Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's article Muhammad's False Prophecies

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's article
Muhammad's False Prophecies

[Part 2]

He Wrote

On Entering Mecca

." "Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."

This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).

My Response

Yes, this prophecy was fulfilled, Muhammad and his followers did enter the sacred Mosque with secure minds. We shall shortly see that Shamoun once again makes no arguments as his first supposed false prophecy.

He Wrote

On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is

taken from Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/050.sbt.html>:

"When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.' Suhail said to the Prophet 'Please conclude a peace treaty with us.' So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, 'Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, 'As for "Beneficent," by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.' The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.' The Prophet said, 'Write: By Your Name O Allah.' Then he dictated, 'This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: 'Muhammad bin Abdullah.' The Prophet said, 'By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.' (Az-Zuhri said, 'The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)') The Prophet said to Suhail, 'On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.' SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN.

"Then Suhail said, 'We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.' The Muslims said, 'Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?'" (bold emphasis ours)

One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told:

'When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, 'Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.' He replied, 'you are right.' He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, 'Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?' and that increased the people's dejection'" (bold and italic emphasis ours)

And:

'While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, 'O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.' The Prophet said, 'The peace treaty has not been written yet.' Suhail said, 'I will never allow you to keep him.' The Prophet said, 'Yes, do.' He said, 'I won't do: Mikraz said, 'We allow you (to keep him).' Abu Jandal said, 'O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?'

Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/050.sbt.html>)

We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?

As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. al-Khattab who rebuked Muhammad:

'Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, "Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said, "Yes, indeed." I said, "Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Then why should we be humble in our religion?" He said, "I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious"' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/050.sbt.html>)

My Response

To begin with I would like all the readers to notice how Shamoun has gone off topic, he is now switching the topic from supposed false prophecies to the treat of Hudaiybiya, this topic has nuthing to do with Shamoun's intended topic. Shamoun merely did this to attack the prophet and try to make the prophet Muhammad look bad. However so, since Shamoun has brought this subject up, I will be more than happy to comment on it.

Basically Shamoun got the points right, accept he twisted it a bit by saying would any prophet of God comprimise with the unblievers and nonsese like that, I will shortly show that Shamoun's very own God comprimised his own law.

Yes, some comprimises were made during the treaty, some Muslims were given back which is sad, but sometimes you must do things you dont like to or dont want to, this was one of those things. What Shamoun does'nt mention is the success the arose from this treaty! In fact this treaty was something very good for the Muslims, though at the time they did not realize it. The Quraysh were signing what would lead to their end and to the victory of the Muslims, though at the time the Quraysh did not know this and thought the treaty was something good. Oh if they only knew that this treaty was the worst thing to happen to them. Let us see some of the success that came out of the treaty:

1- The Muslim population arose from 1400 men to 10,000 men in those 2 years in which the treaty lasted!

2- two years after the treaty the Muslims basically marched into Makkah and Makkah became for the Muslims.

Infact since this seems to be a defeat for Muhammad as Shamoun thinks, if the treaty was not a good thing as Shamoun is making it seem to be then why was this verse revealed:

048.001
YUSUFALI: Verily We have granted thee a manifest Victory:

Why would a verse be sent to Muhammad saying it was a victory? Shamoun will respond by saying ' emmmmm Muhammad wanted to save face so he made it up'. Well that rubbish response cannot work because just 2 years later the Muslims took Makkah with 10,000 Muslim men! So indeed it was a blessing in disguise, in fact this verse is true prophecy! No one at the time would say the treaty was a victory, but the prophet Muhammad had a verse revealed to him saying it was a victory, and indeed it was a victory as we see the outcome of it, the Muslims retook Makkah two years later, and were allowed to go perform their prayers in Makkah one year after the treaty. So Shamoun actually just proves a true prophecy! Good job Sam.

Now here is a hadith that gives the number of Muslims on the day the treaty was made.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 472:

Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib:

That they were in the company of Allah's Apostle on the day of Al-Hudaibiya and their number was 1400 or more. They camped at a well and drew its water till it was dried. When they informed Allah's Apostle of that, he came and sat over its edge and said, "Bring me a bucket of its water." When it was brought, he spat and invoked (Allah) and said, "Leave it for a while." Then they quenched their thirst and watered their riding animals (from that well) till they departed.

So there were only 1400 Muslim men with the prophet on the day they made the treaty! When they came 2 years later it was 10,000. Is this not success?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#The_conquest_of_Mecca

The conquest of Mecca

By 628 the Muslim position was strong enough that Muhammad decided to return to Mecca this time as a pilgrim In March of that year, he set out for Mecca, followed by 1,600 men. After some negotiation, a treaty was signed at the border town of al-Hudaybiyah >. While Muhammad would not be allowed to finish his pilgrimage that year, hostilities would cease and the Muslims would have permission to make a pilgrimage to Mecca in the following year.

