返回总目录
More on the Shahadah
More on the Shahadah
Sam Shamoun
Bassam Zawadi, one of Osama Abdallahs writers, has written
a response
to my article on the real Islamic confession.
Zawadi begins his response by discussing the sect of Rashad Khalifa:
My Response:
I am assuming that Sam is talking about the Rashad
Khalifa sect. They believe that the Shahadah "I witness that there is no god but
Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" is no where to be found in the Quran.
Well just because it is not there word by word that does not mean that the concept is not
there. The concept of there being no God but Allah is there in the Quran (3:18) and that
Muhammad is the Messenger of God is there in the Quran (48:29).
RESPONSE:
First, we are glad that Zawadi agrees that just because an exact formulation or word is
not found in a document (in this case the Quran) this doesnt necessarily mean that
the book or source doesnt teach it. Since we assume that Zawadi is consistent we
therefore expect him to never use the argument that the Holy Bible doesnt teach
doctrines such as the Holy Trinity just because the exact word or formulation is not found
within the Jewish-Christian Scriptures.
Second, as we shall shortly show, the followers of Rashad Khalifa (also known as
submitters) are correct in what they basically stated. Zawadis comments that the two
parts of the Islamic confession are found in the Quran are beside the point. The argument
is not whether one can find references where Muhammad is called an apostle or messenger of
Allah. The real issue is whether the Quran makes it an article of faith to profess that
Allah alone is God AND that Muhammad is his messenger in order to be recognized as
a Muslim. The fact of the matter is that it doesnt, and to use the logic employed by
Zawadi would end proving that the creed of Islam should also include specific mention of
other messengers as well. More on this later.
He also says:
Even the people back at Prophet Muhammad's time used to bear witness that he was the
Messenger of God.
Surah 63:1
When the hypocrites come unto thee (O
Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah
knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites
indeed are speaking falsely.
The verse is talking about those hypocrites that
used to come and bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger but they were lying inside.
Allah knew they were lying. But the point that I am trying to show from this verse is that
people at the time of the Prophet did bear witness that he is the Messenger of God.
So the concept of bearing witness that Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his
Messenger is a concept found in the Quran. It does not have to be word by word in the same
sentence. This in no way indicates Muhammad is divine or anything just like how the Rashad
Khalifa sect claim. The Prophet warned us not to do the same mistake as the Christians
He goes on to say:
My Response:
God does bear witness that Muhammad is a
Messenger of God.
Surah 4:79:
Whatever of good befalleth thee (O man) it is from Allah,
and whatever of ill befalleth thee it is from thyself. We have sent thee (Muhammad) as a
messenger unto mankind and Allah is sufficient as Witness.
Surah 4:166:
But Allah bears witness by what He has revealed to
you that He has revealed it with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness (also); and Allah
is sufficient as a witness.
Surah 6:19:
Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say:
Allah is witness between you and me; and this Quran has been revealed to me that with
it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are
other gods with Allah? Say: I do not bear witness. Say: He is only one God, and surely I
am clear of that which you set up (with Him).
RESPONSE:
Zawadis claim that Sura 63:1 shows that people were confessing Muhammad as
Gods messenger misses the point. The point here is that it is only the deceivers
who were bearing witness that Muhammad is a messenger in order to mask their deception
and unbelieving hearts. True believers do not need to publicly bear witness that Muhammad
is a messenger since they show that this is what they believe by simply obeying his
instructions. To put it another way, it wasnt the believers at the time of Muhammad
who were verbally bearing witness that he was an apostle, but unbelievers and hypocrites
that did so.
Second, the issue is not whether the Quran claims that Allah testifies that Muhammad is
his messenger, or that believers are to believe that he is. The issue at hand, which
Zawadi conveniently ignores, is whether Muslims are required to make a public confession,
to testify in the words given in the hadith literature, i.e. "I beat witness that
Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," in order to be recognized as a Muslim. The fact
of the matter is that the Quran nowhere commands Muslims to make this profession, the
confession that Muhammad is Allahs messenger in order to validate their Islam.
The Quran actually requires a Muslim to profess faith in all the messengers without
making any distinction between them:
SAY you: 'We believe in God, AND in that which has been sent down on us AND
sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, AND that which was
given to Moses AND Jesus AND the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no
division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.' S. 2:136 Arberry
The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of
faith. Each one (of them) believeth in God, His angels, His books, AND HIS APOSTLES.
"WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION (they say) BETWEEN ON AND ANOTHER OF HIS APOSTLES." AND
THEY SAY: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is
the end of all journeys." S. 2:285 Y. Ali
O you who believe! believe in Allah AND His Apostle AND the Book which He has revealed
to His Apostle AND the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and
His angels AND His APOSTLES and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error. S.
4:136 Shakir
The fact is that the orthodox Sunni creed does make a distinction since it singles out
Muhammad alone in its confession. This is a direct violation of and in stark contradiction
to the plain teachings of the Quran.
In light of the foregoing, the Islamic confession of faith would go something like this:
I bear witness that:
(1) I believe in Allah.
(2) I believe in His angels.
(3) I believe in His books.
(4) I believe in His messengers and that I do not make a difference or differentiate
between any of them.
Moreover, the Quran says that prophets were all inspired to profess that Allah is god
alone:
And We sent never a Messenger before thee except that We revealed to him, saying, There
is no god but I; so serve Me. S. 21:25 Arberry
It even claims that prophets and messengers commanded people to fear Allah and obey
them:
The people of Noah treated the Messengers as liars, When their brother Noah said to
them, Will you not be God-Fearing? Surely I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my
trust. So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME; And I ask you no reward for it. My reward is only
with the Lord of the worlds; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME; S. 26:105-110 Sher Ali
The tribe of Ad rejected the Messengers, When their Brother Hud said to them,
Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So
fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME
So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME; S. 26:123-126, 131
Sher Ali
The tribe of Thamud also rejected the Messengers, When their brother Salih said to
them, will you not guard against evil? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful
to my trust; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME
So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME;
S. 26:141-144, 150 Sher Ali
The people of Lot rejected the Messengers, When their brother Lot said to them,
Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So
fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME. S. 26:160-163
The people of the Wood rejected the Messengers, When Shu'aib said to them, `Will you
not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust. So fear ALLAH
AND OBEY ME. S. 26:176-179
This again shows that to follow only the Qurans teachings a Muslim would be
forced to confess faith not just in Allahs unity but also profess belief in the
apostleship of many messengers by explicitly referring to them by name!
Finally, and more importantly, there is a place where believers bear witness regarding
their belief, but it is not in connection with Muhammad:
And when Jesus perceived their unbelief, he said, 'Who will be my helpers unto God?'
The Apostles SAID, 'We will be helpers of God; we believe in God; witness thou
our submission. Lord, we believe in that Thou hast sent down, and we follow the
Messenger. Inscribe us therefore WITH THOSE WHO BEAR WITNESS.' S. 3:52-53 Arberry
The Disciples of Christ bear witness and testify that they believe in God and in Jesus
as his Messenger. They even pray to God to inscribe them as those who bore witness to
these things! Thus, if anything, this passage provides support that those Islamic narrations
that make it mandatory to make a profession of faith in Christ are correct.
Zawadi also had this to say regarding the Muslim submitters use of Sura 63:1:
My Response:
This is very poor understanding of Scripture. The verse
is not saying that hypocrites are the ones who bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger.
It is saying that those specific hypocrites are lying when they say that they bear witness
that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. They say it, but don't mean it inside. The verse
would not make sense. How can God accus[sic] them of lying when they say Muhammad
is a Messenger of God and it is there in the Quran that Muhammad is a Messenger of God?
God is saying that they are lying because they don't mean what they say.
RESPONSE:
What truly shows poor understanding is Zawadis distortion of the point being made
by the submitters. As we just saw above, their point wasnt that Allah was accusing
the hypocrites for lying when they testified that Muhammad was his messenger. Their point
was that the only group that felt the need to publicly testify that Muhammad was a messenger
were the liars and hypocrites as a way of covering up their disbelief. Basically, they are
trying to show that the Quran doesnt require believers to publicly profess Muhammads
apostleship since by obeying and following the Quran they will be proving their belief in him.
Zawadi says regarding the assertion that placing Muhammads name in the shahadah
violates Islamic monotheism:
My Response:
Who said that by putting Muhammad's name in
the shahada means that we are not keeping the religion absolutely to God alone? Putting
Muhammad's name in the same sentence as God does not mean they are equal. If I say that
"John and his dog were taking a walk in the park." Am I showing equality
between the two? If I say that "The employer and his employee are doing a great job
running the company." Am I implying that they both have the same authority?
RESPONSE:
It is quite obvious that Zawadi hasnt spent time studying what Muslims have said
regarding the implication of adding Muhammads name next to Allahs. For
instance, a renowned Muslim scholar named Qadi Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi noted regarding
Islams creed:
Qatada said, "Allah exalted his fame in this world and the Next.
There is no speaker, witness nor anyone doing the prayer who fails to say, There is
no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri related that the Prophet said, "Jibril, peace be upon him,
came to me and said, My Lord and your Lord says, Do you know how I have
exalted your fame?" I said, Allah and His Messenger know best. He
said, 'When I am mentioned you are mentioned with Me."
Ibn Ata quoted a hadith qudsi saying, "I completed belief with your
being mentioned with Me." And another one which says, "I have made your mention
part of My mention so whoever mentions Me, mentions you."
Ja'far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, "No one mentions you as the Messenger but that he
mentions Me as the Lord."
The fact that mention of the Prophet is directly connected to mention of Allah also
shows that obedience to the Prophet is connected to obedience to Allah and his name to
Allah's name. Allah says, "Obey Allah and His Messenger" (2:32) and
"Believe in Allah and His Messenger." (4:136) Allah joins them together
using the conjunction wa WHICH IS THE CONJUNCTION OF PARTNERSHIP. IT IS NOT
PERMITTED TO USE THIS CONJUNCTION IN CONNECTION WITH ALLAH IN THE CASE OF ANYONE EXCEPT
THE PROPHET.
Hudhayfa said that the Prophet said, "None of you should say, What Allah
wills and (wa) so-and-so wills. Rather say, What Allah wills.
Then stop and say, So-and-so wills."
Al-Khattabi said, "The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the
will of Allah before the will of others. He chose then (thumma) which
implies sequence and deference as opposed to and (wa) WHICH IMPLIES
PARTNERSHIP."
Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the
presence of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Whoever
obeys Allah and His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever rebels against them
both (joining them together by using the dual form)
" The Prophet said to him,
"What a bad speaker you are! Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]"
Abu Sulayman said, "He disliked the two names being joined together in that way
BECAUSE IT IMPLIES EQUALITY."
(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], pp. 7-8; bold and capital emphasis ours)
"
He coupled his name with His own name, and his pleasure with His pleasure.
He made him one of the two pillars of tawhid." (Ibid., p. 27)
Ibn Abbas said, "Written on the door of the Garden is: I am Allah. There is
no god but Me. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I will not punish anyone who says
that." (Ibid., p. 90)
Another source asserts that Muhammad didnt like it when people used the
conjunction wa (and) when associating him with Allah:
Further, a man once said to the Prophet
"What Allah and what
you will." He
said,
Do not say, 'What Allah and what Muhammad will.'
Rather say, 'What Allah wills and then what Muhammad wills.' (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. 285)
Thus, Muslim sources, not Christians or Orientalists, emphatically affirm that Muhammads
name being combined with Allah through the use of the Arabic conjunction wa implies
partnership, that Muhammad is a partner with Allah! This is especially true when we realize
that according to Sunni Islam the recitation of the Islamic creed is a necessary first step
in attaining salvation. In other words, Muslim salvation is dependent on reciting that
Allah is god alone and Muhammad is his messenger, which means that Muhammad is just
as much a necessary object of salvation as is Allah!
In order to help Christians understand the significance and implicit idolatry
associated with this conjoining of Allah and Muhammad it will be helpful to cite
the following biblical passage:
"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God,
AND (kai) Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3
The Lord Jesus, by using the Greek conjunction kai in his prayer, makes himself
the necessary object of the knowledge that leads to eternal life. In other words, Jesus
makes himself a coequal partner with God by claiming that eternal life is dependent on
knowing both the Father and the Son. As one commentary noted:
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent--This is the only place where our Lord gives
Himself this compound name, afterwards so current in apostolic preaching and writing.
Here the terms are used in their strict signification--"JESUS," because He
"saves His people from their sins"; "CHRIST," as anointed
with the measureless fulness of the Holy Ghost for the exercise of His saving offices
"WHOM THOU HAST SENT," in the plenitude of Divine Authority and Power, to save.
"The very juxtaposition here of Jesus Christ with the Father
is a proof, by implication, of our Lord's Godhead. The knowledge of God and
a creature could not be eternal life, and such an association of the one with
the other would be inconceivable" [ALFORD]. (Jamieson & Fausset
& Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible;
online source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
The late renowned Bible expositor John Gill stated:
The Arians and Unitarians urge this text, against the true and proper deity of
our Lord Jesus, and his equality with the Father, but without success; since the Father is
called the only true God, in opposition to the many false gods of the Heathens, but not to
the exclusion of the Son or Spirit; for Christ is also styled the one Lord, and only Lord
God, but not to the exclusion of the Father; yea the true God and eternal life; was he
not, he would never, as here, join himself with the only true God; and besides, eternal
life is made to depend as much upon the knowledge of him, as of the Father. The reason
of this different mode of expression, is owing to the character of Christ as Mediator, who
is said to be sent by the only true God, about the business of man's salvation. Nor is it
of any moment what the Jew objects, that Jesus here confesses, that the true God is only
one God; nor does he call himself God, only the Messiah sent by God; and that the Apostle
Paul also asserts the unity of God, (1 Timothy 1:17); and therefore Jesus cannot be God:
for Christ and his Father, the only true God, are one; and that he is the one true God
with his Father, he tacitly suggests here by joining himself with him; and what the
Apostle Paul says of the one and only wise God, may as well be understood of Christ, the
Son of God, as of the Father; since all the characters in the text agree with him, and of
him he had been speaking in the context.
(online
source; bold emphasis ours)
The grouping of the Father and the Lord Jesus as the necessary objects of salvation
makes perfect sense in light of the Gospels teaching that Christ is God the Son
(cf. John 1:1-4, 10, 14, 18; 17:1-2, 4-5; 20:28-31).
Interestingly, even the unbelievers saw that Muhammads statements were similar to
what Christians were professing about Jesus!
It is related that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said to the Prophet,
"Part of your excellence with Allah is that He has made obedience to you obedience to
Him. Allah says, Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah (4:80)
and If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you."
(3:31) It is related that when this ayat was sent down, people said, ‘Muhammad
wants us to take him as a mercy IN THE WAY CHRISTIANS DID WITH ISA,’
so Allah revealed, ‘Say: Obey Allah, and the Messenger.’" (3:32)
(Iyad, p. 9; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Thus, Islamic tradition has basically turned Muhammad into a god by grouping him with
Allah in its official creed as an object of salvation. It has done the inconceivable (in
the words of Alford) by associating God with a creature.
For more on John 17:3 we recommend these articles:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_john17_3.htm
http://answer-islam.org/OnetrueGod.html
Zawadi continues:
My Response:
The hadith regarding the Shahadah that
includes Jesus' name in it has a reason for it.
Qurtubi said that the point of this hadith is to show the Christian how they went
astray regarding their portrayal and belief regarding Jesus and his mother. And that a
Christian can benefit from this saying if he said it in his testimony if he converted to
Islam.
Nawawi said that this hadith is great in the sense that it talks about doctrine which
is so abused by other religions. For example, the Jews did not believe in Jesus and they
insulted his mother. This hadith shows honor to Jesus and his mother.
(
Note: I only
paraphrased Qurtubi's and Nawawi's interpretations. Check the link for the exact wording
at http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=5299)
RESPONSE:
Several responses to these erroneous assertions are in order. In the first place none
of the hadiths that include Jesus within Islams creedal confession is directed to
Christians or Jews. The narrations are directed to all individuals:
Narrated Ubada:
The Prophet said, "IF ANYONE TESTIFIES that None has the right to be
worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His
Apostle, and that Jesus is Allah's Slave and His Apostle and His Word which He bestowed on
Mary and a Spirit from Him, and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true, Allah will admit
him into Paradise with the deeds which he had done even if those deeds were few."
(Junada, the sub-narrator said, "Ubada added, Such a person can enter
Paradise through any of its eight gates he likes.") (Sahih Al-Bukhari,
Volume 4, Book 55,
Number 644)
It is narrated on the authority of Ubadah b. Samit that the messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) observed: HE WHO SAID: "There is no god but Allah, He
is One and there is no associate with Him, that Muhammad is his servant and His messenger,
that Christ is servant and the son of His slave-girl and he (Christ) His word which He
communicated to Mary and is His Spirit, that Paradise is a fact and Hell is a fact,"
Allah would make him (he who affirms these truths enter Paradise through any one of its
eight doors which he would like. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1,
Number 0043)
Thus, everyone is required to publicly confess Christ as part of his or her testimony
of faith.
Second, if the inclusion of Jesus within the creed was intended to help the Christians
get their Christology right then by the same token Muhammad should have also included
Ezra (Uzayr) whom the Jews believed was Gods son — according to the Quran at least:
And the Jews say, Ezra is the son of ALLAH, and the
Christians say, the Messiah is the son of ALLAH; that is what they say with
their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. ALLAH's
curse be on them! How they are turned away. S. 9:30 Sher Ali
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of
Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the
moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have
no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun
and the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then
announce, Let every nation follow what they used to worship. So the companions
of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and
the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain
those who used to worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some
of the people of the Scripture. Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a
mirage. Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to
worship?" They will reply, "We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah."
It will be said to them, "You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What
do you want (now)?" They will reply, "We want You to provide us with
water." Then it will be said to them "Drink," and they will fall down in
Hell (instead). Then it will be said to the Christians, "What did you use to
worship?" They will reply, "We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah."
It will be said, "You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93,
Number 532s)
Using Qurtubis and Zawadis logic we would therefore expect Muhammad to have
demanded that the Jews publicly profess Ezra as the slave and apostle of Allah so as to
help cure them of their bad theology as well.
Third, if Nawawis reasoning were sound then we again would expect to find
Muhammad commanding the Jews to acknowledge the apostleship of John the Baptist since they
also reject(ed) him as a prophet.