Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

Answering Sam Shamoun's Article:

"Do Muslims Worship None But Allah Alone?"

By: YISHAN JUFU on September 14, 2001

LEGEND:

1. Text in PURPLE is by Quennel Gale;

2. Text in BLACK is by Sam Shamoun or by his sources;

3. Text in RED is mine

Quennel Gale: "Here Sam Shamoun, another member of answering-islam.org emailed me this great article dealing with whether Muslims worship Allah alone. This article has caused nightmares for Muslims. This is a must read."

The liar Quennel (a.k.a. queball and queBAAL) makes a big claim about how this article caused nightmares for muslims even prior to its uploading!! The only nightmare will befall his pagan head and that of all who stand behind him!

The Quran states: 

In fact, associating partners with Allah is to commit the unforgivable sin: 

Yet there are several instances in the Quran where men and angels are addressed as Lord and receive worship:

The critic (Sam Shamoun) commits the fallacy of "conclusion-before-proving"!

Zechariah is said to have prayed to his Lord for a child, with the angels responding to his request. Yet when asking a question Zechariah addresses the speaker(s) as his Lord!

The critic has falsified the text of the above verses by claiming that Zachariah addressed "the spreaker(s)" as his Lord! As the critic himself usually refers to the Greek texts of his NT to ensure what the supposedly "original" manuscripts say in a certain verse, we shall also refer to the Arabic Origianl Quranic verses and see what they say. Below are the Arabic verses 3:38-41; although we do not need to go to the Arabic text since the above English translation does give the clear picture, but we want to prove that the critic's comments are strawman!

3:38

3:39

3:40

3:41

From both the Arabic and the English (translations) we see that the following sequence of events took place:

1. Zachariah prayed to The Lord (God) to grant him offspring;

2. The angels called on Zachariah while he was praying conveying to him the response (to his prayers) from God in the form of glad tidings of a son;

3. Zachariah then addresses his Lord (God) in astonishment of the news enquiring how can he (an old man) and his barren wife have a son;

4. One of the angels answers Zachariah stating that Allah (God) does what He pleases;

5. Zachariah then asks His Lord (God) to give him a sign;

6. The angel conveyed God's response back to Zachariah by telling him that God's sign will be for Zachariah not to speak to anyone for three days except in sign language and to remember and praise Him a lot day and night.

To understand the above verses properly, one needs to know the Quranic concept of God. God tells us in the quran that no man has seen God nor spoken to Him without a veil (just hearing God's voice without seeing Him) as evident in the following verse:

42:51 It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.

In view of the above verse, and by knowing that God's prophets/messengers ask only God for their guidance or needs, it becomes very obvious that Zachariah was addressing God directly through prayers/supplications and the responses were conveyed back to him via the angel(s). The critic is unable to see this simple fact not due to his ignorance of the Arabic language, because the English translation is pretty clear, but due to his insincerity and agenda-driven tactics against Isalm.

Continuing further in the same chapter, we are told that a group of angels announced Jesus birth to Mary:

This passage claims that a group of angels addressed Mary, with one specific angel (i.e., He said) responding to her question. In the parallel passage regarding Jesus birth annunciation, the One addressing Mary is said to be the Spirit of God: 

The critic commits a deliberate lie in his above statement when he claims that "..the One addressing Mary is said to be the Spirit of God" when referring to verse 19:16 below! The Arabic verse reads "fa arsalan ilayha rohana fa tamathala laha basharan sawiyya" and this is further illustrated by the English translation below where it says "We sent her our spirit" not "we sent her the spirit of God" or "we sent her God's spirit"! There is a big difference between what the critic tried to imply and what the verse said! The Arabic word "rouh/ruh/rooh" (spelled ra'a, waw, 7ha'a) is like the hebrew word "ruwach" with many meanings. Amongst its meanings are:

a- The spirit that is given to all living things at birth and that is taken back by The Creator at death; this is evident from verses like:

15:29 "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit (min rouh-i), fall ye down in obeisance unto him."

b- The archangel Gabriel who is entrusted by God to deliver God's revelations to God's prophets/messengers;

26:193 With it came down the Spirit of Faith and Truth,

40:15 Raised high above ranks (or degrees), (He is) the Lord of the Throne (of authority): by His Command doth He send the spirit (of inspiration) to any of His servants He pleases, that it may warn (men) of the Day of Mutual Meeting,

78:38 The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (Allah) Most Gracious, and he will say what is right.

97:4 Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah's permission, on every errand:

16:102 Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.

c- The mercy of God as evident from:

12:87 "O my sons! go ye and enquire about Joseph and his brother, and never give up hope of Allah's soothing Mercy (rawh-i Allah): truly no one despairs of Allah's soothing Mercy (rawh-i Allah), except those who have no faith."

From the above, we see the different usages of the Arabic word "rouh"; therefore the usage of "rouh-ana" in verse 19:16 does mean the angel Gabriel and not the trinitarians' concept of the three-in-one God! The critic only needs to check the above verses supporting the various meanings of the word "rouh" from within the quran.

Muslims claim that this Spirit was angel Gabriel. If this is true this implies that both Zechariah and Mary committed the sin of associating partners with God since they dared to address an angel as their Lord! In fact, the phrase Our Spirit is used elsewhere in reference to One having divine qualities: 

Once again, the critic commits the same fallacy of not reading the verses properly! Verses 3:42-47 are explained in the same manner as 3:38-41 and there is no difficulty in them whatsoever. The angels conveyed to Mary the good news from God and she, being a virgin who has known no man, is astonished and surprised thus questions, as any normal person would do, how this can happen to her. She shows her astonishement (not doubt as the critic would have us believe later on!) by asking the question to the source of the glad tidings, God her Lord. Once again, the critic's apparent influence by the mix-ups between The Lord and the angel of The Lord in his OT has driven him to make such silly accusations against the quran. He has to be excused for he knows not the styles of the Arabic Quran!

The critic then goes on to make further false claims when he claims "In fact, the phrase Our Spirit is used elsewhere in reference to One having divine qualities"!! Nothing is farther from the truth!! Let us see his poor examples, which should serve to EXPOSE him further:

These passages indicate that after fashioning man God presumably gave him life by breathing his Spirit into him, echoing Genesis 2:7. This implies that at least in these contexts the Spirit is Gods life-giving Agent. This being the case, how can the Spirit be Gabriel without this implying that God used a finite creature to assist him in the creation of man?  

The critic is obviously a "poor" scholar when it comes to the Quran and the Arabic language! He thinks that the use of phrases like "of His spirit" or "of My spirit" imply 'divine qualities'! Did he get this inclination due to "fall ye down in obeisance unto him" or did he just make up such a silly conclusion?! The use of the term "of My (God's) spirit" signifies GOD's OWNERSHIP OF ALL SPIRITS OF LIFE THAT ARE GIVEN TO HIS CREATURES, it does not signify any divine qualities whatsoever! The command by God to the angels to fall down before Adam does not signify an order of "worship" as the critic tends to hint at some later stage; it signifies the importance of Adam's (and of his seed's) status and the load they will carry on earth, something the angels are not entrusted with since they were created to serve God only and have no will of their own as man was given by God. The critic also falsifies things one more time by claiming that "God presumably gave him life by breathing his Spirit into him"!! Something not in the verses since the verses and the bolded text (by the critic) says something else! They say "of His spirit" not "His spirit"! The difference is big!

Continuing further, we are told elsewhere that Mary conceived Jesus by Gods Spirit: 

According to certain Muslim commentators, the Spirit that was used to breathe into Mary was actually the angel Gabriel. Mahmoud M. Ayub mentions several Muslim commentaries regarding the preceding passages: 

And:  

Here is Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 66:12, noting that Jibril is the Arabic pronunciation of Gabriel:  

Finally, al-Tabaris comments on Marys conception: 

And: 

The claim that Gabriel breathed into Mary would logically make Gabriel the speaker in S. 21:91 and 66:12. According to these passages the One speaking states that he will breathe his Spirit into Mary. Nowhere do the passages even hint to someone else being used to impregnate Mary. Seeing that Muslims claim that the Quran is the word of Allah, implying that Allah is the One speaking here, logically makes Gabriel Allah!  

We should remind the readers and the critic that all of the above so-called "Islamic" sources give their own interpretations of the verses, but the final judge is the quran itself; hence what the critic cited is all hot air and a waste of time and is of no relevance to the issue.

What is important and relevant to the issue at hand is the critic's claims above regarding verses 21:91 and 66:12; and if we read them, we will find that there is no mention of Gabriel in them whatsoever! Therefore, the conclusion made by the critic is a strawman one and can be refuted as follows:

1. God sent Gabriel to Mary with glad tidings of a son to be born to her, a virgin;

2. The angel delivered the message to her;

3. God created Jesus with the word "BE" and gave him his (Jesus') spirit;

4. The use of the phrase "min rouh-ina" follows the same explanation given above as an indication of God's ownership of all spirits of life.

There is no difficulty to understand the above from within the quranic verses unless one is agenda-driven, like our friend the critic! All of the sources cited by the critic have ventured into issues that are not in the verses of concern, but yet their interpretations do not make room for the critic's false conclusions! In verses 21:91 and 66:12 Allah is speaking, but these verses speak of how jesus was created and do not go into how the spirit of jesus was given to him; do they, Mr. Shamoun?!

This also means that Gabriel has a Spirit that he uses to create and impart life. This would therefore make Gabriel the Creator, since Muslims claim that Allah was the one who created Jesus by breathing his Spirit into Marys womb! Otherwise the text would imply that Allah actually breathed Gabriel into both Mary and Adam since, as Muslims claim, the Spirit of Allah is actually Gabriel. 

The above also means that the critic is deliberately making false, uninformed claims! There is no such thing as what the critic claims in the verses of concern; one only needs to read the verses in context and without any trinitarian biases to realise that they do not say or imply what the critic is driving at! The verses use the term "of His spirit" and not "His spirit", and the difference is obvious since the first indicates the ownership of the spirit of life by The Creator, whereas the second implies a trinitarian thing!

Furthermore, seeing that Muslims do not equate Gabriel with Allah inevitably leads to more than one Creator. Yet the Quran clearly states that there is no other Creator besides Allah: 

No, it does not lead to what you claim! It is your imagination playing tricks on you, Sam! The Creator is Allah, Gabriel is His messenger angel who conveys God's messages and revelations at the command of God. I believe you need to go back to grade school since your comprehension seems to be suffering a lot!

Therefore, the only plausible explanation is that the Spirit of Allah is not angel Gabriel. Yet this view would leave us with an irreconcilable contradiction. According to S. 3:42-48 it was a group of angels that appeared to Mary, whereas in S. 19:16-21 it isnt a group of angels but Gods Spirit that announced the Messiahs birth. 

In order to avoid attributing a contradiction to the Quran, some Muslims claim that the two passages refer to two different episodes. For example, some Muslims like Shabir Ally claim that S. 3:42-48 refers to the time when Mary was told that she would eventually conceive a child, whereas in S. 19:16-21 the Spirit was sent to inform her that the time of conception had arrived. (source- http://www.quranspeaks.com/three.ram) 

The only problem with this view is that it would imply that Mary disbelieved Gods ability to cause a supernatural birth on two separate occasions. Compare the following: 

And:

Hence, either Muslims must accuse Mary of twice questioning the ability of Allah in causing a supernatural conception to take place without the aid of a man. This, in spite of the fact that the angels explicitly told her the first time that Allah is able to do all that he wills! Or Muslims must face up to the music and admit that the Quran contains a bonafide contradiction. 

It is obvious that the critic is bankrupt in his attempts against the Quran, he starts to mix apples and oranges in order to divert the attention from one issue to another!! What has Mary's belief or disbelief got to do with "whether we worship one God or not"?! Although i have already addressed the issue of why did both Mary and Zachariah seem to question the glad tidings delivered to them by the angels, i will reiterate it again here:

Both Mary and Zachariah did not doubt God whatsoever, but as normal human beings (the critic does not think they should react as such!!) they are astonished and surprised by the news as any normal human being would be. Even the critic's NT tells us the same thing about Mary's reaction when Gabriel gave her the good news; let us read what Luke had to say about this event:

From MKJV

Luk 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Luk 1:27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of \cf2\i the\cf0\i0 house of David. And the virgin's name Mary.

Luk 1:28 And the angel came in to her and said, Hail, receiving grace, the Lord with you. Blessed you among women.

Luk 1:29 And when she saw, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what kind of greeting this might be.

Luk 1:30 And the angel said to her, Do not fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

Luk 1:31 And behold! You shall conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name JESUS.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of Highest. And the Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father David.

Luk 1:33 And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end.

Luk 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I do not know a man?

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come on you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. Therefore also that Holy One which will be born of you shall be called Son of God.

Luk 1:36 And behold, your cousin Elizabeth also conceived a son in her old age. And this is the sixth month with her who i was called barren.

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

We shall not go into the funny things in the above NT verses like how many fathers does Jesus have and what happened to his reign over the house of Jacob forever or the overshadowing and coming upon bits! We shall stick to Mary's human response in verse 1:34. I wonder if the critic considers this as "doubting God" on Mary's part when it is mentioned in his NT?! If not, WHY NOT?! Or does he employ two standards -one for muslims and one for christians?!

Returning to our original point regarding the problem of addressing others besides Allah as Lord, here is Mahmoud M. Ayoubs commentary on S. 3:40. In light of what Ayoub will shortly say one readily sees the difficulty Muslims faced in trying to deal with the fact that others besides Allah are addressed as Lord: 

Razi begins with the question of Zechariahs dialogue and whether it was with God or with Gabriel. The question is important because it concerns the theological debate about Gods transcendence and the problem of anthropomorphism. If God hears and speaks in a manner familiar to human beings, then the question arises as to whether God has similar organs of hearing and speech. Razi argues that it is equally possible that Zechariah was addressing either God or the angel in this verse. He presents two explanations which he attributes to the mufassirun, that is, other commentators. The first is: When the angels called to Zechariah and gave him the good news, he wondered and turned to God for reassurance. Zechariah was actually addressing the angel Gabriel, and not God. The invocation my lord is here addressed to a superior or master and not to God. (Ayoub, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran [State University of New York Press, Albany 1992], pp. 112, 113 bold emphasis ours) 

The problem with asserting that the prophet is actually addressing Allah is that instead of Allah responding, it is either the angel(s) or the Spirit that answers. When responding to the questions, both the angel(s) and the Spirit clearly make a distinction between their words from the words of Allah:  

Furthermore, the assertion that Gabriel is called Lord in the sense of being ones master or superior does not solve the problem for the Muslim. Neither the Quran nor the Hadiths allow for even this type of respect to be given to anyone besides Allah: 

The critic has gone into very lengthy quotes and re-quotes in order to make his arguement sound convincing, however, he should refer to my responses above and see that there is no doubt that both Zachariah and Mary addressed God as their Lord, they did not address the angels as such. The narrations and interpretations given by some muslim scholars are not an indication of a difficulty in the verses of concern, they are either answers to raised questions by critics of their times or attempts to clarify what they thought to be a difficulty. Anyone who claims that Mary or Zachariah addressed the angel as "rabb" (Lord) is wrong because the verses are clear in portraying God's servants (Mary & Zachariah) as praying/supplicating to God and not to His angels, hence any addressing with the term "Lord" is directed to God in prayer, supplication or wonderment.

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! S. 9:31 Pickthall 

The only sense in which Jews and Christians would ever consider rabbis or monks as Lords would be in the sense of a superior or a master. They would have never viewed them as Lords in the same way they viewed God.  

This is supported by the following Muslim tradition. Ibn Kathir quotes the following hadith regarding the meaning of S. 9:31: 

Therefore, to even address either the angel(s) or the Spirit as ones superior or master is unacceptable within the Monotheism (Tauhid) taught by Muhammad and his Companions. In fact, addressing anyone besides Allah as ones Lord in prayer is a violation of the three aspects of Islamic Monotheism: Tauhid-al-Rububiyyah, Tauhid-al-Uluhiyyah and Tauhid-al-Asma was-Sifat.  

Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan define the meaning behind each of the three aspects:: 

Seeing that both Zechariah and Mary addressed someone other than Allah as Lord when asking about the possibility of having a child implies that both parties violated Muhammads conception of Tauhid. 

No, Mr. critic man, we are not seeing what you claim! Go back to the top and see that Mary and Zachariah were not addressing the angels with "My Lord"! All of your above quotes are appreciated but are of no relevance since your build your case on strawman!

Another passage in which Gabriel is actually given divine status includes: 

This passage clearly states that Muhammad saw someone whom Muslims claim was the Angel Gabriel. Abdullah Yusuf Ali on S. 53:5 notes: 

Ibn Kathir states:  

Yet this interpretation will not work without this making Gabriel the god of Muhammad. The passage clearly states that the person that appeared to Muhammad was Muhammads sovereign as indicated by the last part of the sentence, SO DID HE CONVEY THE INSPIRATION TO HIS SERVANT. Seeing that Muslims insist that the being that appeared to Muhammad was Gabriel implies that Muhammad is a slave of Gabriel. There is simply no way of avoiding this inescapable conclusion. Therefore, Muslims must now accept the fact that it was actually Allah who appeared to Muhammad, which would then force them to accept the idea of Allah appearing visibly. If Muslims still insist that it was Gabriel who appeared then they must also accept that Gabriel and/or Muhammad committed the sin of associating partners with Allah. 

The problem that this passage presents becomes evident from Ibn Kathirs comments:  

The reader will notice that the word Allah is inserted in parentheses to presumably avoid the ambiguity of the text. This is despite the fact that the word does not appear in the Arabic original, as indicated by its second occurrence within Kathirs citation! It becomes obvious why this would be done, namely to avoid the implication that Muhammad is Gabriels servant or that Allah appeared in visible form. The Muslims must safeguard from either interpretation if they are to maintain their belief in the absolute transcendence of Allah and/or the pure devotion that is to be given to him alone. Islamicist F.E. Peters notes:  

All of the above quotes and assumptions are flung back at the critic due to the simple facts found within the verses 53:1-10. We will deal with the seemingly difficult issue of who is meant in verse 53:10. This verse refers to God and God alone as He Is The source of scriptures and He conveys His revelations to His prophets through His angels. Revelation is God's and the mean is the angel Gabriel. The use of the word "abdihi" (His servant) is an indication of a master/servant realtionship and prophets (as all humans) are servants of God, not of angels.

The use of the phrase "shadeed al-quwa" (with mighty powers) in verse 53:5 is a reference to Gabriel and this does not make him divine or God because he is a mighty angel of God entrusted with a mighty mission of revelation. The rest of the verses dealing with distances and coming near or being seen are references to the angel Gabriel, we must remember that the quran states very clearly that no man has seen God, therefore, those are references to the angel and not to God.

As for the claims that the prophet did not identify Gabriel as the agent of revelation until his Madina days, this has to be the funniest claim so far!! The critic does make some fallacies by saying the above since the quran is not the work of Muahmmad (pbuh) regardless of what the critic thinks! And as we have shown in this response that the angel Gabriel is referred to as "the spirit" in the quran, it will suffice to present some examples of Meccan verses with a reference to the agent of revelation being Gabriel and thus EXPOSING the critic and his sources!

16:2 He doth send down His angels with inspiration (bil-rouh-i) of His Command, to such of His servants as He pleaseth, (saying) "Warn (Man) that there is no god but I: so do your duty unto Me."

26:193 With it came down the Spirit of Faith and Truth,

40:15 Raised high above ranks (or degrees), (He is) the Lord of the Throne (of authority): by His Command doth He send the spirit (of inspiration) to any of His servants He pleases, that it may warn (men) of the Day of Mutual Meeting,

70:4 The angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:

78:38 The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (Allah) Most Gracious, and he will say what is right.

97:4 Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah's permission, on every errand:

One example of Meccan verses would have sufficed to REFUTE the claims presented by the critic, but I like to stifle liars and their sources with more evidence to the contrary of that they falsely claim. The above 6 verses are all from Meccan surahs of the Quran and they all mention the agent of revelation "al-rouh", which can only stand for Gabriel the angel! But one may ask how do we make such a claim when the name Gabriel is not mentioned in any of the above verses?! We respond with the following Medina verse:

2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, And guidance and glad tidings for those who believe.

and

66:4 If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,and furthermore, the angels will back (him) up.

Now a first grader can make the connection between Gabriel in 2:97 and "the spirit" in the Meccan verses.

Hence, no matter from what angle Muslims look at this passage they are posed with problems either way.

No, we are not posed with any problems! It is you who is posed with imple problems, "lack of intelligence" and "agenda-driven logic"!

On the Worship of Others Besides Allah 

Both the Quran and Muslims sources furnish examples of others besides Allah receiving worship. The first example is Adam: 

All these verses state that it was Allah who commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam. The word signifying prostration is only used in relation to a believer prostrating before God in adoration and worship. Abdiyah Akbar Abdul Haqq comments on S. 7:12:  

Not only does the critic show his lack of intelligence and poor judgement, but he does not emply his faculties to search for an answer! The order from God to the angels to fall down for Adam is not a command by God to the angels "to worship Adam". It is much more than that, and the critic did not seek the wisdom behind such a command! Had the critic concentrated on the last parts of the above verses, the parts dealing with Iblees' refusal to fall down for Adam, he would have known the significance of the command! But, the critic thinks and believes that the quran is like his bibles, where God (forbid) has no plans but is surprised by actions and results of His creation!! The Qruan is the word of God, and unlike the altered bibles of the critic; the quran shows us that God had planned everything and knows everything. The command to the angels and Iblees (satan) to fall down in prostration to Adam was for a cause and the cause was not the worship of Adam, but a lesson to Adam about who is his enemy in his life and the life of his seed after him. The critic is so narrow minded, he does not think beyond the tip of his nose! But, before i proceed with the rest of his silly article, i would like to see what does everyone make of the following acts of prostration from the critic's own bibles?!

From BBE

Gen 33:1 Then Jacob, lifting up his eyes, saw Esau coming with his four hundred men. So he made a division of the children between Leah and Rachel and the two women-servants.

Gen 33:2 He put the servants and their children in front, Leah and her children after them, and Rachel and Joseph at the back.

Gen 33:3 And he himself, going before them, went down on his face to the earth seven times till he came near his brother.

Gen 33:4 Then Esau came running up to him, and folding him in his arms, gave him a kiss: and the two of them were overcome with weeping.

Gen 33:5 Then Esau, lifting up his eyes, saw the women and the children, and said, Who are these with you? And he said, The children whom God in his mercy has given to your servant.

Gen 33:6 Then the servants and their children came near, and went down on their faces.

Gen 33:7 And Leah came near with her children, and then Joseph and Rachel, and they did the same.

I wonder if the critic thinks that Jacob and his family was worshipping Esau in the above verses?!! Jacob did it SEVEN TIMES, not once!!

In fact, not only do we find Adam receiving sajda but Joseph as well: 

The above example of Joseph and his family should not be taken as an act of worship neither, but as an act of appreciation and respect to the prophet who did not take out revenge on his brothers who left him for death as a young boy as well as in praise of God Who brought them back together as a family unit. The critic needs to explain to us the prostrations of Jacob and his family before Esau! They did not do it once, but seven times!!

The other example is Jesus. The Quran announces the birth of John the Baptist as a messenger sent to prepare the way for Jesus Christ: 

Islamic scholars almost unanimously hold that the Word of God here, which John came to confirm, is Jesus Christ. Mahmoud Ayoub citing Muslim Tabarsi states: 

Muslim exegete al-Zamakshari substantiates this by saying: 

The interesting part of all of this that Muslim commentators claim that John actually worshiped Jesus while both were still in their mothers wombs! For instance, Al-Qurtubi mentions Elizabeths visitation (called Marys sister) shortly after both women had conceived: 

Qurtubi continues:  

Al-Tabari concurs: 

And: 

Muhammad had warned his followers not to praise him as Christians praise Jesus: 

Narrated Umar:

The critic has failed miserably in the above example since he has cited interpreters and commentators' opinions, which are nowhere to be found in the quran! The critic does not seem to realise that there are things called "israeliyyat" and "mawdoou3at" (Israelite traditions and false oral accounts, respectively)! The above are echos of what the NT says and are not of Islamic sources, i.e. The Quran or the authentic hadiths by the prophet (pbuh). Therefore, the last example is a strawman and depicts the critic as a drowning person trying to hold on to a straw in the waters!!

In light of the preceding considerations, what will Muslims do with the fact that John not only bowed in praise to Jesus but did so while both were still in the womb? What will Muslims do with Allah commanding angels to bow down to Adam?  

Muslims will not do anything except laugh at the critic and his poor example!

It will not do to say that the homage given to these individuals is not the same kind of homage one gives to God. If this is the case, then why is this practice deemed unacceptable for Muslims? Why did Muhammad forbid his followers from showing this kind of reverence to others who are worthy to receive it?

Furthermore, both Adam and Joseph received sajda, the prostration that God alone is supposed to receive. This act was in direct violation of Tauhid-al-Uluhiyyah. Yet, in the case of Adam, the one who actually commanded the angels to violate this concept was Allah himself!  

The critic should refer to my responses above and specially to the OT quotes of Genesis 33:1-7 in which Jacob seems to be doing SEVEN sajdas to his elder brother Esau! I wonder if the critic will interpolate this one in his favour?! If he thinks that the quranic sajdas cannot be explained like i did above, then he must also admit that Jacob worshipped Esau by prostrating -not once- SEVEN times as well as his whole family doing the same act of prostration for Esau!!

Further Examples of Plurality of Gods 

As we had indicated earlier, Muslims claim that the Quran is the pure word of Allah, containing nothing but the speech of Allah alone. One will not find the words of either humans or angels mixed in with the words of Allah. Commenting on the different types of material found in the Holy Bible, Muslim Apologist Ahmad Deedat contrasts that with the Quran: 

This being the case we are forced to conclude that the Quran presents a plurality of deities. Compare the following passages with the claims made by Deedat: 

Allah claims that he is not a keeper over man, implying that someone else is. That someone must be God also. Otherwise the Quran would be committing the sin of association, attributing the work and sustaining power of the Creator to someone other than Allah. Or worse still, the Quran might be suggesting that man has no keeper at all, implying that man must sustain himself!  

This is so ridiculous and a strawman logic, it has to be framed and inducted into the hall of fame for "ignorance"! The words "And I am not a keeper over you" do not refer to God, they refer to the prophet as a messenger delivering a message from God to mankind and that everyone is a keeper of himself/herself, i.e. in belief or rejection and the judgement is by God not by the prophet. The critic bolded the text above forgetting to bold the text preceeding it!! So, the assumptions made by the critic are all baseless and he obviously lacks any insight into the Quranic linguistic styles!

If Deedat is correct, this means that Allah is asking if whether he should seek some other judge besides Allah. Allah shifts into the first person plural indicating that he is the one that revealed all the Scriptures This implies that the Quran reveals more than one Allah.  

Again, the critic failed to make sense of the clear verses! Another style of the quran that the critic is ignorant of; the question is posed for the prophet to ask (in wonderment) mankind, it implies the very opposite of what the critic is assuming here!!

We have Allah praising another Being for taking Muhammad on a night journey. From there Allah reverts to the first person plural whereby he once again glorifies the One who took Muhammad on the night journey as being the Hearer and the Seer.  

Silly Sam! Allah is The One who carried His servant (the prophet) by night (through the angel Gabriel), so where is the difficulty here?! All your boldings are very funny, I wonder if you have any intelligence at all?! Does not the God of your OT glorify Himself at all?! I think He does, but i do not see you objecting to that, Mr. double-standards!! Not only does your OT God glorify Himself, He also calls Hilself "elohim" (gods)!! Now that's what i call proof in very clear terms, not what your present in strawman terms!!

Again, Allah claims that he is commanded to worship the Lord of the land.  

The critic made a mistake in the number of the above verse, it should be 27:91 and inspite of my advice to him to correct it, he went ahead and posted it in a haste without verifying the number!! Well, the verse 91 is a command to the prophet (by God) to serve only God. This is further illustrated by the verse

27:93 And say: "Praise be to Allah, Who will soon show you His Signs, so that ye shall know them"; and thy Lord is not unmindful of all that ye do.

So, Mr. critic man; you have proven to us that you only read what your agenda commands you to read, not in context!!

We have Allah only coming down at the command of Muhammads Lord.  

Another funny one from Sam! This verse starts off by God explaining to the prophet what the angels say regarding their missions to earth and what their statement would be to the question of why don't angels descend on him as asked by the pagans. The critic did not notice the ending of the verse and how it indicates that the words are an indication of what the angels' response would be as taught to the prophet by God The author of the quran.

This passage has Allah acknowledging his subjection and praise to another. 

Response: read the above verses in context starting from verse 37:149!! Really, i thought you were more professional than this!!

The final example includes: 

The Creator here swears by the Lord of all the points of the East and West. There is no break in the text to indicate than someone else is interspersing his comments with the words of the Creator. This means that there is more than one Lord and that Allah actually swears by this other Lord! 

Response: poor Sam, narrow-mindedness is an uncurable disease!! The language is far too superior for you, that's not the fault of the quran!!

In light of the preceding examples we really do not see how Muslims can evade being accused of idolatry or polytheism. Either they will have to change their position regarding the nature of the Quran and admit that it contains more than just the words of Allah. Or they will have to settle for the fact that the Quran teaches that there are several Lords, Allahs, and Creators. 

In light of all the above, we can safely conclude that Sam Shamoun is no scholar of anything and is totally ignorant of the simplest rules of apologetics! He has no knowledge of the Arabic language nor its styles, hidden pronouns or any related matter. He is a misguided individual who -even- twists his own sacred scriptures to propagate his pagan doctrines of the trinity; so it is no wonder he has fallen to such a low level of understanding or research before posting his venom on the web!

In the service of our risen Lord and eternal Savior, Jesus Christ, for ever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We will always love you, for you are our Eternal Lord forever. 

I'm afraid that the Jesus you call "Lord" will reject you on the judgement day in line with:

From MKJV

Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!

Jesus is telling you in plain, simple words that he is not "GOD", but you are so blinded by the devil that you even reject the warnings of Jesus!! Can anyone be blinder than this! Keep on calling on Jesus' name until he rebukes you for blaspheming against God who sent him!!

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Was Muhammad a Polytheist?

Muhammad peace be upon him section.

Rebuttals and exposing the cheap lies of the Christian "Answering Islam" team.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.