Rebuttal to James Arlandson's article
Does Islam
improve on Christianity?
By Sami Zaatari
He Wrote
Does Muhammad
fulfill and complete the mission and ministry of Jesus?
Muslims answer with an emphatic yes.
Basic Islamic
theology teaches that since Allah sent Gabriel down with the Quran
to Muhammad the messenger of Allah, Muhammad and the Quran fulfill and complete the mission of Christ and the New Testament.
Muhammad seems to recognize the value of the Bible (Suras
My Response
Yes, Islam
does improve on Christianity. Islam corrects Christianity on several issues, such as
Jesus, such as who was sacrificed and the issue of salvation. The Quran
establishes Jesus' true message, which is to worship one God, not to worship him as a God.
The prophet Muhammad did recognize the value of the Bible, all us Muslims do, we do believe there is truth in the Bible.
http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltomattslick1.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_not_error_free.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/que3.htm
http://www.mostmerciful.com/quran-does-not-state-bible-is-true.htm
He Wrote
Sura
5:15-16 illustrates this theology. In the context of Muhammad’s distortion of the
Christian doctrine of the Sonship of Christ (
5:15 People of the Book [Jews and Christians] ... a light
has now come to you from God, and a Scripture [the Quran]
making things clear, 16 with which God guides
them who follow what pleases Him to ways of peace, bringing them from darkness out into
light, by His will, and guiding them to a straight path. (Haleem)
(cf. 4:157)
A
Bible-educated Christian today immediately recognizes the imagery of light. Jesus says
that he was sent down from heaven as the light of the world, and Christians have passed
from darkness into the light (John 1:4-5, 8:12, 9:5, 12:46; 1 Peter 2:9). Now, however,
Muhammad claims that Christians had been living in darkness, and he has come to clarify
matters for them, as if things had been muddied. The Quran
offers guidance along a "straight path," a theme often repeated in the Muslim
Scriptures (e.g. Sura or Chapter 1) and makes "things
clear." Verse 16 is likely one of the verses a Muslim has in mind when he points out
that Islam is a religion of peace. But is it?
My Response
Yes,
Muhammad is a light for Christians and Jews; he has come down with a new revelation that
clears out the falsehood in your religions. Yes, the Bible does state that Jesus was a
light for man, however so what James forgets is that basically all prophets are a light
for men since prophets come down to save us all from sin. So both the prophet Muhammad and
Jesus were lights of men in their respective times. The prophet Muhammad is the final
prophet sent to mankind with the final revelation which is the Quran.
He Wrote
A devout,
Bible-educated Christian in no way believes that Islam is superior, so how do we break
this deadlock? Ignore it? Given recent events like 9/11, this is no longer feasible. Do we
pretend that all religions are the same? But this forces us to deny some basic,
diametrically opposed and irreconcilable doctrines that all religions have. So do we argue
over these abstract doctrines?
Debating
abstract ideas like the Unity or the Trinity of God has a place in the Christian-Muslim
dialogue, but neither claim can be proven by simple observation. The Quran
everywhere affirms the strict Unity of God, whereas the New Testament everywhere affirms
the divinity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. So we have merely pitted one
sacred text against another, and to break this deadlock we must go down still other paths.
(For more information on the reliability of the New Testament, visit this page <../../Bible/Text/index.html>;
for the problems inhering in the Quran, go here <../../Quran/Contra/index.html>.)
My Response
As for
September 11 please visit these links:
For the
reliability of the Quran please visit these links:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html
http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltoarthurjeffery.htm
for the problems inhering the Bible please
visit these links:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Sources/
http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/exhibitDarius.htm
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/canons.htm
http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/exhibitC.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/problem_of_paul.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_embarrassing_2.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/criticism.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible-speak.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/christianity_contradicts_the_bible.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/christianity_contradicts_the_bible_part_2.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/jesus_contradicts_himself.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_1.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_2.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/a_t/christian_proof_texts.htm
He Wrote
Since
Muhammad lays down a serious challenge to Christ and Christianity, we Christians must
answer him. What would Christ say? As it turns out, he has given us a clear teaching on
how to evaluate a prophet who comes after him in history, especially if the later prophet
asserts his superiority over Christ: fruit inspection.
In the
context of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ spoke to the multitudes, few of whom or none of
whom were theologians, but simple agrarians. In Matt. 7:15-20, Christ uses unambiguous
language about discerning the truthfulness of prophets:
My Response
Yes, the
false prophet was Paul not Muhammad. It was Paul he came with a completely different
doctrine than the one Jesus preached. The prophet Muhammad is not the false prophet.
