Concise Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun "Bassam Zawadi on Muhammad's Treaty of Hudaibiyah [2nd round]"
Answering Islam originally wrote an article about the Prophet Muhammad breaking the Treaty of Hudaybiyya here http://www../Muhammad/hudaybiyya.html and I responded back here https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/treaty_of_hudaybiya.htm. Now Sam Shamoun, an author of Answering Islam has attempted to respond back here http://www..org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_hudaybiyya.htm. I then responded back to him here https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttal_treaty_of_hudaibiah.htm and then he replied back again here http://www../Responses/Osama/zawadi_hudaybiyya2.htm. I advise everyone to first read all of these articles fully and then come and read this article.
Stubborn Sam Shamoun has a problem. He believes that he needs to get the last word. Even though he doesn't provide any new evidence or facts. He still wants to reply back just to get the last word so that he can psychologically make people think that he won the debate. Well this is one Muslim who will not allow that.
Shamoun tries to justify the attack of Banu Bakr on Banu Khuza'a by saying
We will see that, far from strengthening his case, what I presented actually refutes Zawadi. Zawadi obviously didnt grasp the reason why I cited the background information regarding the real reason why Banu Bakr attacked the Khuzaah. The latter was a treacherous, murderous group who had attacked and killed some prominent men of the Banu Bakr, instigating the hostile relations between them. And this is the same group that Muhammad chose to associate with even before the treaty of Hudaibiyah!
Furthermore, the reason Banu Bakr entered into the treaty was to show their faithfulness to the Quraysh, a tribe that they had been on good terms with. So we know why the Banu Bakr joined, in order to cement their loyalty with a tribe which they had been allies with before Muhammad ever came to Medina.
First of all this whole incident between Banu Bakr and the Khuz'ah was before even Islam came! Notice what Tabari says...
Just before Islam, the Khuzaah in turn assaulted Salma, Kulthum, and Dhuayb, the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn al-Dili they were the leading men and dignitaries of the Banu Bakr and killed them at Arafah, by the border markers of the sacred territory.
So its probably even possible that the Prophet never heard about the issue. Or even if he did, this incident must have taken place at least 20 years before the treaty of Hudaibiya even took place!
Who on earth are the Banu Bakr to come and avenge the death of their comrades TWENTY years later? Secondly, Shamoun thinks that just because the Khuza'ah did not pay the blood money yet within these TWENTY years then that gives the Banu Bakr the right to massacre the tribe at night time.
Its clearly obvious that the Quraysh were furious at Banu Khuz'a for having a treaty with the Muslims and therefore assisted Banu Bakr to massacre the tribe at night. Its not logical that TWENTY years later the Banu Bakr finally decided to avenge their comrades deaths.
Sam Shamoun presents a hadith to try and show that the Prophet was of a person who broke his oaths...
Once we were in the house of Abu Musa who presented a meal containing cooked chicken. A man from the tribe of Bani Taim Allah with red complexion as if he were from the Byzantine war prisoners, was present. Abu Musa invited him to share the meal but he (apologised) saying. "I saw chickens eating dirty things and so I have had a strong aversion to eating them, and have taken an oath that I will not eat chickens." Abu Musa said, "Come along, I will tell you about this matter (i.e. how to cancel one's oath). I went to the Prophet in the company of a group of Al-Ashariyin, asked him to provide us with means of conveyance. He said, By Allah, I will not provide you with any means of conveyance and I have nothing to make you ride on. Then some camels as booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked for us saying. Where are the group of Al-Ash'ariyun? Then he ordered that we should be given five camels with white humps. When we set out we said, What have we done? We will never be blessed (with what we have been given). So, we returned to the Prophet and said, We asked you to provide us with means of conveyance, but you took an oath that you would not provide us with any means of conveyance. Did you forget (your oath when you gave us the camels)? He replied. I have not provided you with means of conveyance but Allah has provided you with it, and by Allah, Allah willing, if ever I take an oath to do something, and later on I find that it is more beneficial to do something different, I will do the thing which is better, and give expiation for my oath. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 361)
We need to understand this Hadith in light of the other Hadith which condemn someone who breaks his word.
signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise and when he is entrusted he
betrays the trust." (Bukhari
Now you see it is not permissible for me to make an oath to someone and then break it. For example, lets say that I promised someone that I will definitely sell my car to him for 5,000 dollars and I gave him my word that I would not sell it to someone else. However, someone comes and offers me 6,000 dollars for the car. I can't go and say that the situation is better so I can break my oath.
You also have to understand the context of the Hadith. The reason why the Prophet gave the oath in the first place was because he did not have the means of providing the individual with any means of conveyance. However, then the Prophet did have the means after the war booty came and therefore the whole situation changed and therefore gave the means of conveyance to the people. This was for the benefit of everyone.
There are similar hadith regarding this issue and here is the commentary on them.......
The essence of all these Hadith is that if one comes to realize that, after taking an oath, his oath was wrong, then he must break the oaths. For instance, if one has taken an oath that he will drink alcohol, it will be obligatory for him to break his oath. Or if one takes an oath to not to do a thing which is desirable, or taken an oath to do something which is not desirable, then it will be desirable for him to break the oath. Similarly, if one takes an oath to not to do something permissible then the act of breaking the oath will also come in the category of permissible.
The expiation of an oath is necessary. This can be done by means of feeding ten poor persons, or by providing clothes to a similar number of persons, or by setting a slave free. If one does not have the capacity to do any of the three acts, then he should observe fast for three days. (Riyad-us-Saliheen, Commentary of Hadith no. 1716,1717 and 1718, p1273)
So the Hadith needs to be understood properly. This does not give anyone the write to break an agreement between himself and another person.
Just for sake of argument (to keep Sam happy) lets say that the Prophet did not allow the women of Quraysh to return to Mecca does that justify the massacre of a tribe?
Al Qurtubi clearly shows a narration that the Prophet did not return them back to the Quraysh because the agreement did not specify that WOMEN are included in the treaty. That the treaty only said 'EVERY MAN' should be returned. Then when the Qurayshi women fled to the Prophet and the Qurayshi men came to take them back they told the Prophet to stick to the treaty. Then Allah sent down the verse (66:10) so that to ensure that the Prophet does not let the Quraysh outwit and trick him and that the Prophet should not return the believing women. Shamoun tries to refute Qurtubi by saying
It seems that Zawadi didnt (or simply doesnt want to) get the point. This variant reading refutes him and proves that women were not excluded by the expression "every man", or because they used masculine pronouns such as "his", "him" etc. The expression itself, as well as the masculine pronouns, were used inclusively, that men and women were covered by these phrases. This is why I even quoted Zawadis own source to show that the Meccans intended by the language of the treaty to include even the women.
First of all Sam Shamoun fails to provide evidence that the different narrations prove that 'Man' and 'Person' are synonymous. In Arabic when we say 'he, him' it does not ALWAYS refer to every body including women. I agree that at times it could and at times it could not. What evidence has Sam Shamoun given to prove that when the Quraysh said 'Every MAN' that it was inclusive of even women? He says...
First, all these sources agree that Muhammad refused to return the women back to the Meccans. Second, the Muslim sources also agree that the guardians of these women, specifically the brothers of Umm Kulthum, demanded that Muhammad return them in accord with the stipulations of the treaty. It is from this point onwards that we find disagreements and the reason should be clear. Some Muslims couldnt handle the fact that Muhammad broke the treaty because they realize how bad this makes him look. They therefore decided to come up with various explanations to justify his treachery towards the Meccans.
Some Muslims (al-Qurtubi) tried to distort the language of the treaty by saying that women were excluded, something which we saw is nothing more than a distortion of the facts.
This proves nothing. It is possible that the Quraysh thought that they can go to the Prophet and try to outsmart him and convince him that women were really included in the treaty. Or that it was their fault for not clearly and explicitly stating that the 'MAN' part of the agreement was inclusive of the agreement. This is the wisdom of Allah. He would never have allowed his Prophet to agree to something like that in the first place. Because Allah's law states that believing women could not be married to unbelieving men but the vice versa is permissible.
Secondly, after the Quraysh walked away from the Prophet when he refused to give back the women why didn't they get outraged and wage a war on the Muslims in Medina? Why didn't the Meccans summon all their allies and have them attack the Muslims? Why did the Quraysh have to secretly help the Banu Bakr attack Banu Khuza'a? Notice what Tabari says...
They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuzaah into the sacred territory.
According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against Khuzaah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah, Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. Amr, and others, along with their slaves.
When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuzaah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuzaah, who had a pact and treaty with him.
The reason why the Quraysh helped the Banu Bakr SECRETLY was because they did not want to openly show that they have broken the treaty. If the Prophet did indeed break the treaty first then why didn't the Quraysh openly wage war? I will tell you why they didn't, that is because the treaty was still ongoing and they are the ones who broke it when they violate that part of the treaty when they helped the Banu Bakr........
We shall not show enmity to one another and there will be no secret reservation or disloyalty. (Muhammad Al-Ghazali, Fiqh-us-Seerah: Understanding the Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), p 364)
Sam Shamoun said
Therefore, I await a much better refutation to the facts presented which proves that Muhammad was a covenant breaker than the one provided by Zawadi. Until then, we wont bother addressing articles that fail to refute anything.
Sam Shamoun is committing a logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html in which he thinks that the burden of proof is on me to refute the facts presented. However, as I clearly showed in my previous article https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttal_treaty_of_hudaibiah.htm the facts presented are contradictory and therefore not sufficient enough to make a case due to their unreliability. The burden of proof is on Sam Shamoun to provide evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that the Prophet broke the treaty.
Lets say that Shamoun does that. Lets say that Sam does prove that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did break the treaty. Then what? Christians believe that Prophets commit sins. So why couldn't Muhammad commit a sin? (assuming he did). Read about how some Christians are hypocrites for attacking the Prophethood of Muhammad https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/hypocrisy_of_christians.htm.
So even if Sam does prove that Muhammad broke the treaty he still does not disprove his Prophethood. So then what is the whole point of this debate if its not going to prove anything in the end?
If the God of the Bible gave authority to husbands to cancel the oaths of their wives and fathers to cancel the oaths of their daughters (Numbers 30) then why can't God give authority to the Prophet to cancel a part of an agreement that was unjust in the first place? (because the Muslims were supposed to return those from the Quraysh that ran away from them but the Quraysh does not return the Muslims who ran away from them)
So at the end of the day, just to make Sam happy lets say that he won this debate (in his dreams). But at the end of the day he still proved nothing.
Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals by Bassam Zawadi.
Islam and the Noble Quran - Questions and Answers.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.