Further Topic Research:
Run "Go" twice to bypass Bing

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |

The article is located at: http://www../Responses/Osama/umar_mary3.htm



Well, apparently Shamoun just does not know when to quit! When he gets refuted, he comes back for more, in order to save face.


Lets examine his latest response to me, and see if it actually refutes me!




He Wrote:


On Mary, Muhammad's Concubine (Round Three)

Sam Shamoun

Umar has followed up with yet another reply (*) to our response (*) regarding the status of Mariyah the Copt, i.e. whether she was Muhammad’s slave or his wife.

We won’t be addressing everything he says, since much of what he says really doesn’t rebut anything we had written. We will focus instead on a few of the main points of his paper since this will help support our position.



My Response:


 Folks, just read his desperate comment above in bold. Infact, its pretty obvious you couldn't rebut what I wrote, therefore all you can do is play the " I think I am the best" game, and say I didn't refute anything, while in reality I destroyed your paper.



He Wrote:


Is it Marriage or Pleasure?

Umar says regarding the meaning of Sura 33:52:

So, even though Yusuf Ali says "After that the Prophet did not marry..", the Ayat says he can marry any women that the Prophet (S) possesses (as handmaidens). So Yusuf Ali, agrees with us, when he calls Mariyah a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), however, he differs with us, regarding if she was a handmaiden or not. So let us highlight the bottom line:

He also quotes another Answering Christianity writer Karim:

"Even if we for the sake of argument accept tabaris[sic] time order, then still we can argue that mariyah could aslo[sic] have been a slavegirl (which is also a strong option) , and therefor[sic] in this case it doesn't matter if she arrived in medina at 6 A.H. or 7. A.H. since the prophet after ayat 33:52 was allowed to marryy[sic] slave girls"

This is a rather curious reading of the text which says:

It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things. S. 33:52 Hilali-Khan

The natural and normal reading of this passage isn’t that Muhammad was permitted to marry one of his slave girls. On the contrary, the citation is stating that Muhammad was permitted to have as many slave or captive women as he wished. To put it simply, this reference is saying that even though Muhammad couldn’t marry any more women he could still have sex with as many slave or captive women as his heart desired.



My Response:



No, the natural reading of the passage is very clear, and we will allow Ibn Kathir to make it more clearer for Sam, in his Tafsir for Sura 33:52 :


More than one of the scholars, such as Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Jarir and others stated that this Ayah was revealed as a reward to the wives of the Prophet expressing Allah's pleasure with them for their excellent decision in choosing Allah and His Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter, when the Messenger of Allah , gave them the choice, as we have stated above. When they chose the Messenger of Allah their reward was that Allah restricted him to these wives, and forbade him to marry anyone else or to change them for other wives, even if he was attracted by their beauty -- apart from slave-girls and prisoners of war, with regard to whom there was no sin on him. Then Allah lifted the restriction stated in this Ayah and permitted him to marry more women, but he did not marry anyone else, so that the favor of the Messenger of Allah towards them would be clear. Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted (marriage to other) women for him.'' It was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i in their Sunans. On the other hand, others said that what was meant by the Ayah,

﴿لاَّ يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَآءُ مِن بَعْدُ﴾

(It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this,) means, `after the description We have given of the women who are lawful for you, those to whom you have given their dowery, those whom your right hand possesses, and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, maternal uncles and aunts, and those who offer themselves to you in marriage -- other kinds of women are not lawful for you.' This view was narrated from Ubayy bin Ka`b, from Mujahid in one report which was transmitted from him, and others. At-Tirmidhi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah was forbidden to marry certain kinds of women apart from believing women who had migrated with him, in the Ayah,

﴿لاَّ يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَآءُ مِن بَعْدُ وَلاَ أَن تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ﴾

(It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those whom your right hand possesses.) Allah has made lawful believing women, and believing women who offered themselves to the Prophet for marriage, and He made unlawful every woman who followed a religion other than Islam, as Allah says:

﴿وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالإِيمَـنِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ﴾

(And whosoever disbelieves in faith, then fruitless is his work) (5:5). Ibn Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, stated that this Ayah is general in meaning and applies to all the kinds of women mentioned and the women to whom he was married, who were nine. What he said is good, and may be what many of the Salaf meant, for many of them narrated both views from him, and there is no contradiction between the two. And Allah knows best.

﴿وَلاَ أَن تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ﴾

(nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, ) He was forbidden to marry more women, even if he were to divorce any of them and wanted replace her with another, except for those whom his right hand possessed (slave women).



The 'natural reading' clearly says he (Prophet Muhammad (S) wasn't allowed to marry anyone, except those who he possessed (meaning slave women etc.,).



He Wrote:


The Quran, after all, does permit men to have women as sex slaves:

And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphangirls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice. S. 4:3 Hilali-Khan

Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in, - no prohibition if ye have not gone in; - (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful; - Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, - desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:23-24 Y. Ali

And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame; S. 23:5-6

O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, - in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful. S. 33:50 Hilali-Khan

And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts) except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed, S. 70:29-30 Hilali-Khan


My Response:


And I have already acknowledged that in the previous rebuttal. I will post it again:



It is no doubt, that the issue of slavery in Islam has been thrown alot of mud on by missionaries. However, they all seem to forget, that in the Holy Qur'an, a slave can request for freedom, and get it, and with the freedom, they receive an amount of money to start their life!:

Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

And in Islam, a slave CAN NOT be forced to have relations with the master:

"Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

Also, In Islam, a slave CAN NOT be beaten:

Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: "When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me (saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him. I turned and (found him) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I said: Allah's Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said: Had you not done that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4088)"

Compare the Hadith with this biblical verse:

Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Prophet Muhammad (S) even said that the slaves are your brothers:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"


"The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among themselves - with their master's permission - or with free men or women! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over an impious free man." Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir (16:338-358).

And lastly, slaves are kept only during the times of War, after the war is finished, the slave is either set free, or ransomed:

" Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost." ( The Holy Qur'an, Sura 4 Ayat no. 74)

Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Ali, comments on this verse saying:

" When once the enemy is brought under control, generosity ( i.e., the release of prisoners without ransom) or ransom is reccomended)"

(Source: The Qur'an: Text, Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 1379, Footnote#4822, Fourth U.S Edition, 2002)

And, Ibn Kathir states:

"(tighten their bonds.) `This is referring to the prisoners of war whom you have captured. Later on, after the war ends and the conflict has ceased, you have a choice in regard to the captives: You may either act graciously toward them by setting them free without charge, or free them for a ransom that you require from them.' It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy's soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them"

(Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=47&tid=48912, bold and underlined emphasis ours)

Reccommended links:





Shamoun comments and says that there is not a single ayat in the Holy Qur'an, that says that sexual relations with a slave is abrogated, but looking at how Islam gave solutions to getting rid of this social illness named slavery, it is evident that Islam respects slaves, and when compared to the Bible, it is way better."

(Source: https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/umar_mary2_rebuttal.htm )


Furthermore, Sufi Scholar Allama Chaudhri Ghulam Ahmed Parwez states:


"Before the advent of Islam., slavery prevailed all over the world. To men in those days, it seemed perfectly normal for the strong and wealthy to have slaves whom they had captured in war or purchased in the market. The Greeks were the leaders of thought in the ancient world. No Greek thinker had ever raised his voice against the institution of slavery. The Quran proclaimed the equality of all men in the sight of God. It struck at the root of slavery by recognizing the moral worth of man as man. However, there were, at the time of the advent of Islam, numerous slaves, both men and women, in Arabia as elsewhere in the world. The Arab economy was based on slavery. To abolish it at one stroke was impracticable. It could not be done without plunging the whole society into confusion. Yet, in every conceivable way, the Quran discouraged slavery and improved the lot of the slaves. The Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") were urged to be kind and considerate to their slaves. They were told that to emancipate a slave was a meritorious act. They could atone for some of their offences by setting a slave free. Thus the number of slaves was gradually reduced and society was made less dependent on slave labour. The words "whom your right hand possessed" occurring in the Quran are in the past tense and refer to those who had already been enslaved. When they were emancipated through a gradual process, slavery died a natural death. The main source of slaves-men and women-was prisoners in war. The Quran laid down that they should be set free either for a ransom or as a favour (47 : 4). The door for future slavery was thus closed by the Quran for ever. Whatever happened in subsequent history, was the responsibility of the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") and not of the Quran.


Islam brought about a revolution in human relations placing master and slave, man and woman, on a footing of equality before God. In Arabia, as in most other countries, man had been accustomed to look on women just for the gratification of his lust. Marriage was a device to prevent men from quarrelling for the possession of desirable women. The Quran raised the status of women in society and made them equal partners of men in the enterprise of living. "

(Source: Islam: A Challenge to Religion by Allama Ghulam Ahmed Parwez, p. 345-346 Tolu-E-Islam)


He Wrote:


Notice how some of the leading commentators exegeted this specific text. Al-Qurtubi stated:

Mujahid, Saeed bin Jubayr, Ata’a and Al Hakam said: {except what your right hand possesses} means that you are not permitted to marry non-Muslims, such as Jewesses, and Christians, and idolators, who are forbidden to you. You are not allowed to marry an unbeliever since she will become one of the mothers of the believers, even if you like her looks and beauty. EXCEPT what your right hand possesses [for] you can ENJOY them, as in sleeping and having intercourse with them due to the fact that they are owned by you as possessions (Source)

Renowned commentator and historian al-Tabari wrote:

except what your right hand possesses means: you are not permitted to marry other women after the ones that were permitted to you, EXCEPT what your right hand possesses from the slave women, as you can possess as many of the slave women as you desire. (Source)

The late Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi provided his own translation of Sura 33:52:

No other women are lawful for you after this, nor are you allowed to have other wives instead of them, even if their beauty may be well pleasing to you. You may, however, have slave-girls. Allah is Watchful over everything. (Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur'an, English rendered by the Late Ch. Muhammad Akbar, edited by A.A. Kamal, M.A. [Islamic Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore Pakistan, 4th edition, August 2003], Volume IV, p. 127)

And then noted:

94. The verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one's slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa: 3, al-Mu'minun: 6, and al-Ma'arij: 30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: "It is not lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful." This shows that no restriction has been imposed in respect of the slave-girls. (Ibid., p. 131)

The online Shiite Pooya/Ali commentary states:

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

Allah commanded the Holy Prophet not to marry any woman after the revelation of this verse.

Although his followers are prohibited to marry more than four women (see commentary of Nisa: 3) but muta (temporary marriage) is allowed in addition to four wives (see commentary of Nisa: 24). (Source; bold and underline emphasis ours)


My Response:


The above in no way refutes what I wrote. Let me remind what you *initially* said:

"Second, we highlight the quote from Ali to show Umar what he obviously failed to see:

"This was revealed in A.H. 7. AFTER THAT the Prophet did not marry again EXCEPT THE HANDMAIDEN Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.

