返回总目录
Rebuttal to "Muhammad and Poetry Revisited Again".
Search
and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to
search for articles on this site.
Rebuttal to "Muhammad and Poetry
Revisited Again"
By
Bassam Zawadi
Sam Shamoun originally wrote an article about the
Prophet Muhammad and poetry here http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Inconsistent/poetry.html
and I responded back here http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_hate_poets.htm.
Then he responded back to that article here http://www.answeringislam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_poetry.htm
and then I responded back here http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttal_muhammad_poetry.htm
to which Sam responded back here http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_poetry2.htm
and now I am responding back here.
It is important for those who would actually want
to understand this article fully to actually go back and read the debate from the
beginning in order to know what is going on.
Sam Shamoun said:
Bassam Zawadi has made another attempt of responding (*) to my rebuttal regarding Muhammad’s
inconsistent stance on poetry.
He responds to my accusation of Muslims like him using a double standard when it comes
to citing their own Muslim sources with:
My Response:
Well if everything was common knowledge then Ibn Ishaq
might as well not have bothered to cite an isnad for anything he has written. How can we
be so sure about something if we cannot trace it back to the source? Us Muslims are strict
regarding evidence and facts unlike Christians who don't even fully know who the authors
of their Biblical books are. (http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm
)
Let’s expose the gross errors in this one paragraph. First, Zawadi assumes that
just because a source provides a chain of transmitters this means that Muslims are able to
trace it back. The circular nature of this argument should be clear to the readers. But
since it isn’t clear to Zawadi we need to spell it out for him.
My Response:
No where did I say that just because there is a chain
of narrators then we can necessarily trace it back. Obviously I know that there are weak
hadith out there with weak chains of transmitters. I believe in strong authentic Hadith
that have strong chain of narrators. However, the point I was trying to make was that not
because something that doesn't have a chain of narration necessarily has to be false,
however we cannot confirm it to be absolutely true without any evidence.
Sam Shamoun said:
Most of the documents which provide an isnad are written centuries after
Muhammad’s death:
Muhammad Ibn Isma`il al-Bukhari- 194-256 AH/809-869 AD.
Muslim Ibn al-`Hajjaj Ibn Wird Ibn Kushadh al-Qushairi- 204-261 AH/819-874 AD.
Abu Dawud Sulaiman Ibn al-Ash`ath as-Sujustani- 202-275 AH/817-888 AD.
Muhammad Ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi- 210-279 AH/825-892 AD.
Ahmad Ibn Shu`aib an-Nasai- 215-303 AH/830-915 AD.
Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Yazid Ibn Majah- 209-273 AH/824-886 AD.
Malik Ibn Anas- 93-179 AH/711-795 AD.
Ahmad Ibn `Hanbal- 164-241 AH/780-855 AD.
Another Islamic source provides the following dates:
Collection during the 3rd Century H.: The Hadith was collected and categorized
in the latter part of the third century of Hijrah resulting in six canonical collections
(Al-Sihaah Al-Sittah)
- Sahih of Al-Bukhari, d.256 A.H. [870 A.D.]: 7275 (2712 Non-duplicated) out of 600,000.
- Sahih of Muslim, d.261 A.H. [875 A.D.]: 9200 (4,000 Non-duplicated) out of 300,000.
- Sunan of Abu Dawood, d.276 A.H. [889 A.D.] 4,800 of 500,000.
- Sunan of Ibn Maajeh: d.273 A.H. [886 A.D.]
- Jami' of Tirmidhi, d.279 A.H. [892 A.D.]
- Sunan of al-Nisaa'i, d.303 A.H. [915 A.H.]. (Source;
dates within brackets ours )
What Zawadi would want his readers to believe is that just because these sources
provide a chain this makes them more reliable than Ishaq’s chainless narrations. But
the only way he knows that the chains provided in these documents are sound is by first
assuming that these later writings are reliable, or reliable enough to provide an accurate
transmission. And yet the only way he knows whether any of these later narrations are
reliable is because of the soundness of their chains which are part of these very same
reports!