Yes, by
their fruit you shall know them. Thank you for bringing that up, since you are a well
documented liar, just visit my previous rebuttal to you, so I
guess the verse can be applied to you when it says:
Thus, by their
fruit you shall know them.
So I guess
that applies to you.
He Wrote
In
today’s western world in which millions would prefer to not rock the boat with Islam
and rather try to accommodate it, this passage may stand out as intolerant. But in these
verses Christ understands the stakes. Religious truth-claims come into the world by the
dozens, seemingly every second, and these claims are not merely abstract theories; the
lives of people are at risk. So the price of accommodation, since 9/11, is too high.
Besides, it is Muhammad who says that he is superior to Christ and that his new religion
improves on Christianity. He is the one who issued the challenge in the first place.
Therefore, 600+ years before Muhammad came on the world stage, Christ answers him (and
other self-proclaimed prophets) with a fruit inspection.
To
illustrate, let us suppose that I claim that my way is better than yours. Then I should be
able to back up my verbal assertion with my actions in obvious ways. My behavior should actually be better than yours, for my actions speak
louder than my words. Specifically, if I as the founder of a religion say that husbands in
my community are allowed to beat their wives (Sura 4:34), but
you as the founder of a religion say that husbands in your community are not allowed to
beat their wives, then how can my alleged superiority stand up in real life? I am
promoting an empirically bad practice, but you are not.
I simply do
not pass fruit inspection. That is, my fruit or behavior or
down-to-earth practices are rotten. Therefore, Christ is absolutely correct to use this
simple test for his followers to examine the claims of later prophets. "By their
fruit you shall know them" (Matt.
We can boil
down Muhammad’s challenge and Christ’s fruit inspection in a simple if-then
logical argument. This one is known as modus tollens or denying the consequent (the "then" clause).
(1)
If
A, then B. If Islam improves on Christianity, then these improvements should show up in
observable, down-to-earth ways.
(2)
Not-B. But these improvements do not show up in observable,
down-to-earth ways.
(3)
Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Islam does not improve on Christianity.
We now easily
defend each premise.
My Response
Once again
James proves he is a liar, note what he said:
, it is
Muhammad who says that he is superior to Christ
I challenge
you to bring me where the prophet said he is greater than Jesus,
this proves what a liar you are. It seems you have to lie in every single article you
write. I will let the Quran refute your claim and lie:
002.136
YUSUFALI: Say ye: "We believe in Allah,
and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il,
Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all)
prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we
bow to Allah (in Islam)."
002.285
YUSUFALI: The Messenger believeth in what hath
been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth
in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they
say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we
obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."
003.084
YUSUFALI: Say: "We believe in Allah, and
in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il,
Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets,
from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah
do we bow our will (in Islam)."
So all
prophets and messengers are equal, God makes no distinction between any of them.
Let us quote
some of the hadiths:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 608:
Narrated
Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said, "One should not say that I
am better than Jonah (i.e. Yunus) bin Matta."
So, he mentioned his father Matta. The Prophet mentioned the
night of his Ascension and said, "The prophet Moses was brown, a tall person as if
from the people of the tribe of Shanu'a. Jesus was a
curly-haired man of moderate height." He also mentioned Malik,
the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire, and Ad-Dajjal.
So the
prophet Muhammad is telling the Muslims that they shouldnt say
he is better than Jonah, meaning dont say he is greater than
Jonah etc. This also shows that the prophet Muhammad believed himself to be on the same
level as all other prophets, equal with them.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654:
Narrated
'Umar:
I
heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised
the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His
Apostle."
So if the
prophet Muhammad believed he was greater than Jesus he would tell his people to praise him
more than the Christians did with Jesus! Instead the prophet Muhammad tells his people to
not over praise him like Christians did with Jesus, hence it is obvious that the prophet
Muhammad did not believe that he was greater than Jesus or else he would say praise me
more than Jesus.
He Wrote
(1) If Islam
improves on Christianity, then these improvements should show up in observable,
down-to-earth ways.
We have
already defended this premise in our lead-up to it. Examining the life and practices of
the Founder of Christianity and the Founder of Islam is the first and best way to break
the deadlock between the two competing religions, because we can observe their behavior and actions down here on earth. By their fruits we shall
know them.
My Response
Yes, let us
see the actions of both men, to begin with let us see the actions of Jesus, now since you
believe Jesus is God then this means that Jesus commanded this:
Judges
So they sent
twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill
everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they
said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."
Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred
young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at
The Israelite
assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were
living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin
returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead
who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of
them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes
of
Then they
thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in
So note, the
men hide behind bushes like stalkers, and they wait for the women and once they see the
women they rush the women and kidnap them and then basically marry them! This is clear
rape; this is what you call ‘legalized rape’.
Numbers 31:
7-18 :
They attacked
Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed
all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur,
Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed
Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army
captured the Midianite women and children and seized their
cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages
where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the
plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet
them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had
returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.
"These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of
Zephaniah
2:12-15
"You
Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will
strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy
Isaiah
13:15-18
Anyone who is
captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death
right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking
hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against
So as you can
see, the God of the OT commanded his followers to kill women and children, Christians say
Jesus is God so hence it was Jesus who commanded these brutal acts. Let us see what the Quran says:
004.075
YUSUFALI: And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak,
are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children,
whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and
raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will
help!"
The Quran tells the Muslims to fight for the oppressed, man women and
children. The prophet Muhammad is obligated to follow the Quran,
so hence the prophet Muhammad is commanded to fight for the oppressed women and children,
the Bible under the command of Jesus says kill women and children. So it is pretty simple,
Jesus killed women and children, Muhammad fought for women and children.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257:
Narrated
'Abdullah:
During
some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women
and children.
Volume 4, Book
52, Number 258:
Narrated
Ibn 'Umar:
During
some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found
killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing
of women and children.
So the
prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, the Christian God who is Jesus
said god kill women and children. As James said, by their fruits you shall know them,
indeed.
He Wrote
(2) But these
improvements do not show up in observable, down-to-earth ways.
Defending
this premise with hard evidence answers most clearly the challenge that Muhammad levels
against Christ and demonstrates beyond any doubt that Muhammad’s fruit is bad,
whereas Christ’s fruit is indeed healthy and ripe.
My Response
Correction,
the prophet Muhammad's fruits are very good and healthy, he
tells us to fight for the opressed women and children, he also
tells us to not kill women and children. Jesus in the Bible tells you to kill women and
children, so I think we all know who has the good fruit.
He Wrote
The following
list has already been developed in this article
<ten_reasons.htm>, which is actually the basis for the current article.
If the reader believes that these actual practices in Muhammad’s life and the
following verses in the Quran are taken out of context or out
of thin air, then he or she should go to the link, and then, once there, he or she should
go to the further links provided under each point. These dubious practices actually
happened in Muhammad’s community, and Muhammad in his Quran
actually orders these atrocities. Also, to see the Quranic
verses in multiple translations, the reader should go here
and type in the references, like so: 24:2 (24 is the sura or
chapter, and 2 is the verse).
My Response
Yes, here is
the response to the first link you posted:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltojamesarlandson1.htm
He Wrote
Muhammad
nicknames his weapons.
Christ never
owned weapons because he never waged war on people.
My Response
Just because
the prophet Muhammad nicknamed his weapons doesnt make him an
evil person, I just clearly showed the prophet Muhammad commanding the Muslims to NOT kill
women and children. Here it is again incase you need to refresh
your memory:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257:
Narrated
'Abdullah:
During
some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women
and children.
Sahih BukhariVolume
4, Book 52, Number 258:
Narrated
Ibn 'Umar:
During
some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found
killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing
of women and children.
James
also lies again, he claims that Jesus NEVER waged war on
people, let me correct this sad lie of James using his own Bible:
Deuteronomy
Chapter 2
32-37
And the LORD
said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land
before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his
land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he
and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God
delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we
took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the
little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer,
which is by the brink of the
Who is the
lord according to James? It is Jesus, so James lied.
Secondly, the
fact that Jesus didn’t take part on battles during his lifetime on earth was because
he never had his own city for himself, he never was attacked by large numbers of pagans
like the prophet Muhammad was. Jesus had to experience angry mobs and that’s all,
something the prophet Muhammad had to experience, but the prophet Muhammad didn’t go
to war for that. The fact is Jesus was never attacked by an army to have gone into battle,
so it is sad that Christians have to use logical fallacies to make an argument. It is like
comparing someone who lived in
He Wrote
Muhammad in
his Quran commands that adulterers and adulteresses should
receive a hundred lashes (Sura 24:2). Reliable hadiths (Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) command stoning them.
Christ
forgave the woman caught in adultery. The men who had gathered around to stone her dropped
their rocks and left. She stayed, weeping, until Christ told her to go and sin no more
(John 8:1-11).