Ali clearly says that Muhammad married Mariyah AFTER THE COMMAND HAD BEEN GIVEN WHICH PROHIBITED HIM FROM TAKING ANY MORE WIVES! Thus, Ali’s quote ends up proving my point and exposes Muhammad as a sinner who willfully broke the commands of his Lord. Umar may have no problem with his prophet being a willful lawbreaker, deliberately going against the instructions of his own god, in light of the fact that on several occasions Muhammad was rebuked severely for sinning:"

(Source: https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/umar_mary_rebuttal_2.htm )

You tried to use Yusuf Ali's own quote, to refute me, by saying Yusuf Ali's own quote show the Prophet (S) went against the Qur'an because he married AFTER Sura 33:52. But this has already been refuted, as I said clearly:

"This was revealed in A.H. 7. After that the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.

(Source: The Quran: Text translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote#3754)

And here is Sura 33:52 (again...) :

It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and God doth watch over all things.

So, even though Yusuf Ali says "After that the Prophet did not marry..", the Ayat says he can marry any women that the Prophet (S) possesses (as handmaidens). So Yusuf Ali, agrees with us, when he calls Mariyah a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), however, he differs with us, regarding if she was a handmaiden or not. So let us highlight the bottom line:"

(Source: https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/umar_mary2_rebuttal.htm )

So now lets highlight the main point:

Your appeal to Yusuf Ali, by saying as per Yusuf Ali the Holy Prophet (S) went AGAINST the Qur'an by marrying Mariyah only backfires against you, using Yusuf Ali's own words!


He Wrote:


The foregoing demonstrates that the passage is not saying that Muhammad could marry a captive or slave woman, but that he could enjoy them without having to marry them. This interpretation is even reflected in Yusuf Ali’s version:

It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (AS HANDMAIDENS): and God doth watch over all things. S. 33:52


Yusuf Ali clearly expressed the view that Muhammad could enjoy those whom his right hand possessed as handmaidens, not as wives.


My Response:


 Moreover, why would Yusuf Ali now contradict himself? He says in the commentary Mariyah the handmaiden married the Prophet (S) after the revealing of the Ayat, therefore, the commentator is suggesting that in no way the Ayat says the Prophet (S) couldn't marry slavewoman, but shows that indeed he could marry slavewoman, hence he married Mariyah the Copt!


He Wrote:


Furthermore, even if we concede for a moment that Umar is correct in his analysis of the text this still wouldn’t support his interpretation since the immediate context only permitted Muhammad from enjoying those women who were taken as spoils of war:

O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement. It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things. Sura 33:50-52 Pickthall


My Response:


Furthermore, we would like to remind Shamoun that we do not fully support the idea that Mariyah was a handmaiden, and then married to the Prophet (S), however we do not out rule this possibility. We only cited Yusuf Ali, so that the reader can decide as to which stance makes more sense to them.


He Wrote:


The problem for Umar is that Mariyah wasn’t from the spoils of war but a gift given to Muhammad, which disqualifies her for marriage! In fact, this is the very reason why the following Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") argued against the view that Muhammad married Mariyah:

Moreover, it is clear from the Qur’an (33:49-52) that the Prophet (sws) could only free and marry slave girls who were made prisoners in war. He was not allowed to marry gifted slave women that had been set free. (The Case of Maria the Coptic; online source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

As far as the slave girl Hadhrat Maria Qibtia (ra) is concerned, the Prophet (pbuh) kept her as a slave girl because he was barred from marrying those slave girls who were not part of the booty of war, in the same verse that governed his marriage regulations. Hadhrat Maria Qibtia (ra) was presented to the Prophet (pbuh) by the ruler of Egypt. He loved her very much and treated her very well, in order to set an example for the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") in treatment of their slaves. (Mr. Amar Ellahi Lone, The Marriages of the Prophet (pbuh); online source; bold and underline emphasis ours)


My Response:


Again, this is the best part about discussions like this. The whole idea is for the reader to decide which stance makes more sense to them. If the reader feels Yusuf Ali is correct, then they would side with Yusuf Ali on his stance, if they feel the above sources cited by Sam are correct, then they would support him.


He Wrote:


Still others believe that the expression "those whom your right hand possesses" doesn’t refer to slaves or captives at all. They take the view that this is simply another way of referring to women that a person has married. Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote:

52c. By those whom thy right hand possesses are indicated the wives of the Prophet whom he lawfully married. (online source)



My Response:


Okay, nothing important here.


He Wrote:


Muhammad Asad stated:

Some commentators (e.g., Tabari) assume that this restriction relates to the four categories of women enumerated in verse 50 above: it is, however, much more probable that it is a prohibition barring the Prophet from marrying any woman in addition to those to whom he was already married (Baghawi, Zamakhshari). Some of the earliest, most outstanding authorities on the Quran, like Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd (all of them cited by Ibn Kathir), or Al-Hasan al-Basri (quoted by Tabari in his commentary on verses 28-29), link this prohibition of further marriages with the choice between the charms of worldly life and the good of the hereafter with which the wives of the Prophet were confronted on the strength of verses 28-29, and their emphatic option for "God and His Apostle" (cf. note on verse 29 above). All those early authorities describe the revelation of verse 52 and the assurance which it was meant to convey to the wives of the Prophet - as God’s reward, in this world, of their faith and fidelity. Since it is inconceivable that the Prophet could have disregarded the categorical injunction, "No [other] women shall henceforth be lawful to thee", the passage in question cannot have been revealed earlier than the year 7 H., that is, the year in which the conquest of Khaybar and the Prophet’s marriage with Safiyyah - his last marriage - took place. Consequently, verses 28-29 (with which, as we have seen, verse 52 is closely connected) must have been revealed at that later period, and not, as some commentators think, in the year 5 H. (i.e., at the time of the Prophet’s marriage with Zaynab). - … I.e., to divorce any of them with a view to taking another wife in her stead (with the prohibitive accent on the "supplanting"- i.e., divorcing - of any of his wives). … In my opinion, the expression ma malakat yaminuka (lit., "what thy right hand possesses", or has come to possess") has here the same meaning as in 4: 24, namely, "those whom thou hast come to possess through wedlock" (see note on surah 4: 24); thus, the above verse is to be understood as limiting the Prophet’s marriages to those already contracted. (Asad, The Message of the Quran, ff. 65-67; online source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Moreover, Asad claimed that it is inconceivable that Muhammad could have violated the Quran’s command to marry other women, forcing him to conclude that this verse must have been composed before 7 AH. Now let us compare this with Yusuf Ali’s note once again:

This was revealed in A.H. 7. AFTER THAT the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy. (The Quran: Text translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, fn. 3754)


My Response:


The important thing to note here right now is where he says the Ayat is revealed in 7 A.H.


He Wrote:


Umar cites another reference which basically agrees with Ali:

It is commonly agreed that it was after the Prophet had married Maymuna, giving him now nine wives (A'isha, Sawda, Hafsa, Umm Salama, Zainab bint Jahsh, Juwayriyya, Umm Habiba, Safiyya and Maymuna), that the following ayat was revealed:

It is not lawful for you (O Muhammad, to marry more) women after this, nor to exchange them for other wives, even though their beauty is pleasing to you, except those whom your right hand possesses (as maid servants); and Allah is always watching over everything. (Quran 33:52)

AFTER THIS, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not marry again. When however, the Christian ruler, or Muqawqis, of Egypt, sent him two Christian slave girls who were sisters as a gift (in response to the Prophet's letter inviting him to embrace Islam), along with a fine robe and some medicine the Prophet, accepted one of the slave girls, Maria, into his household; he gave her sister Serene, to a man whom he wished to honor, namely Hassan ibn Thabit; he accepted the robe; and he returned the medicine with the message, "My Sunna is my medicine!" This occurred in 7 AH, when the Prophet was sixty years old and Maria was twenty years old.

(Source: http://www.anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_maymuna.htm); bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

This source expressly says that Muhammad received Mariyah in 7 AH after the prohibition of Sura 33:52 was given. Hence, Yusuf Ali and the above reference have Muhammad basically marrying Mariyah after 7 AH, which Asad argued was inconceivable since this would mean that Muhammad broke Allah’s injunction!


My Response:


Again, what the above reference is noting is that Mariyah was a MAID SERVANT or in other words a HANDMAIDEN. Therefore, if Mariyah arrived after the Ayat was revealed, the marriage would still be legal, as per the above source, and Yusuf Ali etc.

As for breaking the prohibition for contract of marriage, we have already responded to this. The Ayat (Sura 33:52), as agreed by the scholars cited, gives permission for the Prophet (S) to marry the ones whom he possessed, therefore the Holy Prophet (S) did not go against the Holy Qur'an when he married Mariyah.


He Wrote:


More importantly, even if she did arrive before this prohibition was issued she still wouldn’t be eligible for marriage on the grounds that she was a gift and not a prisoner of war. Muhammad, according to the context, was allowed to marry only captives taken from the battle.


My Response:




Ladies and gentlemen, not only is the above one of the most ludacris statements I have ever read, but it clearly shows how desperate Shamoun is to prove that Mariyah the Copt isnt a wife of the Prophet (S), and is (as he likes to put it) a "sex slave".


He Wrote:

Here we summarize the various Muslim explanations regarding Sura 33:52:


   1. The natural reading of the text isn’t that Muhammad could marry any of the slave or captive women in his possession. Rather, the verse is saying that Muhammad could enjoy as many slave women as he desired, that he could have unlimited concubines. Since two of Umar’s sources say that Mariyah came after this prohibition had been given Muhammad couldn’t have therefore married her without violating Allah’s command.


My Response:


The reading of the text clearly says the Prophet (S) can marry those whom his right hand possessed. Obviously, Shamoun can bring scholars who say that stance is wrong, and most likely they are of the view that Mariyah isn't a wife of the Prophet (S). Again, your appeal to Yusuf Ali to refute me only backfired against you.


He Wrote:


2. Still others interpret the words "those whom thy right hand possesses" as not referring to slave or captive women that Muhammad could enjoy, but to those whom Muhammad had lawfully married. They thus see the last clause as reinforcing the point that Muhammad could not take additional wives or replace the ones he had. Much like with the first explanation, this interpretation rules out the possibility of Muhammad having married Mariyah since she arrived after the prohibition had been passed.


My Response:


The "others" referred to here by Shamoun is Muhammad Asad. Muhammad Asad's stances on the verses are clear, however the reason why I cited him was to show that himself clearly says the Ayat (Sura 33:52) came after 5 A.H., specifically 7 A.H.


He Wrote:


3. The immediate context defines the slave women whom Muhammad could enjoy as those taken as prisoners of war. This has led certain Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") to conclude that Muhammad could not have married Mariyah since she was a gift and not a prisoner of war. This also means that even if Mariyah had been sent to Muhammad before the ruling of Sura 33:52, she still wouldn’t have been eligible for marriage.


My Response:


Already responded to above.


So now lets summarize the points:


1) Shamoun initially appealed to Yusuf Ali to refute me, but it only backfired against him.

2) Most likely after realizing his appeal to Yusuf Ali refuted him, he desperately brought scholars to refute Yusuf Ali' position in order to save face.


Now we move on to our analysis of the alleged "contradiction" cited by Sam Shamoun. We title this:


                           Contradiction, or just bad handling of the text??