In other words, Zawadi assumes that these narrations are correct because of the
soundness of their chains, and yet he only knows about these chains because they happen to
be found in collections that he deems authentic! Note just how circular this truly is:
- Zawadi assumes the veracity of a specific narration because of its chain.
- Zawadi accepts the soundness of a chain because of the narration which contains it.
- This therefore means that he is simply proving the hadith by its chain and then proving
its chain by this very same hadith. A masterful display of circular reasoning!
My Response:
I have not used any circular reasoning what so ever.
Muslims don't believe that Saheeh Bukhari is the most authentic collection because its
chain of narrators are strong and then you ask us how we know then we say that the Hadith
is strong. Then if you ask us how we know the Hadith is strong then we say because the
chain of narrators of it is strong. We don't say this. I never said that. Shamoun is just
giving a cheap shot.
We believe that Saheeh Bukhari and other authentic
collections are the most reliable because they were the most strictest ones in their
methodology in distinguishing the false Hadith from the authentic ones. Basically, they
did their homework really well. That is why we believe in their authenticity.
That is why we can believe in an authentic Hadith
found in Bukhari even 200 years after the Prophet's death more than the chainless
narrations found in Ibn Ishaq's book 120 years after the Prophet's death. This is because
there is evidence that the statement said by the Prophet is truly verified and that we
know the source.
Sam Shamoun said:
There is simply no possible way for someone writing two hundred years after the fact to
completely insure that all the names of the chain going back two hundred years prior are
correct, or that such men were completely honest. The only way to have such certainty is
to consult earlier documents that were compiled closer in time with the events in question
and see if they mention such narrations. More importantly, consulting such early sources
will help verify whether some of the specific persons from that early period that are
mentioned in these later lists did indeed transmit such stories. But this is something
which Zawadi can’t do since he has basically called into question one of the earliest
written sources on Muhammad’s life, the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq. If Ishaq who was writing
closer in time to Muhammad is questionable then what makes us assume that the documents
written long after Muhammad’s time is any more reliable?
Muslims such as Zawadi, on the other hand, are calling into question their own sources
which were written much closer to the time of Muhammad and yet deem references that are
centuries removed from the events they report as being more reliable!
My Response:
Muslims acknowledge that the Hadith are not 100%
accurate. It is the work of man and the work of man is prone to error. Just like your very
own Bible by the admission of your own scholars. However, I don't want to get into a whole
discussion of the methodology that Hadith scholars have used in order to ensure the
reliability of each person in the chain.
Some recommended readings on collection of
Hadith.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/exisnad.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/narraulum.html
Sam says that the only way is to go and see earlier documents. Not true,
earlier documents could be forged. A careful and objective investigation needs to be
undertaken in order to determine the reliability of hadith. We don't just trust any
manuscript we find laid buried under the sand.
Thirdly, I did not call into question all of Ibn Ishaqs work. Just
the ones that have no chain. We have to remember that Ibn Ishaq wrote his Sirah over a 100
years after the Prophet's death. I would rather take a Hadith 200 years later that has
been investigated into by scholars and deemed authentic rather than take an uninvestigated
Hadith or source of information 100 years later. One hundred years is plenty of time to
forge stories and circulate them around to a good number of people. But not all. Ibn Ishaq
would have just probably been unlucky that time when he got this information because he
got it from a bad source.
Sam Shamoun said:
Indeed, Muslims are unlike Christians since the latter have sound reasons and arguments
for why they believe in the veracity of the Gospels and the New Testament:
http://www.carm.org/bible.htm
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stilltoc.html
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo3.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo4.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo8.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo9.htm
My Response:
Yeah whatever, lets not even go there.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/how_reliable_is_nt.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm
Sam Shamoun said:
Moreover, I didn’t say that "everything" was common knowledge to Ibn
Ishaq. I simply said that one could account for those places where Ishaq didn’t
provide a chain by the fact that since he was writing at such an early period or that
those specific anecdotes were so well known that he might have felt that there was no need
to provide a chain. So this is nothing more than a straw man argument from Zawadi.
My Response:
Again like I said, for someone to accuse and convict
someone of a crime there must be substantial evidence. Where is it Sam? Your telling me
that maybe the Muslims already knew the story and therefore it was not needed of Ibn Ishaq
to cite the source. Where is your evidence? PROVE it, don't ASSERT IT.
Plus this article http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/silas-kill.html
has already done a well good enough job refuting the lies. If the killing of Abu Afak was
indeed true and was common knowledge by everyone then why did most scholars of Hadith
denounce it? They denounced it because it was not authentic. You are going to argue
back and say that they denounced it because it made the Prophet look bad. However, there
are plenty of other hadith out there which scholars have not denounced that people like
you feel makes the Prophet look bad. Therefore, if that was the real intention of the
scholars then they would have denounced everything wouldn't they? Please give EVIDENCE for
what you say. Muslims are not interested in your ASSERTIONS.
Even according to the narration of the killing of
Asma it self admits that it has been forged. So why even bother trying to prove that
it was forged?
How can you expect us Muslims to be convinced by such
evidence?
Sam
Shamoun said:
Let’s now see how well Zawadi did in answering my challenges:
My Response:
First of all Sam Shamoun forgets that among the
Muslims lived hypocrites who would act as Muslims and therefore have a purpose to lie.
Even God in the glorious Quran warns the Prophet about there being hypocrites during his
lifetime (5:61;9:61-9:70;9:73-100). So if there were hypocrites during the time of the
Prophet, it is most likely that they were also present after the death of the Prophet.
RESPONSE:
Zawadi doesn’t seem to realize how this response calls into question the entire
body of Islamic literature. If Muslim hypocrites were able to successfully introduce
material into the Islamic corpus then Zawadi has no way of knowing how much of the Islamic
literature can be trusted. He has no certain way of knowing how much of the data has been
affected by such material from so-called hypocrites. After all, if those who were closest
to the time of Muhammad couldn’t successfully keep out data concocted by the
hypocrites then how could later generations be able to do so? How could individuals who
were further removed from the events be more successful in sifting out corrupted
narrations when earlier generations couldn’t? So this is no response at all, and
Zawadi has only managed to further discredit his religion.
My Response:
First of all just because the lies of the hypocrites
have been discovered by scholars of hadith that does not mean that the hypocrites fooled
all those people back in their time.
Hypocrites could have easily lied to collectors of
hadith and then the collectors of hadith would do research and discover their lies.
Scholars of hadith from research knew who the liars were. They did their research. The
hypocrites would be known and exposed and told by everyone not to be trusted.
Secondly, assuming that a hypocrite ever did succeed
in introducing a false hadith. This would never have any affect on doctrine. As all
doctrine related hadith are taken from mutawattir or saheeh hadith or hasan hadeeth.
Scholars of Islam would never take Islamic doctrine from suspected hadith or weak hadith.
Doctrine related matters would only be taken from Hadith that would have been impossible
to forge. For example, the five pillars of faith. We know the five pillars of faith
because the companions of the Prophet acted upon it and kept teaching it to the next
generation who taught it to the next generation. Therefore, it would have been impossible
to forge such a thing unless all the hundreds of thousands of Muslims came together and
decided to forge it together. This goes for all the other doctrine related matters.
An example of a weak hadith is "Seek knowledge,
even in China" Scholars of hadith have discovered that this Hadith is weak. How does
this affect Islam though? There are plenty of other Hadith where the Prophet orders us to
seek knowledge. But the 'even in China' part is not there. So how did this affect the
Islamic creed?
Unlike the insertions of Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-8
which do affect doctrine related matter.
Sam
Shamoun said:
Secondly, authors such as Ibn Ishaq and others would take
their source of information from certain Jews. Some of these traditions are known as the
Israeiliyat. (
Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume
II, p 173) So scholars who don't have a chain of narration
would most likely take their information from them. Muslim scholars would record them but
they did not go around fooling people telling them it was authentic. They knew that
Muslims would read his book and see that the story does not have a chain of narration and
therefore cannot be confirmed. Now just because the story does not have a narration that
does not mean it is automatically considered false, however it is also not automatically
considered true. Therefore, until something is proven to be true, it cannot be used as
evidence to charge some one with a crime.
RESPONSE:
Note the logic of Zawadi’s argumentation. Even though Muslims wouldn’t fool
people by authenticating sources which came from the Jews, they would however still
include them in their writings without ever cautioning their readers about their veracity!
Even if we assume that this was the case then why did later Muslims omit material that
they felt incriminated Muhammad’s character? Why didn’t they simply include them
as well, much like Ibn Ishaq did with his stories which supposedly came from the Jews?
After all, wouldn’t the people have seen that such stories were weak? The very fact
that later sources omitted them soundly refutes Zawadi’s logic since these Muslims
realized that people would not have necessarily assumed that they were weak narrations
(this is assuming for argument’s sake that these stories were in fact unreliable).
Second, Ibn Ishaq often provides a hint when he deems a certain anecdote as spurious.
The translator of his work into English, Alfred Guillaume states:
The opinions of Muslim critics on I.I.'s trustworthiness deserve a special paragraph; but
here something may be said of the author's caution and fairness. A word that very
frequently precedes a statement is za’ama or za’amu, ‘he
(they) alleged’. It carries with it more than a hint that the statement may not be
true, though on the other hand it may be sound. Thus there are fourteen or more
occurrences of the caveat from p. 87 to 148 alone, besides a frequent note that only
God knows whether a particular statement is true or not. Another indication of
reserve if not skepticism underlies the expression fi ma dhukira li, as in the
story of the jinn who listened to Muhammad as he prayed; Muhammad's order to ‘Umar to
kill Suwayd; one of Gabriel's visits to Muhammad; the reward of two martyrs to the man
killed by a woman. An expression of similar import is fi ma balaghani.
VERY SELDOM DOES I.I. MAKE ANY COMMENT OF HIS OWN ON THE TRADITIONS HE RECORDS APART
FROM THE MENTAL RESERVATION IMPLIED IN THESE TERMS. Therefore when he does express an
opinion it is the more significant ... (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn
Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume
[Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. xix; bold and capital
emphasis ours)
Unfortunately for Zawadi, Ibn Ishaq provided no such clues when he narrated these
specific reports that we quoted regarding Muhammad’s brutality. This presupposes that
he himself deemed such stories to be authentic.
Third, how does Zawadi know that these stories of Muhammad killing Abu Afak and others
are from the Isra’iliyat sources when Ibn Ishaq never expressly stated that this is
where he got his information? On what grounds does he believe that if an isnad isn’t
provided then this makes it all the more likely that they came from the Jews? Does this
therefore mean that any time an isnad is given that this means it couldn’t come from
such sources?
My Response:
Like I said before the Muslims didn't fool the people by
authenticating sources. The people would read their books. If they saw that there is an
isnad for what they say they would assume that it was authenticated. If they did not see
that there was an isnad then the Muslims wouldn't automatically. However, they would also
not automatically disbelieve in it. But the Muslim scholars still left it in their books.
It is just like how the scholars did with the NIV Bible. If there were passages that had
doubt in them, they would put footnotes on the bottom indicating that these passages were
not found in the earliest manuscripts. That was their style of telling the people. The
Muslim style of telling the people was if they did not provide an isnad for what they
said.
All I am trying to say and I want Sam and everyone else to
understand this carefully. IF THERE IS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN
INVESTIGATED INTO OBJECTIVELY AND APPROPRIATELY THEN HOW CAN WE RELY ON ITS
AUTHENTICITY?
Dr Khalifa might shed some light on the matter.....
N
o-biography of any
great man can offer such richness of details reported
by hundreds of his contemporaries to the generation
that followed. This transmission continued
orally for more than a century before a scholarly and
critical sifting process began to compile well-authenticated
and standard collections. It was a task of
great responsibility and was discharged in a manner unequalled
in historical research........
This research brought into
being a new science called Asthma’-ur-Rijal
– inquiry into the status character and
veracity of thousands of people in the chain of transmitters. The Hadith literature, consisting of sayings and doings of the Prophet, was thus graded on the basis of more or less reliability. Even after sincere and stupendous efforts the judgment of the critical collector is not immune from error, and every generation can exercise its own judgment again. But nobody can deny that, not only in broad outline, but often in point of detail, the Hadith record is more trustworthy than the life of almost any other great man in the past.......
So we find that in the
authentic collections of Hadith the account of some of
the campaigns is only incidental and forms a very
small part of the narrative. But the common mentality
of the masses remained very much unaltered in this
respect, and they loved much more to hear about military
exploits than about moral exhortations and questions
of law. Writers like Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi catered to
this vulgar taste. When the scrupulously critical
traditionists read their books, they were filled with
indignation, encountering silly and unfounded narrations
in them. Nevertheless, there are some critics who
consider Ibn Ishaq trustworthy, although in the opinion
of others he is unreliable.
As to Waqidi, almost all
serious writers of Islam have called him a consummate
liar. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was sorely indignant about
these writers and Imam Shafi'i calls Waqidi a
confirmed liar. Khatib Baghdadi says about Ibn Ishaq
that his unreliability rests on the fact that instead
of resorting to reliable Muslim sources, he quotes
from Jews and Christians.
(Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, The
Prophet and His Message, Published by the Institute of Islamic Culture, 2 Club Road, Lahore, Pakistan ©1987 online source: http://muslim-canada.org/ch1profmessage.pdf)
Does this mean
that Ibn Ishaq is completely unreliable? No! But the unfounded and uninvestigated
chainless narrations are doubtful. Understand that!
Sam
Shamoun said:
Fourth, Zawadi is erroneously assuming that if such tales did come from Jewish sources
this automatically means that they are questionable. But why should that be the case? Why
shouldn’t we assume the exact opposite, that the Jews would be able to more
accurately recount the atrocities committed against them by Muhammad than would Muslims?
It is like saying that stories from the Jews regarding the atrocities they experienced
during the holocaust should not be trusted. After all, this is nothing more than
Isra’iliyat propaganda!
My Response:
Again I never said that if information came from Jews
then that automatically means that it is unreliable. Jews could have a great motive to lie
about your Prophet because they rejected him and would do anything to belittle him.
Plus if scholars wanted to eradicate all information
that shows the Prophet's so called 'abuse' to the Jews then they would have eradicated and
deemed unauthentic all the narrations about the Prophet waging wars against the Jews now
wouldn't they? But they didn't. So why would they cancel out certain ones then? That is
because they were truly truthful and discovered that those specific narrations are
unreliable. If the scholars of Islam truly didn't want any incriminating information
against the Prophet to be released then they would have eradicated everything. However,
there is no incriminating information against the Prophet from authentic sources because
the Prophet was simply a great messenger sent from God.
The analogy of the holocaust does not work because we
have the murders and dead bodies on video tape. We also have nazi soldiers coming forth
testifying that they did what they did to the Jews. Do you have that kind of evidence
against the Prophet?
Sam
Shamoun said:
Fifth, what will Zawadi do with the fact that the Quran itself contains
Isra’iliyyat or Jewish sources and fables? See the following links for the
documentation:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/borrow.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/5b.html
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil4.html
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/chartumim.html
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/sayfallaah.html
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/borrow.html
Will he admit on this basis that the Jews corrupted parts of the Quran, or assume that
these reports are reliable even though they originate from Jewish source material? He will
obviously choose the latter, which means that just because something may come from Jewish
or even Christian literature doesn’t mean that it isn’t reliable.
My Response:
Well I never said that just because something is from
Jewish or Christian sources then it is necessarily unreliable. Because Muslim scholars do
often authenticate some things that do come from non Muslim sources at times. Even from
the Israeliyat. What I am simply saying is that a source that has not been carefully
investigated into is not reliable enough to be used as evidence against something.
Sam
Shamoun said:
More importantly, there are other sources which confirm these stories as genuine
events. For example, Zawadi in one of his recent rebuttals (*) cites a Muslim scholar named Qadi 'Iyad. What makes this
interesting is that this Qadi referred to some of these very events to establish that
anyone who satirizes or mocks Muhammad must be killed! Note the examples he presented:
In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He
asked, "Who will deal with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His
Messenger." He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in
distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the
Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than
idol-worship. It was for causing him harm. Abu Rafi', who used to harm the Messenger of
Allah and work against him, was also killed.
Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two
slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.
In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said,
"Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid said, "I will," so the
Prophet sent him out and he killed him.
'Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say,
"Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent
az-Zubayr and he killed him.
It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save
me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.
It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr
to kill him.
Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I
heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not
distress him.
Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said,
"Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will,
Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who
said, "Two goats will not lock horns over me." (Muhammad Messenger of Allah
(Ash-Shifa of Qadi 'Iyad), Qadi 'Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman
Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], pp.
378-379)
The translator has a note identifying the woman from Khatma:
2. A tribe allied to the Aws. She was 'Usma' bint Marwan. (Ibid., p. 378)
Moreover, Ibn Hisham, one of the oldest editors of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, is known to have
omitted material he deemed negative or inauthentic from Ibn Ishaq's work. Yet he retained
the stories of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan being murdered:
After Abu Afak was murdered, Asma wrote a poem blaming Islam and its followers of
killing their opponents.
When Muhammad heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's
daughter?" Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he
went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what
he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O
Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle
said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so Umayr went back to his
people. Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint
Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I
have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me
waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma.
The day after bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they
saw the power of Islam.
Umayr was the first one to convert amongst the men of Khatma, he was called "the
reciter" and Abdallah ben Aws and Khazima bin Thabit. (Hisham, Al-Sira
al-Nabawiyya, p. 306; online source)
This pretty much puts to rest Zawadi's claim that these events are unreliable according
to Muslim standards.
My Response:
First of all why is that Qadi only said that
the killing of Kab bin Ashraf was from a sound hadith and not the others? Plus the Prophet
has more of a reason to have Kab killed than just him mocking the Prophet http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_2.htm
Secondly, assuming Qadi was supporting that the
Hadith of Asma was authentic then where is the proof. It is clearly proven that the Hadith
was a forgery http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/silas-kill.html#The%20Killing%20of%20‘Asma.
Maybe Qadi did not know about the fact that it was a forgery. Or did Qadi refute the fact
that it was a forgery? Or is Sam Shamoun only appealing to authority? (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
Just because I quoted Qadi in another article that
does not mean he is infallible. There is proof that the hadith is a forgery. As for the
other narration I quoted by him in the other article, there is no proof that there is
anything wrong with the narration so that is why I used it.
The same for Ibn Hisham, he probably did not do his
homework properly as well regarding the Hadith.
Sam
Shamoun said:
Finally, Zawadi's comments would only discredit Islam further since they imply that not
only were Muslim hypocrites able to corrupt Islamic sources, but even the Jews managed to
tamper with Muslim literature! Amazing how Zawadi thinks that his responses are actually
helping to defend Islam’s veracity.
My Response:
Yes Sam but they got caught doing so. Again like I
said earlier, even if they did completely succeed in introducing a false hadith it would
have no effect on doctrine what so ever.
So sometimes these scholars would just include information but
however not necessarily claim that it is authentic. Even if you read books about the life
of the Prophet Muhammad such as those by Muhammad Al Ghazzali you would even see that
sometimes he includes a story and then has a foot note indicating that the story is from a
weak hadith.
So Shamoun cannot take everything that Ibn Ishaq says, especially the parts which have
no isnad as 100% true. If they are doubtful he cannot use them as evidence. If he insists
then he would be guilty committing a logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)
Sam
Shamoun said:
RESPONSE:
Let’s again correct some more of Zawadi’s errors, shall we? First, I do not
accept everything that Ibn Ishaq says, nor does it affect my argument whether I do or not.
After all, Christians do not reject Muhammad solely on the basis of his atrocities, or on
what some Muslim writer has written, but on the grounds that he contradicts the revelation
and message of God’s real prophets as recorded in the Holy Bible. But my argument
does affect the Muslims since it challenges their view of Muhammad and his credibility by
citing their own sources.
The fact of the matter is that here we have the oldest extant Muslim biography which
contains material showing how evil and treacherous Muhammad truly was, which should impact
any morally upright person, whether Jew, Christian, agnostic, Muslim etc.
Second, Zawadi thinks that these narrations are inauthentic but still has failed to
provide any reason why a Muslim would include such information which makes his prophet
look so evil. If these events didn’t happen and were forgeries created by the enemies
of Islam then why did people such as Ibn Ishaq include them? Why didn’t he simply
omit such details especially when they made his prophet look so bad? The fact that such
anecdotes were included argues quite strongly for their veracity, since Muslims normally
would omit negative references to their prophet. They wouldn’t retain them.
In fact, one of the arguments that Muslims employ to demonstrate the veracity of the
Quran is to point to references where Muhammad is rebuked for some mistakes or sins he
committed (cf. S. 9:43; 40:55; 47:19; 8:1-2; 80:1-10). Muslims claim that these examples
prove that Muhammad couldn’t have authored the Quran since he wouldn’t rebuke
himself if he had. But this same logic applies to these Islamic narrations that present
Muhammad as a cold-blooded murderer.
My Response:
So Sam basically admits that even if these
allegations against Prophet Muhammad are true then that does not necessarily disprove his
Prophethood. Then what is the whole point? Your doing all this just to challenge my view
of Muhammad? Then what? Okay fine you won? Now what? Have you disproved his Prophethood
yet?
Your saying that he went against the prophets of the
Bible. How ironic that it is actually Paul who did who introduced a whole new doctrine
completely unfounded in the Old testament.
Sam Shamoun said:
Zawadi tries to defend the hadiths and Muhammad’s blatant disregard of the
Quran’s condemnation of poetry with:
My Response:
Shamoun forgets that Prophet Muhammad is the one who
explains the Quran (16:44). When we see that the Prophet does something, we apply it to
the Quran. If we see that the Prophet does not condemn all poetry then we know that the
verse in the Quran is not condemning all poetry. This just shows Sam's ignorance regarding
how Muslims make Tafsir of the Quran. Tafsir could be done in different ways and one way
is that the Prophet does it either by his actions or sayings. For example, it says in the
Quran that travelers should shorten their prayers. It does not indicate how short we make
them. When we read the hadith we see that the Prophet shortened his noon prayer from 4
rakah to two rakah. So then when we look at the Quran now and we know by how much to
shorten the prayer.
Same thing, when we read the Quran now, we know that it is about bad and useless
poetry.
Later on he will say regarding my example of why his arguments are quite circular:
My Response:
Again this just shows Shamoun's ignorance of
understanding scripture. He fails to realize that we look at the Prophet and see his
actions and sayings in order to understand the Quran.
Unlike Christians, what standard do they use to understand scripture? Who's
interpretations are correct? The Unitarians or Trinitarians? Text could be interpreted in
several ways, so who's standard to use? We use the Prophet because God himself set that
standard. (Surah 16:44)