The agreement lasted only two years, however, as war broke out again in 630 Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number 10,000 men. Eager to placate the powerful Muslims and anxious to regain their lucrative tribal alliances, the Meccans submitted without a fight. Muhammad in turn promised a general amnesty (from which some people were specifically excluded). Most Meccans converted to Islam and Muhammad destroyed the idols in the Kaaba Henceforth the pilgrimage would be a Muslim pilgrimage and the shrine a Muslim shrine.

What a great victory, in just 2 years Muhammad took Makkah over WITHOUT A FIGHT! Now lets post that verse again which was revealed after the treaty:

048.001
YUSUFALI: Verily We have granted thee a manifest Victory:

The verse speaks for itself, Shamoun would be pathetic if he tried to make an argument and say Muhammad made that verse up, or maybe Shamoun is dumb enough to say its a coincidence!

So lets move on, Shamoun's red herring did not help him out at all. At the end of this rebuttal I will show Shamoun's very own God comprised the law, and that Jesus in the Bible couldnt live up to his own teaching.

He Wrote

The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)

In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf.

My Response

What is simply erroneous is that you cannot show it is a false prophecy, all you can do is bring up points which do not refute the prophecy. As Shamoun said, the prophet Muhammad did say they would go to Makkah and perform the prayers and so on, but Muhammad NEVER said they would do it that year, if Muhammad truly believed they would be doing it that year he would simply say it, the fact he never said it ONCE shows he did not fully believe he was going to do it in that same year. The Muslims with Muhammad thought they would be doing it that year, they were wrong, simple as that, the Quran was not wrong, neither Muhammad. All that was revealed to Muhammad was this:

"Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."

Where does it say this will occour in that same year, the Muslims probaly thought it meant at the time, but obviously it did not. So Shamoun is once again attacking the prophecy on what people thought, not on what the Quran meant. Note the verse also says ' he knew what ye knew not, and he granted, besides this, a speedy victory. That is exactly what happened! Allah told the Muslims something which they didnt know, that the treaty was something good, and that a speedy victory would arise from it! So hence where is the mistake?! As anyone can see the Muslims being rejected entry in Makkah in that year was part of Allah's plan! Allah's plan was for the treaty to happen, it was all under Allah's will. Hence there is no false prophecy.

Now let me ask Shamoun this:

1- Did the Muslims get control over Makkah and enter the sacred Mosque in peace and secutrity? The answer is yes, hence the prophecy is fullfilled.

2- Did the prophecy state the specific year? Did the prophecy say it would be fullfilled at the time it was revealed? The answer is no, so the fact it did not occur on the same year does not make it false, because it never said it would happen in that same year.

3- Did the Muslims gain a speedy victory after the treaty as the verse says? Yes, they did. It only took them 2 years and they did not even have to fight for it.

4- Did the Muslims at the time know that the treaty was indeed a victory and they did not know this? The answer is yes, the Muslims were angry and frustrated, they did not know that the treaty was something very good for them as the verse said Allah knows what you know not. So the verse is right again!

So this verse is far from a false prophecy, infact it makes 3 correct prophecies!

1- the Muslims would enter Makkah in peace and security. They did that 2 years later.

2- The Muslims would be given a speedy victory, this did happen as a result of the treaty, the Muslims took Makkah over in just 2 years.

3- Allah knew what they didnt know, Allah knew it was a victory and something good, the Muslims were frustrated and angry not knowing.

So Shamoun is wrong, Shamoun made a false argument!

He Wrote

Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27:

"In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari writes:

"While the Messenger of God was writing the document - he and Suhaly b. 'Amr - suddenly Abu Jandal, the son of Suhaly b. 'Amr, came walking with short steps in shackles. He had escaped to the Messenger of God. The companions of the Messenger of God had set out NOT DOUBTING that they would conquer, because of a vision the Messenger of God had seen. Therefore, when they saw what they saw - the peace, the retreat, and the obligations the Messenger of God had taken upon himself - the people felt so grieved about it that they were close to despair. When Suhayl saw Abu Jandal, he went up to him, struck him on the face, and grabbed him by the front of his garment. "Muhammad," he said, "the pact was ratified between me and you before this fellow came to you." "You are right," he replied. Suhayl began pulling and dragging [his son Abu Jandal] by the front of his garment to return him to Quraysh. Abu Jandal began screaming at the top of his vouce, "People of the Muslims, shall I be returned to the polytheists for them to torment me for my religion?" This made the people feel even worse. The Messenger of God said: "Abu Jandal, count on a reward, for God will give you and those who are oppressed with you relief and a way out. We have made a treaty and peace between oursleves and these people; we have given them and they have given us a promise, and we will not act treacherously toward them." (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Volume VIII, pp. 86-87; bold and capital emphasis ours)

This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year.

My Response

I find it highly amusing to see missionaries like Shamoun ramble and ramble on. Shamoun is basically barking empty arguments as you can see, everything he said does not mean much. In fact since I like sharing with people, I want you the reader to laugh along with me, laugh along with on this comment Shamoun made which is supposedly a big argument which is why he underlined it and made it capital letters:

none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR

Really! So the Quran is wrong now because Muslims thought it would happen that year!!!!! Hilarious! Shamoun's argument is based on what people thought! If Shamoun wants to make arguments based on that then Jesus is a sinner, and died for blasphemy since the Jews thought he’s a false prophet and a man working with the devil! So using Shamouns logic the Jews were correct!

Another nice comment by Shamoun to which we can all laugh at is this:

SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED

So the prophecy is wrong because the companions were angry! It is so funny to how silly some Christians can get at times. Off course the companions were angry, nothing wrong with that, this in fact proves the verse is not a false prophecy since it stated the Muslims knew not what Allah knew which was that the treaty was in fact something good and not something bad. So hence I really do not see Shamoun's point, the companions being angry does not disprove anything, it only proves the Quranic verse. Here it is again:

So what you on about Shamoun? What your saying proves the verse if you didnt notice! Anyway I already addressed his points and showed that the prophecy is indeed true, look up again and read my response again.

He Wrote

Second, to make matters worse Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh. This refusal was in clear violation of things expressly stipulated in the very document that Muhammad had agreed to sign:

"Umm Kulthum Uqba b. Mu'ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers 'Umara and Walid sons of 'Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it." (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 509; italic emphasis ours)

Hence, Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God's will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad's God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one's oath is strictly forbidden. (Cf. Numbers 30:1-2)

In light of all these considerations we are again compelled to ask the following questions. Did Moses ever bow down to Pharaoh's requests in order to bring Israel out of bondage from Egypt? Did Jesus ever deny his Messiahship to gain access to the Temple? Did any true prophet of God ever compromise with the unbelievers in order to fulfill the will of God? Did these men proceed to break their oaths and promises in order to gain an unfair advantage over the unbelievers?

My Response

Well I am compelled to ask you the following question, what does this have to do with false prophecies? NUTHING. Another red herring, stay on topic you silly missionary.

One thing Shamoun said which will back fire against him soon is this:

Did Jesus ever deny his Messiahship to gain access to the Temple

As we shall shortly see, Jesus did something much worse.

He Wrote

One final problem with all this is that Muslims claim that every single word in the Quran was revealed directly by God to Muhammad through Gabriel. Based on this assumption Muslims further reason that one will not find Muhammad's words intermingled with the words of God. This being the case, how do Muslims explain the fact that S. 48:27 has Allah saying insha' Allah, i.e. "If Allah wills"? Does God not know what his will is? If so, is he uncertain whether his purpose shall come to pass necessitating him to then qualify his statement with the phrase, insha' Allah?

One can understand how fallible humans who are unaware of God's purpose can qualify their statements with the expression "If God wills" (Cf. James 4:13-15). But for God to make such a qualification is beyond reasoning.

Furthermore, if God is in fact speaking then whom is he referring to when he says "If Allah wills"? Is he addressing himself or someone else? If he is addressing someone else, than how many Gods are there? Or perhaps Allah is also a multi-personal Being seeing that there is more than one Person that make up the unity of Allah?

This leads us to conclude that Muhammad's prediction not only failed to materialize, but that his motives in concocting revelation were power, money and fame. This verse also proves that God cannot be the author of the Quran.

My Response

This is getting really sad now, another red herring by Shamoun. Nothing he said has anything to do with the topic, so one must ask why is Sam diverting the issue over and over again? Does he want to make his argument seem longer?

Since Shamoun asks for an explanation on why does the verse say if Allah wills I will be more than happy to respond, in fact it is very easy to answer to. The fact is there is nothing wrong with the passage saying if Allah wills, because at the end of the day everything happens only if he wills it, so Allah is basically saying this event will happen only if he wills it, this does not mean he doesn’t know what he wills this is Shamouns own twist to it. This also goes on to show that it in fact Allah in control of everything and that nothing happens unless he wills it, if he wills it then it will happen, if not then it wont happen. So its not hard to get, God is basically telling the Muslims that this certain event will happen only if he wills it, so I would really like to know what is wrong in saying that? Allah is addressing the Muslims, not some other God or another person, there is not trinity here.

So the Qurans prophecy did not fail, and your cheap shot of saying it was for money, fame, and power is just as pathetic as you are. The clear evidence is there for all to see, any person with a clear mind will see the prophecy was completely correct, and had no errors, the only one who is in error here is Shamoun.

He Wrote

On the Appearance of the Antichrist and the End of the World

Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. The following traditions are taken from the Sunan Abu Dawud:

Book 37, Number 4281:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal).

Book 37, Number 4282:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.

Book 37, Number 4283:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.

Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453.

Some may wish to argue that these events refer to future conquests. For instance some may wish to say that Constantinople is used as a synonym for the Roman Christian Empire. This would therefore be predicting that Muslims are to takeover Rome before Antichrist appears.

The problem with this is that if Muhammad was speaking of Rome he could have simply used the word Romans (Arabic: Ar-Rum). In fact, Romans/Ar-Rum is the name given to chapter 30 of the Quran. To call Rome either Constantinople or even Byzantium would be rather anachronistic. See above.

Hence, in light of the preceding factors we are forced to conclude that Muhammad's predictions failed to materialize, thus disqualifying him regarding his claim to prophethood.

My Response

Well let me correct you again, there are no problems at all. Mostly every Muslim acknowledges that Sunan abu dawud has some weak hadiths, including the hadith scholars.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/satintro.html :

Sunan Abu-Dawud is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (also known as the sunnah). The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called ahadith. Abu-Dawud lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and worked extremely hard to collect his ahadith. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Abu-Dawud's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), however it is also known to contain some weak ahadith (some of which he pointed out, others which he did not).

So although there is a lot of authentic hadiths in Sunan Abu dawud, the fact remains there are weak hadiths, so hence if anyone finds a mistake in one of the hadiths this is not a case against Islam but a case against the hadith and the hadith is simply not taken seriously or thrown out.

He Wrote

Muhammad also believed in a young earth and that the world was about to end shortly after his advent. The following citations are taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1 - General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), with all bold emphasis being ours:

"According to Ibn Humayd- Yahya b. Wadih- Yahya b. Ya'qub- Hammad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn Abbas: This world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years. Six thousand two hundred years have already passed. (The world) will surely experience hundreds of years, during which there will be no believer in the oneness of God there. Others said that the total extent of time is six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 172-173; emphasis ours)

"According to Abu Hisham- Mu'awiyah b. Hisham- Sufyan- al-A'mash- Abu Salih- Ka'b: This world is six thousand years." (Ibid.)

"According to Muhammad b. Sahl b. 'Askar- Isma'il b. 'Abd al-Karim- 'Abd al-Samad b. Ma'qil I- Wahb: Five thousand six hundred years of this world have elapsed. I do not know which kings and prophets lived in every period (zaman) of those years. I aksed Wahb b. Munabbih: How long is (the total duration of) this world? He replied: Six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 173-174; emphasis ours)

According to at-Tabari Muhammad believe that the end of the world was to occur 500 years after his coming:

"According to Hannad b. al-Sari and Abu Hisham al-Rifa'i- Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash- Abu Hasin- Abu Salih- Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of God said: When I was sent (to transmit the divine message), I and the Hour were like these two, pointing at his index and middle fingers." (Tabari, p. 176; emphasis ours, see also pp. 175-181)

My Response

Tabari is not one of the main sources of Islam, Muslims don’t even have to read single book or word written by Tabari. So this basically does not mean much, just because a person happens to be an Islamic scholar does not automatically make everything they say true. Also No man including Muhammad knew the last hour, so if any hadith states Muhammad did, then that hadith is false since it contradicts the Quran :

043.085
YUSUFALI: And blessed is He to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all between them: with Him is the Knowledge of the Hour (of Judgment): and to Him shall ye be brought back.

007.187
YUSUFALI: They ask thee about the (final) Hour - when will be its appointed time? Say: "The knowledge thereof is with my Lord (alone): None but He can reveal as to when it will occur. Heavy were its burden through the heavens and the earth. Only, all of a sudden will it come to you." They ask thee as if thou Wert eager in search thereof: Say: "The knowledge thereof is with Allah (alone), but most men know not."

041.047
YUSUFALI: To Him is referred the Knowledge of the Hour (of Judgment: He knows all): No date-fruit comes out of its sheath, nor does a female conceive (within her womb) nor bring forth the Day that (Allah) will propound to them the (question), "Where are the partners (ye attributed to Me?" They will say, "We do assure thee not one of us can bear witness!"

So the Quran refutes those supposed sayings of the prophet Muhammad. In fact any supposed hadiths that give a specific time frame of judgment day

are thrown out.

(Source: Sirat-un-Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu'Mani Vol 1 , p.41)

Further more, Allam Shibli states in his book:

" The sum and substance of the foregoing discourse is that the following categories of reports are to be discredited without an enquiry into the characters of their narrators:

1. The traditions that are contrary to reason.

2. The traditions that go against the accepted principles.

3. The traditions that belie common observations and physical experience.

4. The traditions that contradict the Quran or a Mutawir Hadith (repeatedly corroborated tradition) or go against a decided consensus of opinion ( Ijma Qati') and do not admit of any interpretation

5. The tradition that threatens severe punishment for a minor fault

6. The tradition that sounds absurd and non-sense, e.g., "Eat not a gourd without slaughtering it".

7. The tradition that promises big rewards for trivial acts of piety

8. A tradition narrated by a single person who has never personally contacted the man from whom he narrates.

9. A tradition that ought to have been known to all and sundry, but has only a single narrator.

10. Any tradition concerning an incident so noteworthy that, if it had actually taken place, it ought to have been related by many, and yet there is but a single narrator to report it. "

Allama Shiblu Nu'Mani also shows how Mulla 'Ali al-'Qari in his book al-Maudu'at elaborates on certain criteria for judging the authenticity of a hadith, he summarises some of them:

1. Any Hadith full of non-sense, which the Prophet could never have uttered; for instance, the saying, "If one recites 'La Illaha Ill-Lallah- Muhammad Rasul Allah' (There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger), God creates out of his words a birth with seventy tounges, each tongues have seventy thousand words of the Kalima.

2. Any Hadith that runs contrary to ovservation and experience, e.g., "Brinjal is the cure for all diseases and ailments."

3. Any Hadith that cancels another Hadith of established authenticity.

4. Any Hadith that states something against actual experience, e.g., "One should take one's bath in water heated in the sun, as it causes leprosy".

5. Any Hadith that does not sound like a prophet's utterance, e.g., "Three things improve eyesight, namely, green meadows, flowing water and a beautiful face".

6. Any Hadith that predicts the future, specifying the exact date and time, e.g., such an incident is to occur on such and such a day in such and such a year.

7. Any Hadith that looks like the word of a physician, e.g., "Harisa (a kind of sweet preparation consisting of wheat, meat, butter, cinnamon and aromatic herbs) gives vigour to a man" or that " a Muslim is sweet and loves sweets"

8. Any Hadith that is obviously wrong, e.g., 'Iwaj ibn 'Unaq was 3,000 yards (2,742.8 metres) in height.

9. Any Hadith that contradicts the Holy Quran, e.g., the saying that the life of the world is to be 7,000 years. Were it true, anybody could tell when the Day of Judgement would come, although it is established from the Quran that no mortal knows when the Last Day will come.

10. Any Hadith concerning Khidr.

11. Any Hadith whose language is vulgar.

12. Any Hadith that describes that efficacy and merits of the various chapters of the Holy Quran, though many such traditions are found in the commentaries of al-Baidawi and the Kashshar.

(Sirat-un-Nabi Volume 1, p. 42-44)

He Wrote

Similar traditions are found in Sahih Muslim:

Book 41, Number 7044:

This hadith has been reported by Sahl b. Sa'd that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour are (close to each other) like this (and he, in order to explain it) pointed (by joining his) forefinger, (one) next to the thumb and the middle finger (together).

Book 41, Number 7046:

Shu'ba reported: I heard Qatada and Abu Tayyab narrating that both of them heard Anas as narrating that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this, and Shu'ba drew his forefinger and middle finger near each other while narrating it.

Book 41, Number 7049:

Anas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the middle finger.

My Response

Yes, all these hadiths mean is that the last hour or day of judgement is soon to be followed after Muhammad, the time? No one knows accept God, every time a prophet is sent it is a sign that the last hour is getting closer, especially if it is the last prophet and the last revelation being sent, that should tell you the last hour is getting close now.

He Wrote

At-Tabari comments on the meaning of the Hour being as close as Muhammad's index and middle fingers:

"Thus, (the evidence permitting) a conclusion is as follows: The beginning of the day is the rise of the dawn, and its end is the setting of the sun. Further, the reported tradition on the authority of the Prophet is sound. As we have mentioned earlier, he said after having prayed the afternoon prayer: What remains of this world as compared to what has passed of it is just like what remains of this day as compared to what has passed of it. He also said: When I was sent, I and the Hour were like these two- holding index finger and middle finger together; I preceded it to the same extent as this one- meaning the middle finger- preceded that one- meaning the index finger. Further, the extent (of time) between the mean time of the afternoon prayer- that is, when the shadow of everything is twice its size, according to the best assumption ('ala al-taharri)- (to sunset) is the extent of time of one-half of one-seventh of the day, give or take a little. Likewise, the excess of the length of the middle finger over the index finger is something about that or close to it. There is also a sound tradition on the authority of the Messenger of God, as I was told by Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Wahb- his paternal uncle 'Abd-allah b. Wahb- Mu'awiyah b. Salih- 'Abd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr- his father Jubayr b. Nufayr- the companion of the Prophet, Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani: The Messenger of God said: Indeed, God will not make this nation incapable of (lasting) half a day- referring to the day of a thousand years.

"All these facts taken together make it clear that of the two statements I have mentioned concerning the total extent of time, the one from Ibn Abbas, and the other from Ka'b, the one more likely to be correct in accordance with the information coming from the Messenger of God is that of Ibn 'Abbas transmitted here by us on his authority: The world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years.

"Consequently, because this is so and the report on the authority of the Messenger of God is sound- namely, that he reported that what remained of the time of this world during his lifetime was half a day, or five hundred years, since five hundred years are half a day of the days, of which one is a thousand years- the conclusion is that the time of this world that had elapsed to the moment of the Prophet's statement corresponds to what we have transmitted on the authority of Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani from the Prophet, and is 6,500 years or approximately 6,500 years. God knows best!" (Tabari, pp. 182-183, bold emphasis ours)

Hence, according to these traditions Muhammad believed that not only was the world less than 7,000 years old but it was to end on the seventh day, or seven thousand years from the time it was created.

Accordingly, the world should have ended sometime between 1070-1132 AD, approximately 500 years after the birth and death of Muhammad. This is based on the fact that according to at-Tabari and others, the advent of Muhammad took place approximately 6,500 years from the time of creation. This is clearly a false prophecy.

My Response

Well this doesn’t really mean much since its refuted by the Quran, and the Quran comes first and the Quran states:

ALSO

Sahih bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 47:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

One day while the Prophet was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Apostle replied, 'Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, (the) meeting with Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan." Then he further asked, "What is Ihsan (perfection)?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you cannot achieve this state of devotion then you must consider that He is looking at you." Then he further asked, "When will the Hour be established?" Allah's Apostle replied, "The answerer has no better knowledge than the questioner. But I will inform you about its portents.

1. When a slave (lady) gives birth to her master.

2. When the shepherds of black camels start boasting and competing with others in the construction of higher buildings. And the Hour is one of five things which nobody knows except Allah.

The Prophet then recited: "Verily, with Allah (Alone) is the knowledge of the Hour--." (31. 34) Then that man (Gabriel) left and the Prophet asked his companions to call him back, but they could not see him. Then the Prophet said, "That was Gabriel who came to teach the people their religion." Abu 'Abdullah said: He (the Prophet) considered all that as a part of faith.

He Wrote

Yet this date contradicts the one approximated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan. There, we saw that Antichrist was to appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople, an event that took place in 1453 AD. This being the case, how could Muhammad have claimed elsewhere that the world was to end 500 years after his own birth and death? To make matters worse, the Islamic traditions claim that Antichrist was actually present during Muhammad's lifetime. In fact, according to the traditions Antichrist was a man named Ibn Saiyad:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

'Umar set out along with the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet stroked him with his hand and said to him, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates." Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h), "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet (p.b.u.h) refuted it and said, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)." (2) The Prophet said, "Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits." On that 'Umar, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot over-power him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him." (Ibn 'Umar added): Later on Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka'b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, "O Saf! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad." And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, "Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case."

The traditions go on to positively identify Ibn Saiyad as Antichrist:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453:

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir:

I saw Jabir bin 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, "How can you swear by Allah?" Jabir said, "I have heard 'Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it."

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4317:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir told that he saw Jabir ibn Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn as-Sa'id was the Dajjal (Antichrist). I expressed my surprise by saying: You swear by Allah! He said: I heard Umar swearing to that in the presence of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), but the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) did not make any objection to it.

Yet these traditions contradict the following traditions where Antichrist is described as being one eyed and as being locked up in chains:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 553:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and then mentioned the Dajjal saying, "I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed."

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4306:

Narrated Ubadah ibn as-t: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I have told you so much about the Dajjal (Antichrist) that I am afraid you may not understand. The Antichrist is short, hen-toed, woolly-haired, one-eyed, an eye-sightless, and neither protruding nor deep-seated. If you are confused about him, know that your Lord is not one-eyed.

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4311:

Narrated Fatimah, daughter of Qays:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) once delayed the congregational night prayer.

He came out and said: The talk of Tamim ad-Dari detained me. He transmitted it to me from a man who was of the islands of the sea. All of a sudden he found a woman who was trailing her hair. He asked: Who are you?

She said: I am the Jassasah. Go to that castle. So I came to it and found a man who was trailing his hair, chained in iron collars, and leaping between Heaven and Earth.

I asked: Who are you? He replied: I am the Dajjal (Antichrist). Has the Prophet of the unlettered people come forth now? I replied: Yes. He said: Have they obeyed him or disobeyed him? I said: No, they have obeyed him. He said: That is better for them.

Someone might interject here and claim that the traditions make mention of 30 Antichrists to come into the world:

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4319:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah. (see also Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 237)

This implies that Ibn Saiyad was just one of the thirty antichrists, and not THE Antichrist that was to come right before the end of the world.

There are several problems with this assertion. First, none of the traditions claim that Ibn Saiyad is one of the thirty antichrists that were to appear. Rather, the traditions imply that he is THE Dajjal or Antichrist. Second, if we take either of the dates proposed by at-Tabari or Abu Dawood all thirty Dajjals needed to have appeared before either 1070-1132 or 1453 AD. Finally, according to the New Testament Muhammad is actually one of these Antichrists:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour… Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:18, 22-23

Since Muhammad denied that Jesus is God's Son he is therefore one of the many antichrists that was to come according to the apostle John.

My Response

This is exactly why missionaries should not try and explain hadiths to people as Shamoun made a mess of it. Let me correct Shamoun’s blunder, the Muslims back then did believe that Ibn Saiyad could have been the Dajjal. However so he was not.

As for the prophet Muhammad not objecting the claims that Ibn Saiyad was the Dajjal this could have been because the prophet himself believed Ibn Saiyad was the Dajjal and was un sure so he didn’t saying anything against it.

I will now only be quoting the hadiths, the hadiths will speak for themselves and establish the fact that Ibn Saiyad was NOT THE Dajjal.

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6994:

Abu Sa'id reported: I accompanied Ibn Sayyad to Mecca and he said to me: What I have gathered from people is that theu think that I am Dajjal. Have you not hearde Allah's Messenger (may peace upon him) as saying: He will have no children, I said: Yes, of course. Thereupon he said: But I have children. Have you not heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He would not enter Mecca and Medina? I said: Yes, of course. Thereupon he said I have been once in Medina and now I intend to go to Mecca. And he said to me at the end of his talk: By Allah: I know his place of birth his abode where he is just now. He (Abu Sa'id) said: This caused confusion in my mind (in regard to his identity).

Sahih MuslimBook 041, Number 6995:

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported: Ibn Sa'id said to me somethhing for which I felt ashamed. He said: I can excuse others; but what has gone wrong with you, O Companions of Muhammad, that you take me as Dajjal? Has Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) not said that he would be a Jew whereas I am a Muslim and he also said that he would not have children, whereas I have children, and he also said: veryly, Allah has prohibited him to enter Mecca whereas I have performed Pilgrimage, atid. he went on saying this that I was about to be impressed by his tallk. He (however) said this also: I know where he (Dajjal) is and I know his father abd I mother, and it was said to him: Won't you feel pleased if you would be the same person? Thereupon he said: If this offer is made to me, I would noT resent that

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6996:

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported: We came back after having pewrformed Pilgrimage or 'Umra and lbn Sa'id was along with us. And w, e encamped at a place and the people dispersed and I and he were left behind. I felt terribly frightend from him as it was said about him that he was the Dajjal. He brought his goods and placed them by my luggage and I said: It is intense heat. Would you not place that under that tree? And he did that. Then ther appeared before us a flock of sheep. He went and brought a cup of milk and said: Abu Sa'id, drink that. I said it is intense heat and the milk is also hot (whereas the fact was) that I did not like to drink from his hands or to opr to take it from his hand and he said: Abu Sa'id, I think that I should take a rope and suspend it by the tree and then coimmit sucide because of the talks of the people, and he furtlier said. Abu Sa'id he who is ingnoran of the saying of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) (he is to be pardoned), but O people of Ansar, is this hadith of Allah's Messengern (may peace be upon him) concealed from you whereas you have the best konowledge of t this hadith of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) amongst people? Did Allalt's Messenger (may peace be upon him) not say that he (Dajjal) would be a non believer whereas I am a believer? did Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) not say he would be barren and no child would be born to hirn, whereas I have left my children in Medina? Did Allh's Messenger (may peace upon him) not say: He would not get into Medina and Mecca whereas I have been coming from Medina and now I intend to go to Mecca? Abu Sa'id said: I was about to accept the excuse put forward by him. that he said: I know the place where he would be born and where he is now. So I said to him: May your whole dayb be spent

The reason some Muslims thought that Ibn Sa’id might have been the Dajjal was because of this:

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 7000:

'Abdullah b. Umar reported: 'Umar b. Khattab went along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) in the company of some persons toIbn Sayyad that he found him playing with children near the bettlement of Bani Maghala and Ibn Sayyad was at that time just at the threshold of adolescence and he did not perceive (the presence of Holy Prophet) until Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) struck his back with his hands. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Ibn Sayyad, don't you bear witness that I am the messenger of Allah? Ibn Sayyad looked toward him and he said: I bear witness to the fact that you the messenger of the unlettered. Ibn Sayyad said to the Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him): Do you bear witness to the fact that I am the messenger of Allah? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) rejected this and said: I affirm my faith in Allah and in His messengers. Then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: What do you see? Ibn Sayyad said: It us a Dukh. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: May you be disgraced and dishonoured, you would not not be able to go beyond your rank. 'Umar b. Khattab said: Allah's Messenger, permit me that I should strike his neck. Therupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If he is the same (Dajjal) who would appear near the Last Hour, you would not be able to overpower him, and he is not that ther is no good for you to kill him. 'Abdullah b. 'Umar further narrated that after some time Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and Ubayy b. Ka'b went towards the palm trees where Ibn Sayyad was. When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) went near the tree he hid himself behind a tree with the intention of hearing something from Ibn sayyad before Ibn Sayyad could see him, but Allah's Messenger (may pcxce be upon him) saw him on a bed with a blanket around him from which a murmuring sound was being heard and Ibn Sayyad's mother saw Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) behind the trunk of the palm tree. She said to Ibn Sayyad: Saf (that being his name), here is Muhammad. Thereupon Ibn Sayyad jumped up murmuring and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If she had left him alone he would have made things clear. Abdullah b. Umar told that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up amongst the people and lauded Allah as He deserved, then he made a mention of the Dajjal and said: I warn you of him and there is no Prophet who has not warned his people against the Dajjal. Even Noah warned (against him) but I am going to tell you a thing which no Prophet told his people. You must know that he (the Dajjal) is one-eyed and Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, is not one-eyed. Ibn Shihab said: 'Umar b. Thabit al-Ansari informed me that some of the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) informed him that the day when Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) warned people against the Dajjal, he also said: There would be written between his two eyes (the word) Kafir (infidel) and everyone who would resent his deeds would be able to read or every Muslim would be about to read, and he also said: Bear this thing in mind that none amongst you would be able to see Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, until he dies.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

'Umar set out along with the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet stroked him with his hand and said to him, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates." Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h), "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet (p.b.u.h) refuted it and said, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)." (2) The Prophet said, "Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits." On that 'Umar, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot over-power him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him." (Ibn 'Umar added): Later on Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka'b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, "O Saf ! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad." And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, "Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case.

So it was a result of this that they started thinking that Ibn Saiyad was the Dajjal. However so later on it became apparent that he was not the Dajjal since he failed the description, non of the hadiths Shamoun posted showed the prophet Muhammad saying Ibn Saiyad was the definite Dajjal. The prophet was un sure, that’s why he told Umar IF he is the Dajjal you cant jill him, if he is not the Dajjal then it is a useless killing, so hence the prophet never thought Ibn Saiyad was THE Dajjal and it later become obvious that Ibn Saiyad was not the Dajjal.

He Wrote

As if the preceding weren't bad enough, other traditions have Muhammad predicting that the end was to come within the lifetime of his followers:

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7050:

'A'isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you he would see you dying.

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7051:

Anas reported that a person asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as to when the Last Hour would come. He had in his presence a young boy of the Ansar who was called Mahammad. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till (he would see) the Last Hour coming to you.

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7052:

Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him): When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) kept quiet for a while, then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanilwa and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days.

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7053:

Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu'ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be apon him) said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come (to the old People of this generation).

Muhammad clearly said that the young boy wouldn't have grown very old before the Last Hour came upon the people. Now let us be generous and suppose that the young boy was ten and lived to be hundred and ten years old, implying that the Last Hour was to take place a hundred years after Muhammad made these statements. Yet, centuries have passed and the Last Hour still hasn't come upon us.

Therefore, no matter from what angle one looks at it we are still left with irreconcilable contradictions and false predictions.

My Response

Well actually if you read the hadiths carefully you see the prophet Muhammad saying that the young boy would not grow very old until the last hour comes to his people, not mankind. It basically means the boys people, the people he was with when the question was put to the prophet, those people with him would be gone when he gets older, not to old.

The hadith CANNOT be talking about the last hour for all of mankind, because then this contradicts the Quran when it says that only Allah knows the last hour, it also contradicts an established fact on whether a hadith is sound or not, hadiths that give a specific time frame of the last hour are thrown out. So this hadith is not talking about the last hour for all of mankind, the prophet was addressing the people who were with the boy.

So therefore we have no problems here, there are no irreconcilable contradictions or false prophecies. Everything is just fine.

He Wrote

CONCLUSION

We have examined both the Quran and the Islamic traditions and found that both sources contain false predictions. In light of the prophetic criteria given by God in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Muhammad fails this test. This means that Muhammad is neither a true prophet nor is he the prophet like Moses.

In the service of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our risen Lord forever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.

My Response

Well we have examined all your arguments and have seen that each single one of them failed and fell short. The prophet Muhammad did pass the test of Deuteronomy. So the prophet Muhammad is a true prophet and was like Moses.

Well that doesn’t end the rebuttal, this just ends part 2. Now the real fun begins as we shall take up Shamoun’s challenge when he stated did Jesus ever make a compromise? In part 3 I will show Jesus did make a compromise, so did Shamoun’s very own God.

Continue to part 3 (*)