My Response
Yes, the
prophet Muhammad follows the Quran, so thank you for admitting
that you believe this is a bad thing; the reason that you believe this is a bad thing is
because you can’t even follow the rules of your own Bible. Unlike you Christians, we
Muslims do not compromise our book like you do yours, this is not a game, if God commands you to do something you go and do it. So this is a
pathetic argument on the part of James, so basically James wants the prophet Muhammad to
rebel against the system and make his own laws up and comprise the law of God!
Hilarious!!! That is good fruits according to James.
The prophet
Muhammad obeys God, so in fact James shows the prophet Muhammad had good fruits since he
would follow God's orders and not compromise them. James
apparently wants to comprise his Bible for his own man made desires, how sad; this is
exactly why you have Gay bishops in the Church.
Also if James
is basing his argument on mercy, then the prophet Muhammad is very merciful, he said do
not kill women and children!
He Wrote
Muhammad in
his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives (Sura
Neither
Christ nor the New Testament authors permit this or practiced this.
My Response
The
same old argument. To begin with
the Quran permits husbands to beat their wives as A LAST
RESORT. They have around 3 other options.
Secondly, by
beat the Quran does not mean to go and punch her up and so on.
I will quote what the concept of beating your wife really means:
Muhammad Asad, in his footnote to this passage, #45, wrote:
It is evident
from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of
beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his
wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to
another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat
God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i,
Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn
Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas
ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas;
and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum).
When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating of a
refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one
thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the
occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be
resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral
conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic
Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn
Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities
stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less
symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari,
quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded
handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim
scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is
just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion
by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem. (Source
<http://www.geocities.com/masad02/004>; bold and underline emphasis ours)
So as you can
see, the prophet claimed that you should do this act in a way that causes no pain.
Taken from http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/noble_quran_4_34.htm
“Men are
the protectors and maintainers (in a proper and fair manner) of women, because Allah has
given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their
means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's)
absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear
disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their
beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against
them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).” (Qu’ran 4:34)
Notes:
·
The arabic word used for ‘ill-conduct/rebellion’ = nushooz
·
The arabic word used in noble verse
1 Does the Arabic word 'daraba' necessarily mean "violent
or intense or repeated striking?
No, jurists routinely use the expression "daraba al-ma'
`ala wajhihi" - lit. strike
water upon the face, for someone accomplishing the first rukn
of wudu' (washing the face).
Also in
Arabic daraba al-ard "to
strike the earth" - as in verse 4:94 {When you strike the earth in the cause of
Allah} - means to travel, i.e. walking with a staff.
The Prophet (pbuh) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when
he said: "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with
her in the evening ?" (Bukhari and Muslim).
The crafty little anti-Islam page on domini.org states:
"The Qur'an states:
"Righteous
women are therefore obedient, And those you fear may be
rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches,
and beat them."
"Some
translators add the word lightly after 'beat them' in Q
"So the
man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that beating is not like the
whipping of the slave and will not result in injury."
Of course the above is false and tendentious but couched in the syrupy style typical of
missionaries.
The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet (pbuh)
in his Farewell Pilgrimage said: "Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you
should TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them
beyond that - EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY. If they do, then refuse to share
their beds and hit them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE . Then, if
they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you
have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is
that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over
them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision."
Note:
EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY = fahisha mubina (which means) : immorality
that may lead to adultery
WITHOUT
INDECENT VIOLENCE = fadribu hunna darban ghayra mubarrih
· Mubarrih = defined in al-Mawrid
as "violent, intense, severe, acute, sharp, excruciating, tormenting, agonizing."
· Qatada said as narrated by al-Tabari
in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr
mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not disgraceful/ outrageous/ obscene/ indecent
[beating]."
· Muhammad Asad translates it over-figuratively as “not causing pain”
After this, whatever Muslim man derogates to the recommendation of the Prophet (pbuh) has violated his covenant with the Prophet and shall be called
to account for it; and whoever of the non-Muslim men or women claims - even the Archbishop
of Canterbury and his wife - that beating women is allowed in Islam, has belied the Divine
witness invoked by the Prophet and shall be called to account for it in the Divine Court.
2 What is the evidence for saying that this 'striking' is in fact only supposed to be
carried out with something small, like a miswak?
`Ata' said:
"I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is
the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?'
He replied: '[With] the siwak and the like'." Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).
Al-Razi (3:222) mentions
that as a rule (a) it must be a light beating and (b) the face must be avoided. He added
that certain of the Shafi`i jurists said "a coiled scarf
(mindil malfuf) or his hand may be
used but not a whip nor a stick."