He Wrote:


Since Umar was in such a rush and so excited to refute Ali Sina and myself he seemed to have overlooked the fact that his main reference which states that the majority of Muslim scholars believe that Mariyah was a wife contradicts the so-called sound narrations. Here is Umar’s quote:


    However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars agreed that the wives of the prophet (pbuh) were:


        1. Khadijah

        2. `A’isha bint Abu Bakr

        3. Sawda bint Zum`ah

        4. Hafsa bint `Umar

        5. Zaynab bint Khuzaymah

        6. Um-Habibah bint Abu Sufyan

        7. Um-Salamah

        8. Zaynab bint Jahsh

        9. Juwariyah bint al-Harith

        10. Safiyah bint Hayi ibn Akhtab

        11. Maymunah al-Hilaliyah

        12. Mariya al-Qibtiya (Who was from Egypt.)


    (May Allah be pleased with all of them). These are the names upon whom the scholars agreed. (source)


My Response:


Later on, we will see how Shamoun now contradicts himself later on, right now lets just take a good look at the list again.


He Wrote:


According to Muslim sources Khadijah died before Muhammad migrated to Medina. While he was in Medina one of his wives died before he did, Zaynab bint Khuzaymah. If the above list is correct then this means that Muhammad left behind ten wives when he died. Yet the hadiths and the sira state that Muhammad had nine wives when he died, eight of whom he would spend a day with:


    The apostle consummated his marriage with eleven women, two of whom died before him, namely Khadija and Zaynab. He died leaving the nine we have mentioned. With two he had no marital relations, namely Asma’ d. al-Nu‘man, the Kindite woman, whom he married and found to be suffering from leprosy and so returned her to her people with a suitable gift; and ‘Amra d. Yazid the Kilab woman who was recently an unbeliever. When she came to the apostle she said ‘I seek God’s protection against you,’ and he replied that the one who did that was inviolable so he sent her back to her people. Others say that the one who said this was a Kindite woman, a cousin of Asma’ d. al-Nu‘man, and that the apostle summoned her and she said ‘We are a people to whom others come; we come to none!’ so he returned her to her people.


    There were six Quraysh women among the prophet’s wives, namely, Khadija, ‘A’isha, Hafsa, Umm Habiba, Umm Salam, and Sauda.


    The Arab women and others were seven, namely, Zaynab d. Jash, Maymuna, Zaynab d. Khuzayma, Juwayriya, Asma’, and ‘Amra. The non-Arab woman was Safiya d. Huyay b. Akhtab of B. al-Nadir. (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Karachi Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth Impression 1995), p. 794; bold and underline emphasis ours)


    Narrated ‘Ata:

    We presented ourselves along with Ibn ‘Abbas at the funeral procession of Maimuna at a place called Sarif. Ibn ‘Abbas said, "This is the wife of the Prophet so when you lift her bier, do not jerk it or shake it much, but walk smoothly because the Prophet had NINE WIVES and he used to observe the night turns with eight of them, AND FOR ONE OF THEM THERE WAS NO NIGHT TURN." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 5)


    Narrated Anas:

    The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6)


    Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) had nine wives. So when he divided (his stay) with them, the turn of the first wife did not come but on the ninth (day). They (all the wives) used to gather every night in the house of one where he had to come (and stay that night). It was (the night when he had to stay) in the house of ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her), when Zainab came there. He (the Holy Prophet) stretched his hand towards her (Zainab), whereupon she (‘A’isha) said: It is Zainab. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) withdrew his hand. There was an altercation between the two until their voices became loud (and it was at that time) when Iqama was pronounced for prayer. There happened to come Abu Bakr and he heard their voices and said: Messenger of Allah, (kindly) come for prayer, and throw dust in their mouths. So the Prophet (may peace be upon him) went out. ‘A’isha said: When Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) would finish his prayer there would also come Abu Bakr and he would do as he does on such occasions (i. e. reprimanding). When Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) had finished his prayer, there came to her Abu Bakr and spoke to her (‘A’isha) in stern words and said: Do you behave like this? (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3450)


Umar may want to argue that certain hadiths claim that Muhammad made rounds with eleven of his wives which would therefore include Mariyah since without her the number would only be ten. The problem with this view is that Muhammad didn’t have eleven wives at one time since Zaynab had died before Mariyah had arrived. Note the date which Umar places Mariyah’s arrival:


    So if Mariyah Qibtiyya arrived at the Holy Prophet (S) household just after the Prophet returned from signing the treaty, which occured[sic] in Dhi Qa'd of 6 A.H., then the right dating of her arrival should be around the ending of A.H. 6 and the beginning of 7 A.H.


6-7 AH gives us a rough date of 629-630 AD. Yet Zaynab died roughly three to four years before Mariyah arrived:


    According to Ibn ‘Umar [al-Waqidi] – Kathir b. Zayd – al-Muttalib b. ‘Abdallah b. Hantab, and also Muhammad b. Qudamah – his father: The Prophet asked Zaynab bt. Khuzaymah al-Hilaliyyah, Umm al-Masakin, in marriage, and she entrusted her affairs to him. He let it be known that he gave her twelve and a half ounces [of gold] as bridal gift. The marriage took place in Ramadan, thirty-one months after Emigration/February 625. She stayed with him eight months, then died at the end of Rabi‘ II, thirty-nine months after [the Emigration]/October 626. The Prophet said the prayers over her brier and buried her at al-Baqi. (The History of al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors, translated by Ella Landau-Tasseron [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1998], Volume XXXIX (39), p. 164; bold and capital emphasis ours)


With Zaynab dead, Muhammad would have had nine wives. If we then add Mariyah to the list then this means that Muhammad had ten wives at one time, contradicting the traditions which place the number at either nine or eleven.


Moreover, there seems to be a logical explanation why a tradition exists indicating that the number of Muhammad’s wives during his later years was eleven. It seems that some of the narrators were thinking of all the women Muhammad married, including Khadija and Zaynab, which would bring the total to eleven. With this number in mind they may have mistakenly narrated that Muhammad had eleven wives even later in his life. This explanation seems quite plausible when we take into consideration the following narration:


    Narrated Qatada:

    Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives ONLY (not eleven). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268)


Note how one narrator corrects the previous narrator’s claim that according to Anas Muhammad had eleven wives and says they were actually nine altogether. This furnishes evidence that certain narrators mistakenly placed the number of wives at eleven due to having in the back of their mind the fact that Muhammad had a total of eleven wives throughout his lifetime.


Therefore, the foregoing data provides additional evidence, this time from the so-called sound hadiths, that Mariyah could not have been one of Muhammad’s wives.


The fact is that the unanimous position of the Muslim scholars is that Muhammad left behind nine wives when he died. Note for instance the response given by the Salafi scholars at www.Islamqa.com to the question of whether Muhammad had eleven or nine wives:


    The scholars differ concerning the number of wives that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had. The majority are of the view - WHICH IS CORRECT - that he had eleven wives with whom he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) consummated marriage, AND HE LEFT NINE OF THEM BEHIND WHEN HE DIED. Khadeejah bint Khuwaylid and Zaynab bint Khuzaymah - may Allaah be pleased with them both - died before him (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).


    This is the view of his companions, as the imams narrated from them in their saheeh books. ...


    Mu'aadh ibn Hishaam narrated from his father, according to a report narrated by al-Bukhaari (265) from him alone, that there were eleven wives, BUT HE WAS MISTAKEN; the correct view is that he went around to nine wives.


    Ibn Hajar said:


    Ibn Khuzaymah said: Mu'aadh ibn Hishaam was the only one who narrated that from his father, and it was narrated by Sa'eed ibn 'Uroobah and others from Qataadah but they said "nine wives." Al-Bukhaari referred to the report of Sa'eed ibn Abi 'Uroobah in a mu'allaq report here, but twenty chapters later he narrated it in a mawsool report when he said: "He used to go around his wives in one night, and at that time he had nine wives."


    Fath al-Baari, 1/377.


    Ibn al-Qayyim said:


    There is NO SCHOLARLY DISPUTE concerning the fact that he left nine behind when he died and that he used to give a portion of his time to eight of them. Those nine were: 'Aa'ishah, Hafsah, Zaynab bint Jahsh, Umm Salamah, Safiyyah, Umm Habeebah, Maymoonah, Sawdah and Juwayriyyah. The first of his wives to follow him after he died was Zaynab bint Jahsh in 20 AH and the last of them to die was Umm Salamah in 62 AH during the caliphate of Yazeed.


    Zaad al-Ma'aad, 1/114


    With regard to his female slaves, he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had four female slaves.


    Ibn al-Qayyim said:


    Abu 'Ubaydah said: He had four: Maariyah who was the mother of his son Ibraaheem; Rayhaanah; another beautiful slave women who he got among some of the prisoners of war; and a slave woman who was given to him by Zaynab bint Jahsh.


    Zaad al-Ma'aad, 1/114. (Question #13344: Did the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) have nine wives or eleven?; source; capital and underline emphasis ours)


Interestingly, this source lists Mariyah as one of the slaves of Muhammad, not his wife!


My Response:


Now we will show how Shamoun’s appeal to the Sihah Sittah will only backfire against him.

Hafaz Ibn Hajar the Author of Fatih Al Bari was reported to have said:


‏قال ابن خزيمة : تفرد بذلك معاذ بن هشام عن أبيه ورواه سعيد بن أبي عروبة وغيره عن قتادة فقالوا " تسع نسوة " . انتهى . وقد أشار البخاري إلى رواية سعيد بن أبي عروبة فعلقها هنا ووصلها بعد اثني عشر بابا بلفظ " كان يطوف على نسائه في الليلة الواحدة وله يومئذ تسع نسوة " وقد جمع ابن حبان في صحيحه بين الروايتين بأن حمل ذلك على حالتين لكنه وهم في قوله " أن الأولى كانت في أول قدومه المدينة حيث كان تحته تسع نسوة والحالة الثانية في آخر الأمر حيث اجتمع عنده إحدى عشرة امرأة " وموضع الوهم منه أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لما قدم المدينة لم يكن تحته امرأة سوى سودة ثم دخل على عائشة بالمدينة ثم تزوج أم سلمة وحفصة وزينب بنت خزيمة في السنة الثالثة والرابعة ثم تزوج زينب بنت جحش في الخامسة ثم جويرية في السادسة ثم صفية وأم حبيبة وميمونة في السابعة وهؤلاء جميع من دخل بهن من الزوجات بعد الهجرة على المشهور واختلف في ريحانة وكانت من سبي بني قريظة فجزم ابن إسحاق بأنه عرض عليها أن يتزوجها ويضرب عليها الحجاب فاختارت البقاء في ملكه والأكثر على أنها ماتت قبله في سنة عشر وكذا ماتت زينب بنت خزيمة بعد دخولها عليه بقليل قال ابن عبد البر : مكثت عنده شهرين أو ثلاثة . فعلى هذا لم يجتمع عنده من الزوجات أكثر من تسع مع أن سودة كانت وهبت يومها لعائشة كما سيأتي في مكانه فرجحت رواية سعيد . لكن تحمل رواية هشام على أنه ضم مارية وريحانة إليهن وأطلق عليهن لفظ " نسائه " تغليبا . وقد سرد الدمياطي - في السيرة التي جمعها - من اطلع عليه من أزواجه ممن دخل بها أو عقد عليها فقط أو طلقها قبل الدخول أو خطبها ولم يعقد عليها فبلغت ثلاثين وفي المختارة من وجه آخر عن أنس " تزوح خمس عشرة : دخل منهن بإحدى عشرة ومات عن تسع " . وسرد أسماءهن أيضا أبو الفتح اليعمري ثم مغلطاي فزدن على العدد الذي ذكره الدمياطي وأنكر ابن القيم ذلك . والحق أن الكثرة المذكورة محمولة على اختلاف في بعض الأسماء وبمقتضى ذلك تنقص العدة . والله أعلم




Bukhari has pointed to a narration of Saeed bin Abi Aruba, and related it here and attached it to the twelfth chapter and narrated it in these words:

“He used to go around to his nisaana [females; women], and in those days he had nine nisaana” Ibn Habana has collected among the sahih, between two narrations, that it conveys two conditions: But that was because of his saying, “the first was upon his arrival in medina where under him were nine niswas, and the second condition was at the other time when he had collected under him eleven women” the doubt in it is that when he came to medina, he did not have under him any other women except Sauda. Then he came upon Aisha, then he married Umm Salima, and Hafsa, and Zainab d/o Hazima, in the year third and fourth (AH). Then he married Zainab d/o Jahash in the fifth and Javeria in the 6th, then Safia, Umm Habiba and Maimoona in the seventh. And these were all the women he married after the hijira that is known. He differed about Rehana. She was from Sabi bin Quraiza. Ibn Ishaaq decided that he proposed to marry her and imposed hijaab upon her, and she chose to stay in his posession, and most probably she died before him in the year 10 AH. Similarly, zainab bin khazima died a little while after he married her. Ibn Abdul Barr says that she stayed with him two or three months. Until that he had not gathered under him more than nine women. Besides, Sauda had gifted her day to Aisha, when he would come home.

Then the narration of Saeen returns : But the narration of Ibn Hasham carries the possibility that he joined maria and rehana together and applied upon them the term “nisaana”, most probably. Dhumyaatee had enumerated in his seerat he gathered: someone informed him that the number of women whom he SAW, married, or just did nikah with, or divorced after nikah before he married them, or proposed for them but then did not do nikah with them reached thirty. [The Women] from among them, says another source, Anas, “ there were fifteen, and he married eleven of them.” Abu Al fatah Al Yamaree also enumerated the names of the women; then he mistakenly added to the number that Dhumyaatee had mentioned. But Ibn Qayyim disagrees with that. He adds the names of most of the possible women, but differed in some of the names.

(Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=451 , bold and underlined emphasis ours , translated by Dr. Munir Munshey)

Note how he also includes Rehana in it too. We have no problem with that whatsoever, infact its rather interesting that they brought up Rehana. Allama Shibli Nu'Mani comments on this and says:

" Several historians record that out of the Quraiza prisoners, the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered a woman- Raihana by name- to be kept apart, and a few days later took her to wife. The historians who maintain that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not mind having conjugal relations with slave-girls, have cited two examples, one in the case of Raihana and the other in case of Mariyah Qibtiya. Christian historians have fondly believed and painted it in the darkest colours. One of these writers in a most sarcastic manner says: "The founder of Islam having enjoyed the sight of 700 assassinations came home to delight in.." In fact the whole story is pure fiction.

 All the reports stating how Raihana came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have either been taken from Waqidi or Ibn Ishaq.  But Waqidi has explicitly stated that she was duly wed. Ibn Sa'd's verion, borrowed from Waqidi, reports Raihana herself saying, " Then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set me free and married me."

 Hafiz Ibn Hajar, in his Isabah, quotes the following from Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan's History of Medina " And Raihana, of the tribe of the Quraiza who was a wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) lived in this house."

  Hafaiz Ibn Minda's book  Tabaqat al-Sahaba which has been the main source for the later traditionalists contains the following words: "Raihana was taken captive then set her fere and she went to her own family and lived with her people like a purdah observing lady." Hafaz Ibn Hajar, after having quoted it, remarks, " It is a highly signifacant fact to which Ibn al-Athir paid no heed." Hafiz Ibn Minda's version establishes the fact that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had set her free and that she lived with her family like a respectable lady. We hold this vesion to be the whole truth, and even if it is supposed that she entered the Prophet's Haram, she was certainly a married wife and by no means a slave girl"

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu'Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, p. 125-126 Vol. II, Kazi Publications Lahore)

Furthermore, in the maroon, we find this commentary:

"Biographical works have three versions of reports about Raihana. One, that she was set free and went back to her people to live a secluded life. This is reported by Ibn Minda and stands uncorroborated. Second, that the Prophet set her free and had a mind to let hier live as a wife like the other wives, but, realising the extraordinary responsibility of a wedded woman, she preferred to serve as a slave-girl. This is what Ibn Ishaq reports. Third, that the Prophet left the decision to her own choice, and then she embraced Islam, and the Prophet set her free and married her. This is Waqidi's report quoted by Ibn Sa'd through various chains : and Waqidi has declared it to be the proved version. See Kitab al-Bidaya, Ibn Kathir Vol. V, p.305. And Imam Zohri also corroborates the marriage version. See previous reference. For details refer to Isabah, account of Raihana."


So the Hadiths as cited by Shamoun further exposes him, and shows that there is the possibility that the term of nisaana was applied upon Mariyah and Rehana.

Hence, today we have scholars who debate about if Mariyah is a wife of the Prophet (S) or not, and again as cited above, the majority agree Mariyah was indeed a wife of the Prophet (S)!

Sam Shamoun then cites the Salafi scholars of Islam-qa, however these scholars say that there is no scholarly dispute about how many wives the Prophet (S) left behind, but we would have to disagree with that stance, as the scholars of Islamonline.net clearly say some sources say Mariyah is a wife, and others say Mariyah wasn't a wife:

"Was Maria the Copt a Slave, a Concubine, or a Wife of the Prophet?

Slavery already existed long before Islam. It was a system whereby a human captured in wars or kidnapped could be sold as a “possession.” That term applied to both sexes, not to women only. In some cultures slaves were considered subhuman and treated brutally. In Europe, for example, Romans threw Christian slaves to the lions while the public cheered; female slaves were thought to have no souls and were tortured mercilessly; slaves lived in degrading conditions; both sexes were forced to offer sexual favors to their masters; and as “possessions” they had no choice, no will, and no rights.


Islam recognized the human rights of slaves and encouraged Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") to set slaves free. Islam prohibited adultery and homosexuality, and prevented forcing female slaves into sexual acts against their will. Islam encouraged educating them, setting them free, then legally marrying them and giving them their moral and financial rights. The reward for this—as mentioned in Prophetic Hadith—is eternal residence in Paradise.


Maria (may Allah be pleased with her) was not a concubine; she was a slave owned by Egypt’s Christian governor, who offered her and her sister Serine—among other presents—as a “gift of good will” to the Prophet in reply to his envoys inviting him to Islam. On her way from Egypt to Madinah, she was curious to learn about “her new master” and listened to his Companions talk about him. As a result, she became Muslim before meeting Muhammad. Scholars’ opinions vary of her status afterwards; here is the opinion I support:

One of the prominent Al-Azhar scholars, Sheikh Abdul Majid Subh, states:

“Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), instead of taking concubines, entered into lawful marriages based on reason and wisdom. Maria the Copt was given to him as a present, but rather than taking her as a concubine, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married her, thus elevating her status by marriage.”

(Source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016508&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE )

Whats even more interesting is that on the same web page, I found this:

" Who Were the Prophet’s Wives?

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) married 12 wives in his life. When he died he had 9 wives. They have a very special status in the hearts of Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") as the “Mothers of the Believers,” as the Qur’an instructs, and they are the source of a great amount of wisdom which they learned while living close to such a great man. Perhaps you’d like to research a bit to find their beautiful stories, so here are their names: Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Sawdah bint Zam’ah, `A’ishah bint Abi Bakr, Hafsah bint `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, Umm Salama, Zaynab bint Jahsh, Juwayriah bint Al-Harith, Umm Habibah, Safiyah bint Huyay ibn Akhtab, Maymunah bint Al-Harith, Maria the Copt."

Now, lets move on to our analysis of Sam's heading on the majority of the scholars.


He Wrote:


Is the Majority Always Right?


Umar repeatedly asserts that the majority of Muslim scholars believe that Mariyah was Muhammad’s wife:


    It doesn't matter if the different views are found among the scholars, here is the bottom line:


    The majority agree, that she is indeed a wife of the Holy Prophet (S) !


He gets this information from the following source:


    The books of sirah (the biography of the Prophet Muhammad) differ on the number of his wives (may Allah bless all). The main reason behind the differences in the number of his wives is - in most of the cases - due to the reliance on weak non-authentic hadiths.


    However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars agreed that the wives of the prophet (pbuh) were:


        1. Khadijah

        2. `A’isha bint Abu Bakr

        3. Sawda bint Zum`ah

        4. Hafsa bint `Umar

        5. Zaynab bint Khuzaymah

        6. Um-Habibah bint Abu Sufyan

        7. Um-Salamah

        8. Zaynab bint Jahsh

        9. Juwariyah bint al-Harith

        10. Safiyah bint Hayi ibn Akhtab

        11. Maymunah al-Hilaliyah

        12. Mariya al-Qibtiya (Who was from Egypt.)


    (May Allah be pleased with all of them). These are the names upon whom the scholars agreed.

    Some books list Mariya as a concubine, yet the opinion I more lean toward is that she was one of the prophet’s wives and was not a concubine. Mariya was honored and respected by the prophet (pbuh), as well as his family and companions. (Prophet’s Illiteracy and Mariya; source)


My Response:


Okay, nothing much here, just the same source cited before.


He Wrote:


He also conveniently quotes only a portion of Wikipedia’s entry on Mariyah, but doesn’t bother to mention what they write under the subheading Maria and her sister sent from the Patriarch:


    Many Muslim sources say that Muhammad later freed and married Maria, but it is not clear if this is historical fact or historical apology. Some Muslim traditions claim that Muhammad offered to free Maria, but that she chose to remain a slave. To further complicate matters, slaves were to be automatically freed upon conversion to Islam, so it is not clear why Maria would have to be explicitly freed if she had already converted. (Source, as accessed on 16 March 2006; bold and underline emphasis ours)


My Response:


Here is the part which Shamoun forgot to note:

“Some Muslim traditions claim that Muhammad offered to free Maria, but that she chose to remain a slave. To further complicate matters, slaves were to be automatically freed upon conversion to Islam, so it is not clear why Maria would have to be explicitly freed if she had already converted. (Source, as accessed on 16 March 2006; bold and underline emphasis ours)"


The above in bold is infact very true, as the Prophet (S) has done this before. First, let us re-examine what Allama Shibli Nu'Mani says:


“Notwithstanding all that, the Potiphar of Egypt did not embrace Islam. Of the two girls sent by him, one was Mariya Qibtiya, who was married to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the other Sirin , who was married to Hasan; the mula was named Duldul, frequently mentioned in books on traditions. In the battle of Hunain, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was on the back of this very animal. Tabari says that Mariya was Qibtiya and Sirin were real sisters, and through the teachings of Hatib Ibn Abi Balta'a, who had been sent as a messenger to the Potiphar of Egypt, both had embraced Islam before reaching the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). What one has to note here is that these ladies were not slave girls and that they had already accepted Islam. We should hence conclude that Mariya Qibtiya entered the Prophet's household as a duly wedded wife, and not as a slave girl."


(Source: Sirat-Un-Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu'Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni p. 253, Vol. II Kazi Publications Lahore, Second Edition)



" It would be in the fitness of things to say a few words about the magnanious treatment that was accorded to the prisoners of war by Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions. This noble attitude which they showed can be fully appreciated if we review it in the context of the circumstances which led to the war. The Prophet and his companions had endured for full fifteen years unspeakable insults and injuries at the hands of the Quraysh of Mecca so much so that they were obliged to bid goodbye to their native place and seek shelter into a far-off place. The Meccans who were thirsty for their blood did not allow them to lead a life of peace even in their new abodes. They fell upon them with all their forces in order to exterminate them root and branch. Fate, however, decided otherwise and they were defeated by a small army of the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"). Amidgst such feelings of bitterness the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) remained calm and self-possessed. No atrocity was perpetrated upon the prisoners. Out of the seventy-two captives only two were executed, viz., al-Nadir b. al-Harith and Uqbah b. Abi Mu'ayt who were notorious for their unrelenting hostility towards the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"). The rest of the captives were treated with utmost kindness and consideration. "Blessings on the men of Medina," said one of these in later days, "they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates." It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the captives, yielding to these influences, embraced Islam and were therefore immediately set free. The rest were kept for ransom. But this was long before Quraysh could humble themselves to visit Medina for the purpose. The spell of kindly treatment was thus prolonged and left a favourable impression on the minds of those even who did not at once go over to Islam.

The ransom of each prisoner varied with his financial position, ranging from one thousand dirhams to four thousand. The poor who could not afford to pay were set f ree without any compensation. Those who could read and write were given the charge of small children. Each one of them had to teach ten of their wards and when they became proficient in reading and writing, their instructor was granted liberty. This condition of securing freedom throws a good deal of light on the value which Islam attaches to learning."

(Source: The Life of Muhammad PBUH by Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, p.185-186, Islamic Publications LTD.)

Thus, freeing slaves because they have converted to Islam is a Sunnah, and something done by the Holy Prophet (S) in the past, when the slave converted to Islam!


He Wrote:


All Umar is doing at this point is to commit the fallacy of appealing to the majority (ad populum).


My Response:


Besides all that, I brought proof to support my claims. For example, Shamoun has yet to bring a good response to my claim on Mariyah living seperate away from the household of the Prophet (S), (and later on, we will see how Shamoun fails in his attempt to reply to it).


He Wrote:


An important question that needs to be asked is who counts the "majority" of scholars? This is one source that claims so, but how do we know that what the authors of this reference have read really accounts for the majority? The majority of the early commentators? The majority of recent commentators? Commentators who published in which languages? Commentators from all Muslim sects or only from their own Muslim sect?


My Response:


I dont think I need to elaborate on the word 'scholars'. Its pretty clear what it means, everything above is just twist and turn.

Moreover, the word "scholars" should ring a bell in everyone’s ears. Scholars are people who study more then all of us, so if its one person who knows what their talking about, its the scholars!

Unlike Sam's friends on pal talk, these guys have studied their religion from top to bottom.

They aren't like Sam Shamoun's friend "Dk-man7" (who likes to forward messages with Shamoun’s insults), who "claims" he's a scholar:

Dk-man7: listen

Dk-man7: before you talk with a scholar like me

Dk-man7: you need to do your homework

Dk-man7: okay?


He Wrote:


Furthermore, instead of counting evidence Umar needs to start weighing it. In other words, it is not how many sources say a given thing, since the majority can be wrong as history amply attests, but the weight and the value of the sources being presented. It is the quality, not quantity, of the evidence that matters.


My Response:


Yes indeed, quality matters more then quantity. But lets just say for example, you had one website with one very good article, and another website with 5 very good articles ( more then the other), which one would you visit more often??

My claim that Mariyah was a wife of the Holy Prophet (S) and not a sex slave is backed up by common sense, logical explanations, and the majority of the Ulema. However, Sam Shamoun feels otherwise hence he once told me this in PM on paltalk:

Answering Islam: the idiot is u

Answering Islam: for not learning to read

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  look whos talking

Answering Islam: the ulema are not in the majority regarding ur lie


He Wrote:

In our initial article, we presented several sources to prove our case, much of which came from early and very credible Muslim scholars and historians. In fact, here is a list of Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"), both ancient and modern, which claim that Mariyah was a concubine or didn’t list her as one of the wives.


   1. Ibn Ishaq.

   2. Al-Tabari.

   3. Ibn Kathir.

   4. Al-Qurtubi.

   5. Al-Jalalayn (the two Jalals).

   6. Ibn Sa’d.

   7. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr.

   8. Abu ‘Ubaydah

   9. Ibn al-Qayyim.

  10. Zubayr ibn Bakkar.

  11. G.F. Haddad.

  12. Moiz Amjad of the www.understanding-islam.org website.

  13. Tariq Mahmood Hashmi of the www.studying-islam.org website.

  14. The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam.


My Response:


Note how Shamoun puts Sheikh G.F. Haddad on his list, yet he contradicts him with his interpretation of the Hadiths above.

Sheikh G.F. Haddad says:


Was Mariya al-Qibtiyya ever a spouse?


No. Mariya al-Qibtiyya was never a spouse but rather a surriyya - with tashdid of the ra and its kasr - until the passing of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, as explicitly stated by al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar in his al-Muntakhab min Kitab Azwaj al-Nabi salla Allahu `alyhi wa-Sallam (Risala 1983 ed. p. 60):


„Wa-tuwuffiya Rasulullah (salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallama) wa-Mariyatu fi mulkih, fa`ataqat, fa`taddat `alayhi thalatha hiyadin ba`dah.“


„The Messenger of Allah passed away as Mariya was in his possession (as a slavewoman), whereupon she became free then observed, after her widowhood of him, three menstrual periods of home seclusion.“

Important notes:


1- The Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, made her wear hijab (contrary to the normal ruling for slaves).


2- At one time, because of one of his wives‘ complaint, he swore that he would stay away from Mariya then Allah Most High ordered him to cancel that oath without kaffara. (This may have been confused with a revocable divorce by some; in reality it confirms that a self-pronounced tahrim of mulk al-yamin is inconsequential. Imam Malik said: „Haram is halal with regard to slavewomen.“)


3- When Ibrahim, alyhi as-Salam, was born the Prophet said of her, upon him blessings and peace: „Her son freed her.“ (This may have been interpreted as a cancellation of her slavehood tantamount to a declaration of marriage but is confirmed by the narrations to apply to her status after the passing of the Holy Prophet, upon him blessings and peace.)


4- When the Prophet died, upon him blessings and peace, she observed three menstrual periods of `idda in complete home seclusion (contrary to the normal ruling for slaves because at that time she became a freedwoman).


5- Our liege-lords Abu Bakr and  `Umar in their caliphates spent lavishly on her (in resemblance of the duty to support the Mothers of the believers) until she died in Muharram of the year 16. `Umar gathered the people himself, she was buried in al-Baqi`, and he prayed over her. Allah be well-pleased with her.


6- The Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, did free and marry the surriyya Rayhana bint Zayd ibn `Amr of the Banu al-Nadir. This case may have been confused with that of Mariya. And Allah knows best.



- The Hafiz, Qadi of Makka, and genealogist al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar (172-256) in his al-Muntakhab min Kitab Azwaj al-Nabi salla Allahu `alyhi wa-Sallam.


- Hafiz Sharaf al-Din al-Dimyati (613-708), Nisa‘ Rasul Allah salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam.


- Hafiz Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari (615-694), al-Samt al-Thamin fi Manaqib Ummahat al-Mu‘minin.


- Hafiz Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihi (d. 942), Subul al-Huda wal-Rashad fi Sirat Khayr al-`Ibad.




(Source: http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/sm1-gfh_e.html#9 )


Now, the Sheikh says that the case of Mariyah has been confused with Rayhana (Rehana), so now lets go back to the hadiths cited by Shamoun which say there are 9 wives of the Prophet (S) (Note: We have replied to that above). When you add Rehana to the list now, you will have 10 wives, so now the only thing left for Shamoun to do is agree with the commentary of the hadith (that speaks of the possibility of the narration speaking of Mariyah).


My Response:


It has been Umar’s habit to discredit Muslim sources such as al-Tabari while praising his own scholars who conveniently happen to agree with him, such as Allama Shibli Naumani.


We provide here the view of the scholars of www.Islamqa.com regarding the commentaries of al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir in order to put an end to Umar’s desperate tactics of discrediting data which soundly refutes him:


    Each of these Tafseers was written by a great Sunni scholar, and the scholars still recommend them. Each of them has its own characteristics which means that the seeker of knowledge cannot show preference to one of them over the other. There follow a few comments on these two Tafseers.


They present quotes from Muslim scholars praising al-Tabari:


    Abu Haamid al-Isfaraayini said: If a traveller were to travel to China in order to obtain it, that would not be too much.


    Tabaqaat al-Mufassireen by al-Dawoodi, 2/106.


    Ibn Khuzaymah said: I have read it from beginning to end and I do not know of anyone on the face of the earth who is more knowledgeable than Ibn Jareer.


    Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, 14/273.


    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: With regard to the Tafseers that are in circulation among the people, the most sound of them is the Tafseer of Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari, for he mentions the views of the salaf with proven isnaads, and there is no bid’ah (innovation) in it, and he does not transmit reports from dubious sources such as Muqaatil ibn Bukayr and al-Kalbi.


    Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 13/358.


    He also said in Muqaddimah fi Usool al-Tafseer (p. 35), concerning the Tafseer of Ibn Jareer:


    It is one of the best and greatest of Tafseers.


    He relied on the views of three generations of mufassireen among the salaf, namely the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een, and the followers of the Taabi’een, and he quotes their opinions with isnaads going back to them. This is an important feature of his book which is not present in many of the books of Tafseer that are in circulation among us. But this feature does not matter to many ordinary Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") who are not able to research isnaads and distinguish sound isnaads from weak ones; all they want is to know whether an isnaad is sound or weak by means of a clear and brief statement to that effect. 


    When he has finished quoting their opinions, he states which he thinks is most likely to be correct, then he describes how he reached that conclusion.


My Response:


The above is just another desperate attempt. Sam quotes a Salafi scholar that says Tabari's Tafsir is sound, however, here is another Salafi scholar, Jalaal Abulrub who says this about Tabari:

Status of at-Tabari's Tarikh

Imam Muhammad Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (224-310/838-922) was a major scholar of Hadeeth, Tafsir (meaning contained in the Quran) and Islamic History, as Imam adh-Dhahabi stated.  At-Tabari started his book on Tarikh with creation and ended it with historical accounts that occurred during his time.  But at-Tabari was not the first to write a book on Islamic history, as Winn claimed.  Al-Ya`qubi wrote a Tarikh before at-Tabari that also started with the story of creation.


However, and just like many other Muslim historians, Ibn Jarir relied heavily on Ibn Is`haq's Seerah while reporting the Prophet's biographyThis is why a good segment of at-Tabari's Tarikh is almost identical to Ibn Is`haq's Seerah; at-Tabari often quotes Ibn Is`haq even if to contradict him.  The Tarikh by at-Tabari is by no means a Hadeeth or Tafsir collection.  It is far larger than Ibn Is`haq's Seerah, because it narrates the stories of Creation, earlier Prophets and nations, pre-Islamic history, the history of the Islamic era, until his time, and includes biographies of countless number of people.  It also includes Quranic Verses and Prophetic Hadeeths relevant to the topics contained in the book.  It is a book on Tarikh, not on Tafsir or Hadeeth.  At-Tabari compiled another book on Tafsir, popularly known as, Tafsir at-Tabari, dedicated to explaining the meaning contained in the Quran.  At-Tabari's Tafsir is one of the major books of Tafsir.  Yet, it also contains many false Hadeeths and unreliable narrations that he collected from various resourcesAt-Tabari was a scholar, but neither he nor his book are divine.  In Islam, the only resources that are free from errors are the Quran and the authentic Sunnah as reported through reliable, established chains of narration. 


To summarize, at-Tabari's book on history suffers from similar defects as Ibn Is`haq's Seerah.  This is because when reporting history, Muslim scholars did not set a condition to only include authentic narrations reporting various incidents or statements.  Thus, Seerah and Tarikh books are collections of stories that their authors collected from various sources, using authentic chains of narration, weak chains of narrations and even no chains of narration.  Enjoying a book of stories about earlier nations and historical accounts is one thing.  Using these stories as a source for Islamic legislation is an entirely different matter. 

(Source: http://madinahstore.com/mercy/2.htm  , Page no longer available)


So all Shamoun managed to do was show how desperate he was.


He Wrote:


They also write concerning Ibn Kathir that:


    Al-Suyooti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said concerning this Tafseer: Nothing like it has ever been written.


    Tadhkirat al-Huffaaz, p. 534.


    This Tafseer is based on commentary by quoting texts – verses and ahaadeeth – and its fame is second to the fame of al-Tabari among later scholars.


    It is written in an excellent and easy style which is not longwinded or boring, or too short and boring.


    He explains verses by quoting other verses, and he quotes appropriate verses which explain the verse under discussion; then he quotes ahaadeeth that have been narrated on the same topic as the verse, and he quotes the isnaads of some, especially those that were narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, as he is one of those who memorized al-Musnad. He discusses the soundness and weakness of the ahaadeeth in most cases, which is an important feature of his Tafseer. Then he quotes the views of the salaf, including the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, and he states which view he believes to be superior. He also avoids odd dissenting opinions.


    Muhammad ibn Ja’far al-Kataani said of it: It is full of ahaadeeth and reports with the isnaads of those who narrated them and discussion of how sound or weak they are.


    Al-Risaalah al-Mustatrafah, p. 195


    He draws attention to the shar’i attitude towards the Israa’eeliyyaat (reports from Jewish sources) and quotes some of them in his commentary on some verses.


They then conclude by saying:


    No seeker of knowledge can do without these two books. With regard to which is superior, nothing like the Tafseer of Ibn Jareer (al-Tabari) has been written since. It is essential for scholars and seekers of knowledge, but it is not appropriate for ordinary people because they are not qualified to understand it properly. The Tafseer of Ibn Katheer is more appropriate for the ordinary people, and there is much in it from which scholars and seekers of knowledge can benefit. (Question #43778: Which is more sound, Tafseer Ibn Katheer or Tafseer al-Tabari?; online source; bold and underline emphasis ours)


My Response:


What we must say is that we are not telling the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") to throw away the Tafsir of Ibn Jareer. In the words of Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, that commentary is itself a "lumber house of fact and fiction".

What we are saying is here that the reader must look at one's source and the authenticity of its claims before speaking.


He Wrote:


Even though these quotes refer mainly to al-Tabari’s commentary they still provide an idea of the kind of researcher and scholar al-Tabari truly was. His scholarship and meticulous research provides a strong basis for trusting his statements in his "History" regarding Mariyah’s status, especially when there are other scholars and sources that agree with him on this point.


Thus, we have given weighty evidence, as well as numerous references, to support our position. We therefore challenge Umar to list the names of this so-called majority of scholars in order to see just how old and credible they are.


My Response:


Shamoun concludes that since the Salafi Scholars at Islam-QA say Tabari was a great scholar, therefore his quotes on Mariyah's status is strong, and again Shamoun has elevated his source to a demi-god position, just like how he did with Maududi.

Infact, from what we know, while Tabari described the incident of Mariyah, he used obscene details to describe it:

" The obscene facts described in these reports, particularly the details given by Tabari and others of his like, are too nasty to be ascribed even to a man of ordinary morals, much less to the august personality who was purity and piety incarnate."

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu'Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni p. 233-234 Vol. II, Kazi Publications Lahore)

Piety incarnate, as described above, is the Holy Prophet (S)!

Furthermore, Shamoun wants to argue that since Tabari was a scholar, and he has studied much etc, his statements are strong, yet we can also apply the same method also to Allama Shibli Nu'Mani!

Here is an introduction in the beginning of Sirat Un Nabi:

"On the whole the Sirat an-Nabi by Shibli Nu'mani is comprehensive to a very great extent, and this is why I have made it a subject of my serious venture. It would be quite in the fitness of things to give a short biography of the Allama Shibli in the following lines.

Shams al-Ulema 'Allama Shibli Nu'mani was born in the year 1857 C.D, in the village known as Bindawal, district A'zamgarh, U.P. He received his early education under the able supervision of Maulvi Shukr Allah and then he went to Maulvi Muhammad Faruq Chiryakoti for learning Arabic. He undertook journeys to as distant places as Rampur, Saharanpur, Lucknow, Lahore etc., for aquiring knowledge of Hadith, Tafsir and such other Islamic subjects. When nineteen years old he undertook the Pilgrimage to the Holy Ka'ba (1876 C.E.) and there he had the opportunity of studying great works in the libraries of Medina. The 'Allama has naturally a poet and has composed verses in Urdu and Persian. He often presided over Musha'irahs held in his native district of Amzagarh. Though born in a land-lord family, he did not like this type of life. He took to the course of lawand passed the law examination. He started his practice at A'zamgarh; but here again his natural incliation compelled him to give it up. Later on he became an Amin (collection officer) and again had to give it up. Now he devoted his time to study.

 'Allama's brother, Mehdi by name was receiving his education at the Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College (now Muslim University) Aligarh. In 1882 C.E., the 'Allama went to Aligarh to see his brother. Here he came into contact with Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who perceiving the qualities, talents, and capabilities of this learned giant, appointed him as the Professor of Arabic and Persian. Here the 'Allama could get all that he wanted- scholars, books, and sufficient time and ample opportunities to read and write. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan's own library stood him in good stead; and he took to writing. First of all he authored the book known as Al-Ma'mun which was soon followed by Sirat Nu'man. His quest for knowledge took him to Egypt, Syria, and Rome. It was on this journey that he gathered material for his next book al-Faruq. After the death of Sir Sayyed in 1889 C.E., the 'Allama resigned from the M.A.O College and settled in A'zamgarh.

  Very seen the 'Allama was called to Hyderabad (Deccan) by Maulvi Sayyid 'Ali Bilgrami. Here he was appointed as Nazim (an executive post). It was during his stay at Hyderabad that he wrote at-Ghazali, Life of Maulana Rum, 'Ilm al-Kalam and Mawazana Anis wa Dabir.

 In the 19th century, after the failure of the first Independence Movement of 1857 C.E., the Indian Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") were opposing the western type of education and the reforms of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. The old traditional institutions were also not keeping their pace with time. Hence rose the necessity of institutions charged with Muslim faith and correct educational atmostphere. In 1897 C.E., Nadwat al-Ulema (a famous centre of Arabic and religious education) was started at Lucknow with a view of imparting right type of education to the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"). Muhammad 'Ali of Kanpur was its founder. After Muhammad 'Ali's resignation the conditions of the Nadwat al-'Ulema deteriorated. 'Allama Shibli himself went to Lucknow and took the institution in his own charge. He continued discharging this responsibility till 1913 C.E., when as a result of the machinations of his opponents he had to resign. Now he came to A'zamgarh and established an institution for editing and compiling books. It was styled as "Dar al Musannifin". Even today this institution is serving the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") and a few years back its Silver Jubilee, was celebrated with great pomp and show.

 'Allama Shibli acquired fame not only in India but in foreign countries too, where the alumini held him in high regard. In 1892 C.E., the Sultan of Turkey conferred upon him the high esteemed badge of honor known as "Tamgha Majidiah"; and in 1894 C.E., the Government of India recognized his merits and honored him with the title of "Shams al-Ulema". This year he was appointed as the Fellow of the Allahbad University. The Royal Asistic Society in recognition of his meritorious services nominated him as its member. His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Deccan too granted him a pension of Rs. 100/p.m; and later on increased it to Rs. 300/ - a month. The famous English Orientalist Professor E.G. Browne; in his fourth volume of Literary History of Persia acknowledged expressly his indebtedness to the 'Allama and appreciated his Shi'r al- 'Ajam. His last book was Sirat an-Nabi, which very unfortunately, could not see the light of publication during the 'Allama's life-time. After an illness of fifteen days the great' Allama breathed his last on November 18th 1914 C.E. (May his soul rest in peace.)

His Literary Movements: The Allama has a large number of works to his credit, cheif of them being, 'Ilm al-Kalam, al-Faruq, Mawazanah Anis wa Dabir, She'r al-'Ajam, Majmu'ah Kalam Urdu, Diwan Shibli, Sirat an-Nabi and a number of articles. His writings are the results of his intense research and painstaking studies.His style is marked by the grandeur of florid phraseology and rhetorical expressions. It is worth noting that sometimes the 'Allama has allowed his pen liberty to be influenced and guided by his own convictions even at the cost of  impartiality. However, to quote Ram Babu Saxena, " His genius combined a Faqih, a Muhaddith, a Mufassir, a Muwarrigh, a Poet, a Professor etc., etc.

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu'Mani rendered into English by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, Preface by Translator Volume I, Kazi Publications Lahore)

He further states,

“Notwithstanding all this, the present work of 'Allama Shibli is the first and the most exhaustive attempt in this direction; and so it is worthy of every praise"


 “In the end I must confess that it is nothing short of a mircale that a non-entity like me has succeeded in bringing out this translation of this master-piece."

(Source: Ibid, xxvi-xxvii)


In light of the foregoing, the readers can see that Shamouns quote of the scholars at Islam-QA again doesn't solve much, but just shows again how desperate he is.

Moreover, Sam Shamoun once told me that my source was a "Sirat for idiots" in PM on paltalk:

Answering Islam: and ur lover

Answering Islam: the author of

Answering Islam: Sirat

Answering Islam: for idiots

Answering Islam: lool


Maybe that explains why he attacks my source....


He Wrote:


And Now The Clincher


The readers will remember that the status of Mariyah became an issue because of the comments made by Ali Sina of www... In one of his article he had written that:


    The following is Muhammad’s scandalous love affair with Mariyah the Copt who was one of the prophet’s wives’ maids. Muhammad slept with her without any ceremony, which caused uproar among his wives and finally was settled by Divine intervention. This story is recorded in an authenticated Hadith and is reported by Omar… One-day Muhammad goes to his wife’s house Hafsa the daughter of Omar and finds her maid Mariyah attractive. He sends Hafsa to Omar’s house, telling her that he wanted to see her. When Hafsa leaves, Muhammad takes Mariyah to bed and has intercourse with her. Meanwhile Hafsa, who finds out that her father was not expecting her, returns home much sooner than expected, and to her chagrin finds her illustrious husband in bed with her maid. (Mariyah the Sex Slave of the holy Prophet; source; underline emphasis ours)


Sina’s claim that Mariyah was Hafsa’s maid caused quite a furor among Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"). The typical response was that Sina was deliberately lying since there is no Islamic source which says Mariyah was a maid of Hafsa’s.


What makes this all the more interesting is that Umar, in his latest rebuttal, has actually come to vindicate Sina and provided support for his statements. Umar quotes his brother Karim who says:


    Brother Karim replies to this already, here is his response:


    " Actually Shamoun doesn't understand that the Prophet was fair in dealing with his wifes[sic], since the Quran commands Muslim men who are married to more then one wife, to deal fair/equal and just with them. The Prophet's wifes[sic] had each an own house/ livingroom, and the Prophet gave each wife a day of the week, for example the Prophet spend time with aicha[sic] together on friday, and on saterday[sic] he spend time with Safiyya. So the prophet could very well for example on sunday spend his time with his wife Mariyah. So the fact that a wife doesn't live in the same street of the prophet doesn't mean she can never be his wife. Actually a slave has to work for the household, which means for the man and woman of the house (many hadith bear witness to this) , so if Mariyah was slave, IT MEANS SHE ALSO HAD TO WORK FOR THE PROPHET’S WIFES[SIC], IF THEY AKSED[SIC] HER TO DO SOMETHING IN THE HOUSE OR ON THE LAND. So Mariyah could never be the Prophet's slave, since she couldn't do any work for the prophet and his wifes[sic]. However the prophet as her husband could easily spend one day of the week with mariya, as her husband"


We repeat the relevant portion for all to see the slip made by the authors:




What this essentially means is that Mariyah was not only Muhammad’s slave but the servant of all of his wives as well, WHICH BASICALLY IMPLIES THAT SHE WAS ALSO HAFSA’S SLAVE! These authors have now vindicated Ali Sina, proving that he was correct to identify Mariyah as Hafsa’s maid! After all, if she were obligated to serve his wives then she would have been a servant of Hafsa as well.


Umar has demonstrated what basically happens when a person doesn’t think through the issues and reflect on the answers carefully. He makes concessions and ends up contradicting himself from one rebuttal to the next.


Moreover, Karim’s argument really doesn’t have much force to it. Muhammad could just as well have kept Mariyah as a sex slave, which wouldn’t require her to perform any duties for his wives. After all, the reverse does not seem to be the case. Certainly, it would be up to the owner, Muhammad, to decide what duties his slave-girl has, whether only being available to him for physical pleasure, or also doing work in the house, or the garden, or aiding one or several or all of his wives in their duties. But if the owner wants, he can certainly reserve her for himself exclusively, and she would then not have had to work for the wives.


Be that as it may, Karim’s comments provide support for Sina’s argument regarding Mariyah being Hafsa’s maid.


Now watch as Umar scrabbles to find a way of correcting this major slip in order to try to do some damage control.


My Response:


Brother Karim saw this part of Shamouns article, and here is his reply:

" Mr. ALi Sina claimed that mariyah was hafsa's maid, which would mean that Hafsa was the owner of Mariyah, and bought her. This makes someone an owner of a slave , something which mr. Sham Shamoun fails to understand. Moreover it's well known that slaves mostly worked also for the family of their owner / guardian, a lot of matsers in general assigned to their slaves the tasks of working for their household (this because the slave-master is not as much at home as the rest of his family, like his wife and sons/daughters, therefor it's complete normal to understand that slaves had to work for the household of their master, which however doesn't mean that the wife and sons/daughters of the slave-master are the owners of the slave, the slave -owner/ master is the person who bought the slave. Hafsa clearly wasn't the owner of Mariyah, since Mariyah was not given as a gift to Hafsa (from the Coptic King), and neither did Hafsa bought mariyah on a slavemarket or something. Mr. Ali Sina was therefore clearly wrong ,when he claimed that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid."

Again, we will see why Sina in the first place thought Mariyah was Hafsa's servant; here is a reply he sent me in the Faithfreedom forum:


I already gave the sources in the article. Go to the bottom of the article and read the new edition dated March 28, 2006

Now why this is so important? Was Mariyah a slave girl or not? Based on what one can deduct from the Tabaqat she was Hafsa’s maid, because Muhammad had sex with her in Hafsa's house.

Now suppose she was not Hafsa’s maid. Whould that maky any difference? You missed the main point that the man you call prophet has sex with a maid. This is something shameful.

Your objectionis absurd. It is like you accuse me of murder saying you saw me killing someone with white shirt and I argue about the color of the shirt asking you to prove that it was white. This is disgusting that you miss the main issue. Forget about Hafsa. Muhammad had sex with a slave girl without marrying her and then made his imaginary Allah say it is okay and it is his right to do it. This is the point not the fact that Mariyah was Hafsa’s maid or someone else’s.


Don't be a follower, but a prophet unto your own.


(Source: https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/umar_mary2_rebuttal.htm )

So Ali Sina claims because the Holy Prophet (S) allegedly had sex with Mariyah in Hafsa's house, thus it means Mariyah is Hafsa's maid! Hilarious indeed!

Ali Sina tells his forum members before they enter the forum to respect his "Ten Commandments" of his forum, which are:

   1.  Do not insult other members, Do not utter racial slurs or call for violence against certain groups of people. Clashes of opinions are welcomed but clashes of personalities are not.

   2. Do not spam or flood the forum with too many postings. Limit your postings to maximum seven messages per day.

   3. Think before writing. Quality matters more than quantity.

   4. Do not use foul language nor override the general norms of civility. Let your words be the expression of who you are.

   5. You’ll be “flamed” by other members if you behave unscholarly.

   6. You do not have to be a scholar to participate in this forum but try to act like one.

   7. Do not use an offensive nickname as your user name.

   8. Be considerate of other members’ time and write only if you have something of value to say.

   9. Remember that the membership to this forum is not a birthright, but rather a privilege. We love to see the flowers of all kinds and hues in our garden but the moderators are always on the watch to weed out the “thorny” shrubs that try to suffocate other plants. 

  10. This forum is for serious discussions. Please do not register multiple usernames like Muhammad and his Allah whose one alias said one thing and his hidden alias came to his support. We can easily see if you use multiple usernames, do not like it and will reveal your little secret. So don't do that.  

Please join only if you agree.

(Source: http://www../forum.htm , bold and underlined emphasis ours )

He asks his forum members to think before they write, and to act like scholars, on the contrary, Ali Sina doesn't act like a scholar, nor does he think before he writes, hence he says because Mariyah allegedly had sex with the Prophet (S) in Hafsa's house, she is Hafsa's maid, yet he brings no proof to back up this idiotic claim!

So much for "think before writing,"!

Later on, our good friend Ali started to get mad at me, so he ended up saying this:

What a moron! You simily have no brain to understand anything.

Mariyah was the maid of Hafsa. This is clear from the story I reported. Why else Mo would send Hafsa out to have sex with Mariyh in her house. What the hell Mariyah was doing in Hafsa's house? Did you read the new addition to my article.

YOu are too stupid for me to waste my time with. Write in the forum and don't bug me again. I will delete your messages. You are a brainless zombie and don't undersand when I explian things to you that any child would understand.

Shame on you follower of Satan


Don't be a follower, but a prophet unto your own.

(Source: https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/umar_mary2_rebuttal.htm )

What else can we say? It is evident that Sina brought up the claim that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid, because he wanted to add more juice to his story about "honey". Indeed, this individual is an Islamophobic, a real hater, a man who would do anything to defend his baseless claims, and do anything, even twist evidence, to critique the Exalted Character of the Holy Prophet (S)!

Shamoun then comments on Brother Karim's other comments, he says:

"Moreover, Karim’s argument really doesn’t have much force to it. Muhammad could just as well have kept Mariyah as a sex slave, which wouldn’t require her to perform any duties for his wives. After all, the reverse does not seem to be the case. Certainly, it would be up to the owner, Muhammad, to decide what duties his slave-girl has, whether only being available to him for physical pleasure, or also doing work in the house, or the garden, or aiding one or several or all of his wives in their duties. But if the owner wants, he can certainly reserve her for himself exclusively, and she would then not have had to work for the wives."

The above in no way refuted the initial statement made by Brother Karim:

" Actually Shamoun doesn't understand that the Prophet was fair in dealing with his wifes, since the Quran commands Muslim men who are married to more then one wife, to deal fair/equal and just with them. The Prophet's wifes had each an own house/ livingroom, and the Prophet gave each wife a day of the week, for example the Prophet spend time with aicha together on friday, and on saterday he spend time with Safiyya. So the prophet could very well for example on sunday spend his time with his wife Mariyah. So the fact that a wife doesn't live in the same street of the prophet doesn't mean she can never be his wife. Actually a slave has to work for the household, which means for the man and woman of the house (many hadith bear witness to this) , so if Mariyah was slave, it means she also had to work for the prophet's wifes, if they aksed her to do something in the house or on the land. So Mariyah could never be the Prophet's slave, since she couldn't do any work for the prophet and his wifes. However the prophet as her husband could easily spend one day of the week with mariya, as her husband"

Brother Karim's response is by far more scholarly then Shamouns.


He Wrote:


Some Final Remarks


In his haste to "refute" me, Umar responds to my point that Sura 4:128-130 gave Muhammad sanction to neglect his wife by claiming that I misunderstood Sura 4:34! He writes:


    Sam Shamoun now shows how ignorant he is of Sura 4:34, where Allah Almighty tells men, that they are the "protectors and maintainers of women":


It is very hard to see how I could be called ignorant of Sura 4:34 when I never even mentioned it in my rebuttal! It seems that Umar simply copied and pasted this section from another rebuttal addressing another article I had written where I discuss this specific text.


My Response:


Now, here is what Shamoun initially said regarding Sura 4:128-130:

"Moreover, many do not realize that there is a passage in the Quran which gave Muhammad sanction to mistreat and neglect any wife he no longer deemed attractive:


And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband, there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people's) minds; and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of what you do. You will not be able to be equitable between your wives, be you ever so eager; yet do not be altogether partial so that you leave her as it were suspended. If you set things right, and are godfearing, God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. But if they separate, God will enrich each of them of His plenty; God is All-embracing, All-wise. S. 4:128-130


In the above text, instead of warning the men against mistreating their spouses, women who fear mistreatment or desertion are told that they can seek a means of reconciliation. "

(Source: https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/umar_mary2_rebuttal.htm )


"Furthermore, this means that Sura 4:128-130 gives Muslim men the sanction to simply ignore any wife whom they no longer feel attracted to, thereby denying them the pleasure of love and intimacy!'

(Source: Ibid)

We replied to the above, and challenged Shamoun:

Where in the Noble Ayats, does it give sanction (Authoritative permission) to ignore your wife? Infact, what it does say is to NOT TURN AWAY FROM A WOMAN, SO AS TO LEAVE HER HANGING..

The Ayats (Sura 4:128-130) clearly say:

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. But if they disagree (and must part), God will provide abundance for all from His all-reaching bounty: for God is He that careth for all and is Wise."

(The Holy Qur'an, Sura 4 Ayat no. 128-130)

Shamoun first says that the text doesn't warn men to not mistreat their wives, yet how can Shamoun say this when Sura 4:34 says;

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God 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 God 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 God is Most High, great (above you all). ( The Holy Qur'an, Sura 4 Ayat no. 34)

The Holy Qur'an is clear, and it says to protect our wives. I wonder how one can now say that protecting is the now equivalent to mistreating!

It's either Shamoun was totally ignorant of the above verse (which is infact highly doubtful), or he twisted the Ayat purposely to support his twisted claims.


He Wrote:


Moreover, despite the fact that the data overwhelmingly supports the position that Mariyah was Muhammad’s slave, not his wife, that is still not the real issue. As we have seen throughout these series of exchanges there are Muslim sources which do say that Muhammad married Mariyah.


Here is the real issue: Recall that in our initial and first rebuttal we were addressing the assertions of two Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") who DENIED that Mariyah was Muhammad’s slave:


    Looking at any reputable source will tell you that Muhammad (PBUH) and Mariyah (RA) were legally married… (Bahagia, Muhammad (PBUH) and Mariyah (RA); source)




    Our Response:


    Ali Sina begins his article, with a CLEAR-CUT LIE! Mariyah the Copt wasn't just a servant, she was the Prophet’s (S) own Wife! (Bassam Zawadi, Rebuttal to Ali Sina's article: "Mariyah the Sex Slave of the holy Prophet"; original version of this article) [1]


Hence, the issue at hand is whether there is evidence from Islamic sources which emphatically say that Muhammad never married Mariyah and that she remained his slave until he died. As we have demonstrated, and as Umar himself had to concede, there is plenty of evidence for this view. These Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") were therefore wrong for claiming otherwise or for selectively choosing data which supported their position while ignoring other references which disagreed with their claim. That was the point of our rebuttal. Whether Mariyah was Muhammad’s slave or his wife, or even a slave whom he later married, is beside the point.


My Response:


For one thing, initially we wrote the rebuttal to Sina to refute his lies regarding the alleged incident of Hafsa (R) running into the Holy Prophet (S) and Mariyah (R). We have already refuted that story, and Shamoun just wont accept our refutation, so he insists on the same argument that Mariyah is a slave etc., so that when one says Mariyah is a slave, they will eventually agree that what Sina said was correct too (regarding Hafsa running into the Prophet (S) and Mariyah).

As mentioned earlier, the narrations that describe that incident are too obscene even for a regular person, so how can they be applied to man of such morals like the Holy Prophet (S)?


He Wrote:


We conclude with a summary of all the conflicting views and gross contradictions posited by the various Muslim sources.


   1. Muslim sources present contradictory dates for Surah 33, specifically 33:52.

   2. Muslim sources contradict one another regarding whether Sura 33:52 was abrogated by Sura 33:50 or not.

   3. Muslim sources indicate that Sura 33:50 was given before Sura 33:52, which means that the abrogating verse actually came before the verse which it was suppose to abrogate!

   4. Muslim sources contradict one another whether Mariyah was Muhammad's wife or concubine.

   5. The so-called sound narrations (the sahih ahadith) say that Muhammad had a total of nine wives, a number which excludes Mariyah from being a wife since including her would raise the number to ten.

   6. Muslim sources disagree whether Sura 33:52 prohibited Muhammad from marrying all women, including slaves, or whether he was prohibited from marrying slave women who were not spoils of war.


The foregoing exposes the mass confusion that exists within Islamic scholarship and how utterly chaotic the religion of Islam truly is.


My Response:


We conclude now with our points:

1) Regarding the date of Sura 33:52, Muhammad Asad and Sheikh Yusuf Ali already corrected Tabari’s dating. If Shamoun still insists there’s a contradiction, then all we can say is leave him in his arrogance.

2) Since Shamoun is fond of the term "abrogation", we will show him where in the Bible God Almighty "abrogates" his words:

"How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused."  (Hosea 11:8)

"So the LORD relented. "This will not happen," the LORD said." (Amos 7:3)

"and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." (Jeremiah 18:8)

"Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened." (Exodus 32:14)

"Who can tell, God may turn and revoke His sentence against us, and turn away from His fierce anger so that we perish not. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God revoked His evil that He had said that He would do to them and He did not do it." (Jonah 3:9-10)

"Rend your hearts and not your garments and return to the Lord, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness; and He revokes His sentence of evil.  Who knows but what He will turn, revoke your sentence, and leave a blessing behind Him, even a cereal or meal offering and a drink offering for the Lord, your God?" (Joel 2:13-14)

"Put him at all to death did Hezekiah king of Judah, and all Judah? Did he not fear Jehovah? yea, he appeaseth the face of Jehovah, and Jehovah repenteth concerning the evil that He spake against them; and we are doing great evil against our souls." (Jeremiah 26:19)

3) The only Muslim source I know of that says Sura 33:50 came before Sura 33:52, and in this case, the preceder abrogated the latter is Ali Dashti. Scholars like Ibn Kathir, Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad etc. dont say that.

4) Muslim sources bring two views, one is that Mariyah (R) is a wife of the Prophet (S), which is the majority view, and makes more sense, the other is that she was just a concubine. We have already refuted this allegation that she was a concubine, and to be exact, the backbone of this claim is the claim that Hafsa (R) ran into the Holy Prophet (S) having intercourse with Mariyah (R). We have already responded to that, so the only logical option is that Mariyah (R) was a Wife of the Holy Prophet (S)!

5) The Sahih hadiths also give the possibility that Mariyah and Rehana were given the title nisaana, which in the context of the hadith would mean wife.

6) It doesn't matter what the sources say. Shamoun first tried to Yusuf Ali against me, and said that as per Yusuf Ali the Holy Prophet (S) went against the Qur'an if he married Mariyah after the revealing of the Ayat, however, that’s not how Yusuf Ali feels as shown above.

Shamoun again concludes that since some scholars say Mariyah is a slave, and the rest say she wasn't, therefore Islamic scholarship is chaotic, therefore Islam is chaotic.

Whats more interesting is that there are Christian scholars who say the Bible has been corrupted, and tampered with etc., I wonder why Shamoun wouldn't conclude that since Christian scholars dispute about the Bible, Christianity is chaotic.


He Wrote:


Recommended Reading


If the readers are interested in seeing how well Umar did in defending his thesis against agnostics and atheists we recommend reading the posts found on this link. Umar’s name in the forum is QuranSearch.Com.


My Response:


The link is:


We appreciate that Sam posted the link here, so that everyone can see how bad Shamoun's friend "Hector" did in defending his "thesis". The individual Hector quoted from Shamoun’s article, and used the Sura 33:52 arguments, yet it only backfired against him.

What’s interesting is that in this forum, a person named "ben malik" appeared. When Brother Bassam saw this, he told me that Sam is ben malik, because he debated brother Saami once under that same nick!

Now, I was a bit skeptical so I asked Shamoun to swear on Jesus that he isn't Ben Malik. He obviously told me that he cant, because hes a Christian, and that is understandable, however I find it interesting that Shamoun once used this "acid test", of asking someone to Swear on Jesus that they aren't someone, on a Christian! Her name is "hannah bananah", and I recalled her once telling me that in Shamoun’s room, she was asked by Shamoun to swear on Jesus name that she wasn't another Christian:

hannah bananah: shamouns asked me HIMSELF to swear on Jesus

hannah bananah: he on mic

hannah bananah: he was admin

hannah bananah: after debate

hannah bananah: they were all saying

hannah bananah: you won you won

hannah bananah: I said noone won

hannah bananah: he said why

hannah bananah: I said did you led answering christianity to christ

hannah bananah: I said noone won

hannah bananah: ego battles are not a sign of a winner

hannah bananah: he then goes to mic

hannah bananah: Hannah, I hear you are attacking the christians

hannah bananah: they all posted in text

hannah bananah: spicy

hannah bananah: and them

hannah bananah: oh hannah is so mean

hannah bananah: she does this

hannah bananah: like kids telling to their father

hannah bananah: he said Hannah I hear you are our sayta

hannah bananah: svyat

hannah bananah: swear to jesus that you are not svyat

hannah bananah: I typed in text

hannah bananah: I swear to yeshua I am not svyat

hannah bananah: he said thank God

hannah bananah: then countdown to bounce

Moreover, this individual "ben malik" knew that Brother Osama used the nick "Quran Search" (the same nick I used on the FFI forum), therefore this person happens to use Paltalk:

"I want to expose Quran Search's lie. You are Osama Abdallah since that is the name you even use on Paltalk. So stop being a good Muslim by lying, and try to be a bad one by speaking the truth for once.


And you are the owner of the fake crap site, (Not)Answering-Christianity.com"


Moreover, this person seems to be a huge fan of Sam Shamoun, as he once said:



It is easy to talk tough when people are not around to defend themselves. Why not be a man and email Shamoun so he can bury you deep in the hole along with your prophet, much like he has already been doing to the rest of your Muslim cowards.


And let him know of your rebuttal so he can dump that in the toliet along with your Quran.

And then, this same person was passing messages to me from Shamoun:

Sam Shamoun passes this on to you:

He swears on Muhammad's mother and his childbride whom he raped in the name of Allah that he is not me.

And which Saami are you talking about, the one that Shamoun destroyed like you?

Question for you. Do you have wet dreams of Shamoun after he spanked you? It must be the case since you live for him.

Anyway, please don't change the subject of the thread since it is obvious that are trying to run from Hector who has been spanking you too.

For one thing, we can all see Shamouns foul mouth now, and how he cant keep his insults to himself.

I still strongly believe that Sam Shamoun is ben malik, because of what the brothers tell me etc., Moreover, I asked a brother named "RelativeTime" on paltalk to ask Shamoun a question for me, because I am blocked on Shamouns list, here is what he says:

RelativeTime: Answering Islam: tell him

Answering Islam: I swear on Muhammad's mother

Answering Islam: that I am not

RelativeTime: Answering Islam: and don't ever forward his pms to me


RelativeTime: lol

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  to swear on his mom

RelativeTime: Answering Islam: and don't ever forward his pms to me

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  that he is not ben malik

And then, Shamoun got angry and said:

RelativeTime: Answering Islam:  relative

Answering Islam: because

Answering Islam: u are another idiot and demon

Answering Islam: u go off my list

RelativeTime: lol

My question is why would he be so angry at that? Why is he so frustrated that he even called the Brother an "idiot" and a "demon"??

I will not say anything now, all I can say is that I am skeptical of Mr. Shamoun’s behavior. If Shamoun is indeed "ben malik", then we would have to add to the "Dumpster Section", since this same foul mouth trash called me a "gay donkey".


At the bottom of Shamouns article is just a note, nothing important.


We conclude by saying:


And Allah SWT Knows Best!!






Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

The early Disciples' original writings declare that Jesus never got crucified!

Rebuttals by Umar.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.


What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube