ibn Ibham Ibn Muqsi Ibn Nahith Ibn Zarih Ibn Shumayyi Ibn Mazzi Ibn ‘Aws Ibn ‘Arram IBN QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibn Ibrahim (my Allah bless them both).

... There was a Tadmurite whose patronymic was Abu Ya‘qub; he was one ... of the Israelite Muslims, and had read Israelite literature and acquired proficiency in it; he mentioned that Burakh Ibn Nariyya the scribe of Irmiya (Jeremiah) drew the genealogy of Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan and wrote it in his books. This is known to the Israelite scholars and learned men. The names (mentioned here) resemble them, and if there is any difference it is because of the language since they have been translated from Hebrew.

… I heard a person saying: Ma‘add was contemporary with ‘Isa Ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary) and his genealogy is this: Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad Ibn Zayd Ibn Yaqdur Ibn Yaqdum Ibn Amin Ibn Manhar Ibn Sabuh Ibn al-Hamaysa‘ Ibn Yashjub Ibn Ya‘rub, Ibn al-‘Awwam Ibn Nabit Ibn Salman Ibn Haml Ibn QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibn Ibrahim.

He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: Some one has named al-‘Awwal BEFORE al-Hamaysa‘ thus showing (al-‘Awwam) as his son.

... Verily the genealogy of Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan HAS BEEN TRACED DIFFERENTLY. In some narrations it is Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Muqawwam, Ibn Nahur Ibn Tirah Ibn Ya‘rub Ibn Yashjub IBN NABIT Ibn Isma ‘il.

He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: And some say: Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad ’Itahab Ibn Ayyub IBN QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibrahim.

Muhammad Ibn Ishaq said: Qusayyi Ibn Kilab traced his genealogy to Qaydhar Ibn Isma‘il in some of his verses. Muhammad Ibn al-Sa‘ib al-Kalbi recited this couplet on the authority of his father ascribing it to Qusayyi:

“I have nothing to do with nursing if the children of Qaydhar and Nabit did not establish relationship with the same.”

Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad Ibn Sa‘d said: I do not find much difference between them. Verily, Ma‘add was descended from Qaydhar Ibn Isma‘il; and this DIFFERENCE in his genealogy shows that the same WAS NOT CORRECTLY REMEMBERED and it was borrowed from the people of the scriptures (ahl al-Kitab) and translated, so they made differences. If it had been correct the Apostle of Allah must have known it. The best course with us is to trace the genealogy to Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan THEN TO KEEP QUIET UP TO ISMA‘IL IBN IBRAHIM.

... he on the authority of ‘Urwah; he said: WE DID NOT FIND ANY ONE TRACING THE GENEALOGY ABOVE MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN.


He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: Hisham Ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Sa‘ib informed us on the authority of his father that Ma‘add was with Bukht Nassar (Banu Ched Nader) when he fought in the forts of Yaman. (Ibn Sa'ad's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I, parts I & II, 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], pp. 50-53; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Not only were the Muslim scholars uncertain of Muhammad’s genealogy beyond Adnan they didn’t even know whether he was a descendant of Ishmael through his son Nebaioth (Nabit) or Kedar (Qaydhar)!

The second obstacle Jalal faces is that the Islamic quotes which he may provide to establish the Abrahamic origins of the Kaba will all come from sources written long after Muhammad’s demise and therefore do not qualify as evidence. It is to be expected that Muslims after the death of Muhammad would start fabricating stories of people living both before and during the birth of Muhammad who recognized or believed that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaba in order to support the unsubstantiated claims of the Quran.

The third difficulty for Jalal is that even if we take for granted that the Islamic sources are accurately recounting history in the case of the origins of the Kaba their witness would incriminate what Muhammad did. For example, according to one of the earliest biographies on Muhammad's life, there was a specific episode that supposedly took place before Muhammad's birth where certain Jewish rabbis allegedly told a king that the Kaba was built by Abraham. However, this story shows that Muhammad is guilty for worshiping at the Kaba when there were still 360 idols within it:

... They [the rabbis] told that the sole object of the tribe was to destroy him and his army. ‘We know of no other temple in the land which God has chosen for Himself’, said they, ‘and if you do what they suggest you and all your men will perish.’ The king asked them what he should do when he got there, and they told him to do what the people of Mecca did: circumambulate the temple, to venerate and honour it, to shave his head, and to behave with all humility until he had left its precincts. The king asked why they too should not do likewise. They replied that it was indeed the temple of their father Abraham, but the idols which the inhabitants had set up round it, and the blood which they shed there, presented an insuperable obstacle. They are unclean polytheists, said they – or words to that effect. (Guillaume, pp. 8-9; underline emphasis ours)

Apart from the fact that the Muslim author has obviously put into the mouth of these specific Jews the assertion that Abraham built the Kaba, it is interesting to read how these imaginary Jews refused to perform a pilgrimage to the pagan shrine because of all the idols contained therein that defiled it. And yet Muhammad, who is supposed to be God’s final prophet, has no hesitation in running around a structure littered with abominable objects detested by the true God!

Hence, if Jalal wants us to believe this story then he is going to have to face the fact that the Jews were more pious and god-fearing than Muhammad since, unlike him, they refused to worship at a place that was defiled by idols.

For more on this issue of Abraham allegedly building the Kaba and Muhammad’s alleged descent from Ishmael we recommend the following articles:

This leads us to our next point.


The Black Stone – A case of Islam’s blatant idolatry

This isn’t the only example of Muhammad endorsing or engaging in idolatry. Muhammad used to kiss the black stone which was part of the pagan shrine. Muhammad further enjoined Muslims to also kiss this idol as part of the rites that are performed during the pilgrimage to Mecca,

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 Salim that his father said: I saw Allah's Apostle arriving at Mecca; he kissed the Black Stone Corner first while doing Tawaf and did ramal in the first three rounds of the seven rounds (of Tawaf). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 673; see also 675, 676, 679, 680)

This practice is clearly condemned by the Holy Bible, as we shall see shortly.

What makes this rather amazing is that even though Jalal knows this he still has the audacity to say that Muslims do not imitate pagan traditions and that Muhammad destroyed all the idols!

To truly dissipate the lie that claims that Muslims imitate pagan traditions, we remind the readers of what happened when the Prophet of Allah finally was able to retake the Ka'bah from the pagans:

he destroyed all of the idols that were in or around the Ka'bah (Bukhari and Muslim).

How then can Wood make such a false claim?

Jalal must have forgotten what the Holy Bible, which he copiously references throughout this “rebuttal”, says concerning kissing objects such as a black stone. In his “response” here Jalal appeals to the Holy Scriptures to demonstrate that the prophets also had a prayer direction, specifically the Temple located in Jerusalem. He then claims that the Muslims are simply obeying the prophets, particularly in following their example of praying towards a specific direction!

Muslims are not obsessed with anything. They do what the Quran and even the Bible says to do: obey the Prophets. Allah said in the Quran,

{He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allâh} (4:80).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament agree,

"Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper" (2 Chronicles 20:20);

"And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:22).

Otherwise, why were the prophets sent, to be disobeyed? Muslims can never follow the Christian method of believing in the prophets by disobeying them. If Muslims follow this wicked path, they will never prosper.


Surely, David Wood knows that Jesus frequently entered the Temple in Jerusalem to worship Allah in it; Jesus never knew the word God nor ever used it to describe the Creator. When he, peace be upon him, entered the Temple to worship Allah, he must have bowed to the direction of prayer inside it,

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple. And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer" (Matthew 21:12-13).

Surely, David knows that the Temple that Jesus prayed in was the direction of prayer for the Children of Israel (1 Kings 8:44). Surely, Wood and his likes must have heard about the Mizrah and must have seen the Jews of the current era and also the Christians who visit Jerusalem nod their heads repeatedly and cry while praying towards the wall of the al-Masjid al-Aqsa.

Jalal also quoted the Holy Bible to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet in his “reply” to the Pope:

Eradicating Shirk: When he entered the Ka’bah, the Prophet of Islamic Monotheism ordered that all the idols in and around the Ka’bah be destroyed, the idols that were being worshipped instead of Allah. He had these idols destroyed just as Allah ordered His ancient Prophets to do, "But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire" (Deuteronomy 7:5).

What does the Pope know about Muhammad? Can the Pope appear in front of his congregation and declare that Muhammad did evil when he destroyed the idols and called to the Oneness of the Creator of everything? (Jalal Abualrub, Muhammad: The Prophet of Mercy – 50 New & Humane Concepts Brought by Muhammad, edited by Alaa Mencke [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, June 2007], p. 136; underline emphasis ours)

He also cited God’s inspired Scriptures in the material which he prepared for his debate against David Wood,

I will also prove Muhammad’s Prophethood through what he sent with and also through the standards for prophets set in the Bible to prove Muhammad’s superiority to any prophet mentioned in the Two Testaments. A Christian author once wrote: "Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet." Therefore, we will use the Bible as a test. (Is Muhammad a Prophet?, p. 1)

Unfortunately for Jalal his repeated appeal to the Holy Bible comes to backfire against him since it conclusively proves that Muhammad was a false prophet who exhorted his followers to engage in idolatry.

According to the Holy Bible God forbids his true followers from fashioning images which are then taken as objects of worship:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” Exodus 20:4-5

“Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.” 1 Kings 19:18

Notice that bowing to and kissing an idol is considered an act of worship. The next reference shows what happens when an object commissioned by a prophet of God is venerated through religious gestures such as kissing, bowing or by burning incense to it:

“In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Abijah daughter of Zechariah. He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan).” 2 Kings 18:1-4

The bronze serpent that the righteous king Hezekiah destroyed was one that God commanded Moses to fashion:

“From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.’ Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses, and said, ‘We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.” Numbers 21:4-9

Here is an image that Moses was commanded to make which was subsequently destroyed once the people started venerating it. If this is what God did to an image fashioned by one of his greatest prophets why would he then change his mind and command Muhammad and his followers to start kissing a stone that can neither harm nor benefit anyone?

In light of this doesn’t the above example prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Muhammad did not eradicate idolatry completely but retained much of the pagan and idolatrous practices of the Arabs? Doesn’t this also conclusively demonstrate that, according to the very inspired source that Jalal appealed to in defense of his prophet, Muhammad was guilty of idolatry for kissing a black stone? Moreover, isn’t it clear that Abraham could not have commissioned the kissing of a black stone in light of the Bible’s express prohibition of venerating idols?

There is more to Islam’s idolatry. We now turn our attention to another case of Muhammad going against the inspired teachings of the Holy Bible, as well as violating his own commands.


Muhammad swears by someone other than Allah – More shirk from the so-called prophet of monotheism

The sacred prophetic writings expressly command true worshipers to take their oaths and swear only by the true living God,

“Therefore, be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right hand nor to the left, that you may not mix with these nations remaining among you or make mention of the names of their gods or swear by them or serve them or bow down to them,” Joshua 23:7

“By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.” Isaiah 45:23

“‘If you will return, O Israel, return to me,’ declares the LORD. ‘If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, “As surely as the LORD lives,” then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory.’” Jeremiah 4:1-2; cf. 12:16

Muhammad himself is reported to have commanded his followers to swear by Allah alone. He is even said to have warned against swearing by idols or by their fathers, which was an Arab custom at that time:

Narrated 'Umar:
The Prophet said, “If anybody has to take an oath, he should swear ONLY by Allah.” The people of Quraish used to swear by their fathers, but the Prophet said, “Do not swear by your fathers.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 177)


Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab while the latter was going with a group of camel-riders, and he was swearing by his father. The Prophet said, “Lo! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers, so whoever has to take an oath, he should swear by Allah or keep quiet.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 641)


… An exclusive right for Allah, such as vowing, for example, should not be given to anyone or thing, except Allah alone. The Messenger of Allah… said… “He who intends to swear, let him swear by Allah or keep silent.” He, ... also said, … “He who swears by other than Allah, will have committed Shirk.” (Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyyah, Zad-ul Ma'ad fi Hadyi Khairi-l 'Ibad [Provisions for the Hereafter Taken From the Guidance of Allah's Best Worshipper], translated by Jalal Abualrub, edited by Alaa Mencke & Shaheed M. Ali [Madinah Publishers & Distributors, Orlando Florida; First edition, October 2001], Volume 4, p. 320; underline emphasis ours)

Finally, the following narrations are taken from a book written by a Muslim whom Jalal views as one of the greatest scholars that ever lived, and whom many Muslim scholars deem an innovator and corrupter of true Islam (*; *; *) namely the late Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. He is the man who is mainly responsible for the resurgence and revival of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Islamic views, such as Allah literally having specific bodyparts such as eyes and hands, beliefs that are held by the Salafi cult which Jalal belongs to:

The Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever swears by other than Allah has committed an act of kufr or Shirk.” (Tirmidhee, Al-Hakim, declared saheeh by Albaanee in Irwaa #2561)

Ibn Mas’ood said: “That I should swear by Allah upon a lie is more preferable to me than that I should swear by another upon the truth” (Abdur Razzaq and Tabaranee, declared saheeh by Albaanee in Irwaa #2562) (Takhreej of Kitaab at Tawheed, posted by 2004, Chapter 41: Allah’s Words: “And Do Not Ascribe Partners to Allah when you know [the Truth]”, p. 21; See also Kitab At-Tawheed, by Sheikh ul-Islam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, translated by the Compilation and Research Department Dar-us-Salam [Dar-us-Salam Publications Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, 1996], Chapter No: 42. (“Do not set up rivals unto Allah…”))


The Messenger of Allah said: “Do not swear by your fathers: Whoever swears by Allah, let him speak the truth and the one for whom the oath is taken in the Name of Allah should be satisfied with it and whoever is not satisfied with it is not (one of the slaves) of Allah” (Ibn Maajah, declared saheeh by Albaanee in Irwaa #2698 and declared hasan by Ibn Hajr in Al Fath 11/536) (Ibid., Chapter 42: What has been said concerning one who is not satisfied with an Oath Sworn in Allah’s name?; Also see Kitab At-Tawheed by Dar-us-Salam, Chapter No: 43. What is said about the One who is not satisfied with an Oath taken by Allah's Name)

Amazingly, Muhammad not only violated the teachings of the Holy Bible he even went against his very own instructions by swearing by another man’s father, thereby committing shirk!

Chapter 4: The Prohibition Of Withholding While Alive, Only To Squander Upon One’s Death

2706. It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: “A man came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, tell me, which of the people has most right to my companionship?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY YOUR FATHER, you will certainly be told.’ He said: ‘Your mother.’ He said, ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your father.’ He said: ‘Tell me, O Messenger of Allah, about my wealth – how should I give in charity?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY ALLAH, you will certainly be told…’” (Sahih)


… c. An oath can only be taken by the Name of Allah. It is not legal to take an oath over other than Allah’s Name, as in authentic Ahadith it has been made clear. The Prophet said: “Verily! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers. If one has to take an oath he should swear by Allah or keep quite [sic].” (Sahih Al-Bukhari: 6108.) In this Hadith the oath taken by the father is either before the time when it was prohibited, or just part of Arabian culture, as a habitual custom. It was common in Arabia that during conversation some additional words or phrases without any particular intention were added. (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah - Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 1783 to 2718, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 3, pp. 553-554; capital and underline emphasis ours)

The comments by the translator that Muhammad’s swearing may have occurred before a time when such oath making was prohibited are problematic for at least three reasons. First, Muslims such as Jalal believe that the Meccans are descendants of Ishmael and that both he and his father Abraham built the Kaba and instituted the rites of pilgrimage, a point which he himself makes here in his "reply" to Wood. This means that the people would have known and been informed that such swearing was forbidden by the God of Abraham. At the very least, Muhammad should have known this in light of his association and contact with both Jews and Christians.

Second, Muslims assert that Allah protected Muhammad from all idolatrous practices even before he allegedly became a prophet. If this were correct then wouldn’t Allah have protected his messenger from committing idolatry by swearing by someone’s father?

Third, Muhammad’s slip occurred after his alleged prophetic ministry began, during the time when Muslims believe that their prophet was receiving inspiration. In fact, earlier we read certain reports where Muhammad stated that he always spoke the truth and by inspiration. Again, if this were so wouldn’t Muhammad’s lord have gone out of his way to guard his prophet from committing such a sin after the “revelation” began to descend, during the time where Muhammad always supposedly spoke by revelation? Or does this mean that it was Allah who inspired Muhammad to make this idolatrous oath in the name of somebody’s father since the latter never spoke except by way of inspiration?

With that said it is rather obvious that this is another time where Muhammad failed to practice what he preached and was guilty of idolatry.

For more on this subject we suggest the following articles:

As if the above examples weren’t enough to prove that Islam promotes idolatry and that Muhammad himself engaged in idolatrous practices, his followers went so far as to transform their prophet into another idol. That is the focus of our next section.


Islam’s other ilah (god) – The idolatrous veneration of Muhammad

Jalal continues to distort the facts. He quotes the following specific Quranic text to prove that Muslims pray to Allah,

{And the Masajid are for Allâh (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allâh } (72:18).

The Masajid, (plural for Masjid), is the name of the Islamic places of worship.

He then later references the following passage,

… {"and accept our repentance; Truly, You are the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful"}, they prayed to Allah, Alone, just as Muslims after them pray to Allah, Alone,

And issues a specific challenge to Wood,

I challenge David Wood to bring evidence that when Muslims take the Ka'bah as the direction of prayer they in fact bow to the Ka'bah itself rather than pray to Allah in the Ka'bah's direction. This evidence can be in the form of what Muslims says in their prayer, such as, if they invoke the Ka'bah, or admire how high and beautiful it is, or say anything in the prayer that indicates they are bowing or praying to the Ka'bah.

In his haste to write a lengthy article in order to give the appearance that he is actually addressing and refuting Wood’s points Jalal failed to realize that he actually produced his own refutation. Far from praying to Allah alone the Muslims managed to turn their prophet into an object of worship (with Muhammad’s help of course!). For example, in the Quran Muhammad made it obligatory for his followers to come to him so as to receive forgiveness of sins:

We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah's Leave. If they (hypocrites), when they had been unjust to themselves, HAD COME TO YOU (Muhammad) and begged Allah's Forgiveness, and the Messenger had begged forgiveness for them: indeed, they would have found Allah All-Forgiving (One Who accepts repentance), Most Merciful. S. 4:64 Hilali-Khan

The question that naturally comes to mind is how can Muslims continue to observe this directive now that Muhammad is dead? The scholars came up with the answer:

Although, this verse (64) was revealed in the background of a particular incident relating to hypocrites, yet its words yield a general ruling which stipulates that anyone who presents himself before the Holy Prophet and he prays for his forgiveness, he will be definitely forgiven. And ‘the presence before the Prophet,’ as it would have been during his blessed life in this mortal world, HOLDS THE SAME EFFECT EVEN TODAY as the visit to the sacred precincts of the Mosque of the Prophet and the act of ‘presenting’ oneself BEFORE THE BLESSED RESIDENT OF THE SANCTIFIED MAUSOLEUM FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICATION OF THIS RULE.

Sayyidna ‘Ali has said: “Three days after we all had finished with the burial of the Messenger of Allah a villager came and fell down close to the blessed grave. Weeping bitterly, he referred to this particular verse of the Qur’an AND ADDRESSING HIMSELF TO THE BLESSED GRAVE, he said: ‘Allah Almighty has promised in this verse that a sinner, if he presented himself before the Rasul of Allah, and the Rasul elects to pray for his forgiveness, then he will forgive him. Therefore, here I am, presenting myself BEFORE YOU so that I may be blessed with YOUR prayer for my forgiveness.’ People personally present there at that time say that, in response to the pleading of the villager, a voice coming out from the sanctified mausoleum rang around with the words… You have been forgiven.” (al-Bahr al-Muhit) (Mufti Shafi Usmani, Maariful Quran, Volume 2, p. 486; capital emphasis ours)

In other words, Muslims can continue to come to Muhammad by visiting his grave and pray to him! And according to the following narrative this is exactly what some Muslims did:

“Allah is instructing the sinners when they commit a sin to come to the messenger of Allah and ask forgiveness in his presence and then they ask him to request forgiveness. And certainly if they did that, Allah would relent towards them and have mercy on them, and for that reason He said "they would have found Allah Oft-Returning, Merciful.”

And Shaykh Mansur as-Sabbagh recollected in his book “The Perfections” (ash-Shama’il) the well-known (famous) transmission from ‘Utbi:

“I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet and a Bedouin came and said: ‘Peace be upon you O Prophet of Allah. I heard Allah say: “And if they had come to thee when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and if the Messenger had also asked forgiveness for them, they would have surely found Allah Oft-Returning with compassion and Merciful.” And I came to you asking forgiveness for my sin, taking you as intercessor to my Lord.’

“Then he started reciting verses: ‘O You best of those whose bones are buried in al-Qa’a from the sweet scents of those bones the whole area of al-Qa’a and Akamu became perfumed. My self I sacrifice to the grave that you live in it is purity and in it is incredible generosity.’

“Then the Bedouin departed and sleep overcame me. And I saw the Prophet in my sleep and he said: ‘Ya ‘Utbi, follow the Bedouin and give him the glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.’” (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Qur’an al-Adheem [Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1992/1412], volume I, p. 643)

Muhammad further taught his followers to invoke peace on him by addressing him directly in their daily prayers:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari that he heard Umar ibn al-Khattab say, while he was teaching people the tashahhud from the mimbar, “Say, Greetings belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Good words and prayers belong to Allah. Peace on YOU, Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun. I testify that there is no god except Allah. And I testify that Muhammad is His slave and His messenger.”

'At-tahiyatu lillah, az-zakiyatu lillah, at-tayibatu wa's-salawatu lillah. As-salamu ALAYKA ayyuha'nnabiyyu wa rahmatu'llahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi'llahi s-salihin. Ash-hadu an la ilaha illa 'llah wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh." (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 3, Number 3.14.56)

This means that Muslims are speaking to and directly addressing a dead person in their daily acts of worship!

In fact, specific reports claim that Adam himself asked Allah to forgive him for the sake of Muhammad whose name he found written on Allah’s throne!

Al-Bayhaqi cited the following hadith in his book "Dala'il an-Nubuwwah" (Signs of Prophethood): Narrated 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab: the Prophet said: "When Adam committed the sin, he said to Allah, 'O My Lord, I ask You with reference to Muhammad to forgive me'. Allah said: 'O Adam! How did you know about Muhammad, for I have not yet created him?' Adam replied, 'O My Lord, when You created me, I looked up and saw inscribed on the legs of the Throne the words: There is no God worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger. I knew that you do not attach to Your name but the name of the dearest of Your Creation.' Allah said to Adam, ‘You have spoken rightly, Adam. Muhammad is the dearest of My Creation. I have forgiven you because you asked by Muhammad. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR HIM, I WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED YOU.’” This hadith was narrated by al-Hakim who also classified it as sahih (authentic). Among the transmitters of this hadith is 'Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn Aslam. Al-Haythami said: “This hadith was reported by at-Dabarani and in its chain of transmitters are people I do not know. Al-Hakim was therefore mistaken in classifying this hadith as sahih because he himself criticised 'Abd ar-rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn Aslam in his book ad-Du'afa, so how can he state the authenticity of the hadith after he had criticised him?!!” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by Sheikh Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London: Second Edition 1998], p. 107, fn 10; underline and capital emphasis ours)

Talk about blasphemy! How could the name of a creature be inscribed on the throne of the creator without this being blatant idolatry?

Here are some other examples of Muslims praying to Muhammad after his death, beseeching his favors:

It is just as necessary to have esteem and respect for the Prophet after his death as it were when he was alive. This means to show it whenever the Prophet, his hadith or sunna are mentioned, when anyone hears his name or anything about his life or how his family and relatives behaved. It includes respect for the People of his House (ahl al-bayt) and his Companions...

Abu Humayd said, “Abu Ja'far, the Amir al-Mu'minin, had a dispute with Malik in the Prophet's mosque. Malik said to him, 'Amir al-Mu'minin, do not raise your voice in this mosque. Allah taught the people how to behave by saying, “Do not raise your voices above the Prophet” (49:2) He praises people with the words, “Those who lower their voices in the presence of the Messenger of Allah.” (49:3) He censures people, saying, “Those who call you...” Respect for him when he is dead is the same as respect for him when he was alive.”

“Abu Ja'far was humbled by this. He asked Malik, 'Abu Abdullah, do you face qibla when you supplicate or do you face the Messenger of Allah?' He replied, 'Why would you turn your face from him when he is YOUR MEANS and the means of your father, Adam, to Allah on the Day of Rising? I face him and ASK HIM to intercede and Allah will grant his intercession. Allah says, “If, when you wronged yourselves, they had come to you.”’” (4:64) (Qadi Iyad, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K., third reprint 1991, paperback], Part Two. Concerning the rights which the people owe the Prophet, Chapter Three: Exalting him and the necessity to respect and honour him, Section 3. Respect and esteem for the Prophet after his death, pp. 237-238; capital and underline emphasis ours)


Tirmidhi relates, through his chain of narrators from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man came to the Prophet and said, “I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me.” The Prophet said: “Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak'as of prayer, and then say:

Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O MUHAMMAD (YA MUHAMMAD), I SEEK YOUR INTERCESSION with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me"].”

The Prophet added, “And if there is some need, do the same.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Umdat Al-Salik) in Arabic with facing English text, Commentary and Appendices, edited and translated by Nuh Hah Mim Keller [Amana Corporation; Revised edition, July 1, 1997], w40.3, p. 935; bold and capital emphasis ours)


Moreover, Tabarani, in his “al-Mu'jam al saghir, reports a hadith from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf that a man repeatedly visited Uthman ibn Affan concerning something he needed, but Uthman paid no attention to him or his need. The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about the matter - this being after the death (wisal) of the Prophet and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar - so Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collected hadiths and was learned in the religion of Allah, said: “Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform two rak'as of prayer therein, and say:

‘O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O MUHAMMAD (YA MUHAMMAD), I TURN THROUGH YOU to my Lord, that He may fulfill my need,’ and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph Uthman].” So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of Uthman ibn Affan, and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to Uthman ibn Affan, and seated him next to him on a cushion. 'Uthman asked, “What do you need?” and the man mentioned what he wanted, and Uthman accomplished it for him, then he said, “I hadn't remembered your need until just now,” adding, “Whenever you need something, just mention it.” Then, the man departed, met Uthman ibn Hunayf, and said to him, “May Allah reward you! He didn't see to my need or pay any attention to me until you spoke with him.” Uthman ibn Hunayf replied, "By Allah, I didn't speak to him, but I have seen a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah and complain to him of the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet said, “Can you not bear it?' and the man replied, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I do not have anyone to lead me around, and it is a great hardship for me.’ The Prophet told him, 'Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then pray two rak'as of prayer and make the supplications.’” Ibn Hunayf went on, “By Allah, we didn't part company or speak long before the man returned to us as if nothing had ever been wrong with him.”

This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the legal validity of tawassul through the dead. The account has been classified AS RIGOROUSLY AUTHENTICATED (SAHIH) by Baihaqi, Mundhiri, and Haythami. (Ibid., w40.4, pp. 936-937; bold and capital emphasis ours)]

To say that these practices and traditions are problematic would be a wild understatement! The first problem that Jalal and his fellow propagandists face is that the Quran expressly says that those who are dead in their graves cannot hear:

Neither are the living and the dead alike. Surely Allah makes whom He pleases hear, and you cannot make those hear WHO ARE IN THE GRAVES. S. 35:22 Shakir

The second problem is that the Muslim scriptures emphasizes the point that all prayers and invocations are offered only to Allah, and not to those who can neither profit nor harm someone, which includes Muhammad who is dead in the grave and cannot hear:

Say (O Muhammad): “Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for God, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).” S. 6:162 Hilali-Khan

And invoke not besides God, any that will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did so, you shall certainly be one of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers). S. 10:106 Hilali-Khan

And who is more astray than one who calls (invokes) besides God, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them? … Say: ‘I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.’ S. 46:5, 9 Hilali-Khan

And the mosques are for Allah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allah. S. 72:18

Even the so-called sound narrations agree with these specific Islamic texts that the dead cannot hear and that invocations and prayers must be offered only to Allah since these are all acts of worship:

Narrated Hisham's father:
It was mentioned before 'Aisha that Ibn 'Umar attributed the following statement to the Prophet “The dead person is punished in the grave because of the crying and lamentation Of his family.” On that, 'Aisha said, “But Allah's Apostle said, 'The dead person is punished for his crimes and sins while his family cry over him then.” She added, “And this is similar to the statement of Allah's Apostle when he stood by the (edge of the) well which contained the corpses of the pagans killed at Badr, 'They hear what I say.' She added, “But he said now they know very well what I used to tell them was the truth.” 'Aisha then recited: ‘You cannot make the dead hear.’ (30.52) and ‘You cannot make those who are in their Graves, hear you.’ (35.22) that is, when they had taken their places in the (Hell) Fire. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 316)


Narrated An-Nu'man ibn Bashir:
The Prophet said: Supplication (du'a') is itself the worship.
(He then recited:) “And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you” (xI.60). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 8, Number 1474)


Abu al-‘Abbas ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas reported: One day I was behind the Prophet and he said to me:

“O young man, I shall teach you some words [of advice]: Be mindful of Allah, and Allah will protect you. Be mindful of Allah, and you will find Him in front of you. If you (have need to) ask, ask of Allah; and if you seek help, seek help from Allah. Know that even if the Nation (or the whole community) were to gather together to benefit you with something, they would not benefit you with anything except that which Allah has already recorded for you, and that if they gather together to harm you with something, they would not be able to harm you with anything except that which Allah has already recorded against you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried.”

[Al-Tirmidhi relates this and says: It is a good, genuine Hadith] (Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadith, Hadith No. 19; *; bold and italic emphasis ours)


6- 931 - On the authority of Abu Tameemah al-Hajmeemee, on the authority a man from Blahjeem who said, ‘I asked: ‘O Messenger of Allaah! Who should I make Dua’ to?’

He said: ‘Call to Allaah Alone. If you were afflicted with harm and you supplicated to Him, He would relieve you of it. If you became lost in a desolate land and you supplicated to Him, He would return you to your place. If you were afflicted with drought and you supplicated to Him, He would produce vegetation.’
No. 420 (Ahadeeth Pertaining to Eemaan, Tawheed, Deen and Qadr, taken from Silsilah Ahadeeth As-Saheehah of Shaykh Al-Albaani, translated by Abbas Abu Yahya; bold and underline emphasis ours)

The hadith literature even records Muhammad informing his next of kin and companions that he could not benefit them before Allah:

Narrated 'Um al-'Ala:
An Ansari woman who gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that the Ansar drew lots concerning the dwelling of the Emigrants. 'Uthman bin Maz'un was decided to dwell with them (i.e. Um al-'Ala's family), 'Uthman fell ill and I nursed him till he died, and we covered him with his clothes. Then the Prophet came to us and I (addressing the dead body) said, “O Abu As-Sa'ib, may Allah's Mercy be on you! I bear witness that Allah has honored you.” On that the Prophet said, “How do you know that Allah has honored him?” I replied, “I do not know. May my father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle! But who else is worthy of it (if not 'Uthman)?” He said, “As to him, by Allah, death has overtaken him, and I hope the best for him. By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me,By Allah, I will never assert the piety of anyone after him. That made me sad, and when I slept I saw in a dream a flowing stream for 'Uthman bin Maz'un. I went to Allah's Apostle and told him of it. He remarked, “That symbolizes his (good) deeds.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 266)


Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the Verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah's Apostle got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah's Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 16)

This perhaps explains why Muhammad’s followers were afraid of death since they knew that they would end up in hell but weren’t certain whether they would ever come out of it:

Muhammad b. Ja'far b. al-Zubayr from 'Urwa b. al-Zubayr said: The apostle sent his expedition to Mu'ta in Jumada'l-Ula in the year 8 and put Zayd b. Haritha in command; if Zayd were slain then Ja'far b. Abu 'Talib was to take command, and if he were killed then 'Abdullah b. Rawaha. The expedition got ready to the number of 3,000, and prepared to start. When they were about to set off they bade farewell to the apostle's chiefs and saluted them. When 'Abdullah b. Rawaha took his leave of the chiefs he wept and when they asked him the reason he said, 'By God, it is not that I love the world and am inordinately attached to you, but I heard the apostle read a verse from God's book in which he mentioned hell: “There is not one of you but shall come to it; that is a determined decree of your Lord,” and I do not know how I can return after I have been to it.' The Muslims said, ‘God be with you and protect you and bring you back to us safe and sound.’ … (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, p. 532; bold and italic emphasis ours)


455w. Abu Nazrah reported about a man called Abu Abdullah from the companions of the Holy Prophet. His companions went to him to visit him in illness and he was weeping. They asked him: What makes you weep? Has not the Apostle of Allah said to you: Clip your moustache and stay firm on it till you meet me? He said: Yes, but I heard the Messenger of Allah say: The Almighty and Glorious Allah caught one handful with His right hand and another with another hand and said: This is for this, and this is for this, and I don’t care. I don’t know in which of the two handfuls I am. - Ahmad

1563. Here hold means party. Allah took one party of men in His right hand and another in His left and said that those who were in His right hand would go to Paradise and those in His left hand would go to Hell. The narrator feared in which of the hands of Allah he fell as that would decide his fate. (Maulana Fazlul Karim, Al-Hadis – An English Translation & Commentary With Arabic Text of Mishkat-Ul-Masabih [Islamic Education Center, Publishers and Booksellers, Improved Edition 1988], Book III, Chapter XXXII. Section 1. Pre-destination, p. 114; italic and underline emphasis ours)

This narrative can also be found in the translation of Mishkat Al Masabih by Dr. James Robson, Volume I, Book I. – Faith, Chapter IV. Belief in the Divine Decree, p. 32, published by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, reprinted 1990.

In order to avoid having to address these facts and admit that Muslims worship Muhammad –even though they vehemently deny that they do – Jalal may attack the veracity of all of these specific reports that mention Muslims praying directly to Muhammad in their daily salah and at his grave. He may question the hadiths which refer to people invoking Muhammad after his death to intercede for them.

Yet this approach will not work since these reports have been deemed to be completely sound, thoroughly authentic, by many of Islam’s renowned scholars. To therefore brush aside their veracity only exposes the sheer desperation of Muslim propagandists such as Jalal and further demonstrates the utterly chaotic and contradictory state of Islamic scholarship. After all, one often finds scholars of hadith contradicting one other concerning the grading of specific narratives such as in this case, i.e. Salafi polemicists such as al-Albani and his ilk who are against praying to Muhammad, especially at his grave, do everything they can to negate the authenticity of reports such as the blind man praying to Muhammad, whereas other scholars rigorously defend their veracity since their theology allows Muslims to pray to Allah through the mediation of others (known as Tawassul). This leaves the average Muslim – as well as non-Muslim – baffled as to what to believe and accept concerning such a vitally important topic, and Jalal’s denials or weakening of such narratives will do absolutely nothing to help clarify the issue or resolve these major problems.

We come to the end of part one, but we have more to say concerning the apotheosis or divination of Muhammad in the second part of our rebuttal.