Answering
false claim nr.1:
‘An
answer to the false claim made by anti islamic
people that the prophet (peace be upon him) commented on the complaining women and not the
husbands in the hadith below’
Sunan Abu Dawud,
Book 11, Number 2141:
Narrated
Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:
Iyas
ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)
as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came
to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: women
have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet)
gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands.
So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women
have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the
best among you.
The christian missionary Silas claimed: Note
here that Muhammad commented on the women who were complaining to his wives: "they
are not the best among you". Muhammad was not commenting on the husbands who beat
their wives.
Answer:
The above statement is such a big and cheap lie, the prophet was clearly condemning those
husbands and not the women !
( see
for the proof: Riyad as Saliheen
chapter 34, nr 279 at <http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Hadith/H0004P0034.aspx>
) .
The prophet (peace be upon him) told the believers that ‘those husbands are not the
best among you’ , the prophet (peace be upon him) also
revoked the dispensation. Further this hadith proves that wife
beating wat not permitted at all, since Umar
came to ask permission for the prophet (peace be upon him), if hitting ones wife was
normal and allowed in any case or in many cases, then umar
wouldn’t asked the prophet (peace be upon him) permission for it, therefore:
·
The man has
no right to beat his wife as per the explicit prohibition of the Prophet (peace be upon
him)
·
The basic
rule (asl) is strict prohibition, followed by
dispensation (rukhsa) as explicited
by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the hadith where the
Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Do not hit the maidservants of Allah
! " ( la tadribu ima' Allah ). Then Umar came to the
Prophet and said ( by way of exaggeration , cf. ‘Awn al-Ma
`bud ) : “The wome are rebelling ( dha'irna
) against their husbands ! “ So the prophet gave a dispensation ( rakhkhasa ) to beat them. Whereupon
women started pouring to see the family of the messenger of Allah and complain about their
husbands. Seeing this, the prophet said: “Many women have poured in to see the family
of Muhammad, complaining of their husbands, and the latter are certainly not the best
of you”
(Narrated
from Iyas ibn `Abd Allah ibn Abi
Dhubab by al-Shafi`i in his Musnad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah,
al-Tabarani in al-Kabir, and
al-Hakim. Al-Nawawi and al-Suyuti
graded it a sound (sahih) narration in Riyad
al-Salihin and al-Jami` al-Saghir respectively).
Another authentic version in Sahih Ibn
Hibban (9:491) adds that the Prophet then revoked the
dispensation. His statement that “the best of you are the best in their behavior towards their wives, and I am the best of you in my behavior towards my wives” shows that
(1) wife-beaters are the worst men and
(2) no Muslim wife-beater can possibly claim to imitate the Prophet , although Allah Most
High said to imitate him : {Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for
him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much} (33:21).
(fatwa by
sheikh G.F. Haddad, see also sheikh G.F. haddad’s answer
given to question 1 in this article, where the prophet’s clearly explained in which
conditions/situation hitting’s ones wife lighty and not in the face was allowed )
Answering
false claim nr.2:
‘An answer to the false claim made by anti islamic
people that the prophet one time beat aicha’
(misunderstood hadith) Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127:
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of
my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha
who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of
Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on
his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of
his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took
hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out
and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist
wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'.
He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and
then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He
ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however,
preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy
Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha,
that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and
the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom
for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your
shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which
caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal
unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said:
Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded
to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not
fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you,
fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go
to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and
beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I
beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city
(graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those
who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join
you.
Answer to the
mistranslation:
The term used
in the hadith is:
Imam Nawawi in his Sharh states
that:
The word "lahada" according to the lexicographers means, "to push" (dafa'a).
The usage of the word "struck" is not a correct translation. Rather, the phrase
should be translated as (as sheikh Gf haddad
said):
- He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore
Secondly,
this calls to an important matter that is related to the Hand imposition of the Prophet -
Allah bless him - because it is a gesture associated with driving away evil influence (waswâs) and conferring blessing as the following reports show:
1. Ubay ibn Ka`b
said:
"There
occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of
Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet him - saw how I was
affected, he slapped me on the chest. I broke into a sweat and felt as if I were
looking at Allâh in fear." (Sahih
Muslim)
2. Jarir ibn Abdullah Al Bajalî was sent by the Prophet - Allah bless him - on a mission to
destroy Dhu Al Kahalasa, the
idol-house of Khatham, nicknamed the Yemenite Kaba. Jarr narrates: