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

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

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "More on the Shahadah"

Bassam Zawadi




Sam Shamoun wrote a response to my rebuttal to his original article

Please read them all before reading this article in order to know what is going on.


Sam Shamoun said:

Zawadi’s claim that Sura 63:1 shows that people were confessing Muhammad as God’s messenger misses the point. The point here is that it is only the deceivers who were bearing witness that Muhammad is a messenger in order to mask their deception and unbelieving hearts. True believers do not need to publicly bear witness that Muhammad is a messenger since they show that this is what they believe by simply obeying his instructions. To put it another way, it wasn’t the believers at the time of Muhammad who were verbally bearing witness that he was an apostle, but unbelievers and hypocrites that did so.

My Response:

Where on earth did Sam get that interpretation from? The Prophet ordered that people should bear witness that he is a Messenger of God...

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles):

1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.

2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.

3. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity) .

4. To perform Hajj. (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca)

5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.


You have to testify Sam!

The verse is not saying that it was only hypocrites that used to testify it. The verse is simply talking about those hypocrites who would simply say the Shahadah but not mean it in their hearts...

The Case of the Hypocrites and their Behavior

Allah the Exalted states that the hypocrites pretended to be Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") when they went to the Prophet . In reality, they were not Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"), but rather the opposite. This is why Allah the Exalted said,

(When the hypocrites come to you, they say: "We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of Allah.'') meaning, `when the hypocrites come to you, they announce this statement and pretend to believe in it.' Allah informs that there is no substance to their statement, and this is why He said,

(Allah knows that you are indeed His Messenger,) then said,

(And Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are liars indeed.) meaning, their claims, even though it is true about the Prophet. But they did not believe inwardly in what they declared outwardly, and this is why Allah declared their falsehood about their creed. Allah's statement.....(Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Source)


Sam Shamoun said:

Second, the issue is not whether the Quran claims that Allah testifies that Muhammad is his messenger, or that believers are to believe that he is. The issue at hand, which Zawadi conveniently ignores, is whether Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") are required to make a public confession, to testify in the words given in the hadith literature, i.e. "I beat witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," in order to be recognized as a Muslim. The fact of the matter is that the Quran nowhere commands Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") to make this profession, the confession that Muhammad is Allah’s messenger in order to validate their Islam.

My Response:

Sam when Allah says 'Obey Allah and obey the Messenger' (Surah 4:59) what do you think is the point? If everything was from the Quran then God would only say 'Obey Allah'. But Allah sent the Messenger in order for us to obey his orders. For the Prophet does not speak of his own but they are revelations from God. (Surah 53:3-4) 

The Prophet said that we should testify and bear witness the Shahadah. So we have to follow him. Also notice that the hadith that contain the hadith regarding the bearing witness of the Shahadah are Mutawatir hadith. (see list of Mutawatir hadith http://hadith.al-islam.com/bayan/Index.asp?Lang=ENG&Type=3

A Mutawatir hadith is one which is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together. (al-Jaza'iri, p.33, cited here)

So there is no doubt regarding these narrations. The Prophet did indeed say that you must bear witness the Shahadah.

Sam Shamoun said:

The Quran actually requires a Muslim to profess faith in all the messengers without making any distinction between them:

SAY you: 'We believe in God, AND in that which has been sent down on us AND sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, AND that which was given to Moses AND Jesus AND the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.' S. 2:136 Arberry

The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in God, His angels, His books, AND HIS APOSTLES. "WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION (they say) BETWEEN ON AND ANOTHER OF HIS APOSTLES." AND THEY SAY: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys." S. 2:285 Y. Ali

O you who believe! believe in Allah AND His Apostle AND the Book which He has revealed to His Apostle AND the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels AND His APOSTLES and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error. S. 4:136 Shakir

The fact is that the orthodox Sunni creed does make a distinction since it singles out Muhammad alone in its confession. This is a direct violation of and in stark contradiction to the plain teachings of the Quran.

In light of the foregoing, the Islamic confession of faith would go something like this:

I bear witness that:

(1) I believe in Allah.
(2) I believe in His angels.
(3) I believe in His books.
(4) I believe in His messengers and that I do not make a difference or differentiate between any of them.


My Response:

Sam makes a mistake in interpreting scripture. When the Quran says not to make a distinction between any Prophets that does not mean that we cannot show more love and respect to a Prophet. Or that a Prophet is not more honored than another. It means that we cannot disbelieve in some Prophets and believe in some. 

Therefore, each of the believers believes that Allah is the One and Only and the Sustainer, there is no deity worthy of worship except Him and there is no Lord except Him. The believers also believe in all Allah's Prophets and Messengers, in the Books that were revealed from heaven to the Messengers and Prophets, who are indeed the servants of Allah. Further, the believers do not differentiate between any of the Prophets, such as, believing in some of them and rejecting others. Rather, all of Allah's Prophets and Messengers are, to the believers, truthful, righteous, and they were each guided to the path of righteousness, even when some of them bring what abrogates the Law of some others by Allah's leave. Later on, the Law of Muhammad, the Final Prophet and Messenger from Allah, abrogated all the laws of the Prophets before him. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)

This is because you have to understand it in relation to other verses such as...

Surah 17:55

And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred some of the prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms.

Also Surah 2:136 was sent down specifically in order for us to tell the Jews and Christians that we believe in all the Messengers and not disbelieve and believe in some of them like they do. (Tafsir Tabari, Source) It is not meant to be a pillar of Islam. 


Sam Shamoun said:

Moreover, the Quran says that prophets were all inspired to profess that Allah is god alone:

And We sent never a Messenger before thee except that We revealed to him, saying, There is no god but I; so serve Me.’ S. 21:25 Arberry

It even claims that prophets and messengers commanded people to fear Allah and obey them:

The people of Noah treated the Messengers as liars, When their brother Noah said to them, ‘Will you not be God-Fearing? Surely I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust. So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME; And I ask you no reward for it. My reward is only with the Lord of the worlds; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME;’ S. 26:105-110 Sher Ali

The tribe of Ad rejected the Messengers, When their Brother Hud said to them, ‘Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME… So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME;’ S. 26:123-126, 131 Sher Ali

The tribe of Thamud also rejected the Messengers, When their brother Salih said to them, ‘will you not guard against evil? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME… So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME;’ S. 26:141-144, 150 Sher Ali

The people of Lot rejected the Messengers, When their brother Lot said to them, ‘Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust; So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME.’ S. 26:160-163

The people of the Wood rejected the Messengers, When Shu'aib said to them, `Will you not fear God? Surely, I am unto you a Messenger, faithful to my trust. So fear ALLAH AND OBEY ME.’ S. 26:176-179

This again shows that to follow only the Quran’s teachings a Muslim would be forced to confess faith not just in Allah’s unity but also profess belief in the apostleship of many messengers by explicitly referring to them by name!


My Response:

Sam fails to show that the following verses forces us Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") today to bear witness in each of them by name. Sam also fails to understand that if we accept the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) then that means we accept the revelation that was sent to him, being the Quran. So if the Quran talks about these Prophets then we accept these Prophets because we accepted the Quran because we accepted the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him). So by believing in that, you automatically believe in all the Prophets. 


Sam Shamoun said:

Finally, and more importantly, there is a place where believers bear witness regarding their belief, but it is not in connection with Muhammad:

And when Jesus perceived their unbelief, he said, 'Who will be my helpers unto God?' The Apostles SAID, 'We will be helpers of God; we believe in God; witness thou our submission. Lord, we believe in that Thou hast sent down, and we follow the Messenger. Inscribe us therefore WITH THOSE WHO BEAR WITNESS.' S. 3:52-53 Arberry

The Disciples of Christ bear witness and testify that they believe in God and in Jesus as his Messenger. They even pray to God to inscribe them as those who bore witness to these things! Thus, if anything, this passage provides support that those Islamic narrations that make it mandatory to make a profession of faith in Christ are correct.


My Response:

Sam by presenting this verse you actually support me and refute yourself. The verse is talking about the apostles who bore witness to the Prophethood of Jesus. This shows that people used to bear witness to the Prophethood of their Prophets. 

Secondly, the verse is simply talking about the disciples bearing witness that Jesus is a messenger. No where does the verse state that us Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") today have to bear witness that Jesus is a Messenger by his name in specific. 

Again, Sam the beauty of our Shahadah is that once we bear witness that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a Messenger then we automatically bear witness to all the Messengers that the Quran or Prophet Muhammad informed us about. 


Sam Shamoun said:

What truly shows poor understanding is Zawadi’s distortion of the point being made by the submitters. As we just saw above, their point wasn’t that Allah was accusing the hypocrites for lying when they testified that Muhammad was his messenger. Their point was that the only group that felt the need to publicly testify that Muhammad was a messenger were the liars and hypocrites as a way of covering up their disbelief. Basically, they are trying to show that the Quran doesn’t require believers to publicly profess Muhammad’s apostleship since by obeying and following the Quran they will be proving their belief in him.


My Response:

WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU GET THIS INTERPRETATION FROM? How did you reach this conclusion? Not a single respectable Muslim scholar will tell you today that you bearing witness to the Prophethood of Muhammad is not a pillar of Islam. 

The evidence from the hadith is undeniable. 


Ibn Kathir's commentary as I previously posted refutes you. 

Get your Arabic translator Dimitrius and ask him to read the commentaries of Qurtubi, Suyuti and Tabari so that he can also tell you that those scholars who know more than you refuted you as well. 

Don't come up here with your own interpretations. Notice that in most of your articles Sam you usually quote commentaries to try to back up what your saying. Its funny how you couldn't reference any respectable scholar to back up your interpretation. 


Sam Shamoun said:

It is quite obvious that Zawadi hasn’t spent time studying what Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") have said regarding the implication of adding Muhammad’s name next to Allah’s. For instance, a renowned Muslim scholar named Qadi Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi noted regarding Islam’s creed:

Qatada said, "Allah exalted his fame in this world and the Next. There is no speaker, witness nor anyone doing the prayer who fails to say, ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’"

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri related that the Prophet said, "Jibril, peace be upon him, came to me and said, ‘My Lord and your Lord says, ‘Do you know how I have exalted your fame?"’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know best.’ He said, 'When I am mentioned you are mentioned with Me.’"

Ibn ‘Ata quoted a hadith qudsi saying, "I completed belief with your being mentioned with Me." And another one which says, "I have made your mention part of My mention so whoever mentions Me, mentions you."

Ja'far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, "No one mentions you as the Messenger but that he mentions Me as the Lord."


My Response:

Okay fine this is only talking about the honor that Muhammad (peace be upon him) has received by having his name put into the testimony of faith.


Sam Shamoun said:

The fact that mention of the Prophet is directly connected to mention of Allah also shows that obedience to the Prophet is connected to obedience to Allah and his name to Allah's name. Allah says, "Obey Allah and His Messenger" (2:32) and "Believe in Allah and His Messenger." (4:136) Allah joins them together using the conjunction wa WHICH IS THE CONJUNCTION OF PARTNERSHIP. IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THIS CONJUNCTION IN CONNECTION WITH ALLAH IN THE CASE OF ANYONE EXCEPT THE PROPHET.

Hudhayfa said that the Prophet said, "None of you should say, ‘What Allah wills and (wa) so-and-so wills.’ Rather say, ‘What Allah wills.’ Then stop and say, ‘So-and-so wills.’"

Al-Khattabi said, "The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the will of Allah before the will of others. He chose ‘then’ (thumma) which implies sequence and deference as opposed to ‘and’ (wa) WHICH IMPLIES PARTNERSHIP."

Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the presence of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever rebels against them both (joining them together by using the dual form) …" The Prophet said to him, "What a bad speaker you are! Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]"

Abu Sulayman said, "He disliked the two names being joined together in that way BECAUSE IT IMPLIES EQUALITY." … (Iyad, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K., third reprint 1991, paperback], pp. 7-8; bold and capital emphasis ours)

"… He coupled his name with His own name, and his pleasure with His pleasure. He made him one of the two pillars of tawhid." (Ibid., p. 27)

Ibn ‘Abbas said, "Written on the door of the Garden is: I am Allah. There is no god but Me. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I will not punish anyone who says that." (Ibid., p. 90)

Another source asserts that Muhammad didn’t like it when people used the conjunction wa (and) when associating him with Allah:

Further, a man once said to the Prophet … "What Allah and what you will." He … said, … Do not say, 'What Allah and what Muhammad will.' Rather say, 'What Allah wills and then what Muhammad wills.' (Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyyah, Zad-ul Ma'ad fi Hadyi Khairi-l 'Ibad [Provisions for the Hereafter Taken From the Guidance of Allah's Best Worshipper], translated by Jalal Abualrub, edited by Alaa Mencke & Shaheed M. Ali [Madinah Publishers & Distributors, Orlando Florida; First edition, October 2001], Volume 4, p. 285)


My Response:

I have to be frank and admit that I cannot reply back because I don't have that book in my possession. I don't know if Shamoun is taking it out of context. Because I see Sam using a lot of three dots (...) between his quotes and therefore not quoting the whole thing. So I won't know how to respond back. 

However, I will assume that what Shamoun said about the scholar is true. However, the scholar has not proven his point at all. Putting 'wa' does not necessarily signify partnership. Even if it did signify partnership that does not mean it signifies equality. For example...

The employer and his employee worked all night and finished the task. 

Now just because I put them together in the same sentence that does not mean that they are equal in authority. They are partners but that does not show equality. 

Secondly, if Sam wants to reply back and say that associating partners with God is shirk. Well no, Shirk is associating partners with God in worship. So if you want to say that Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) are partners in the sense that Allah reveals to Muhammad and then Muhammad goes on to preach it to the rest. Then maybe, that could be acceptable. HOWEVER, NOTHING BEYOND THAT. However, we do not even view Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a partner of God even in that way. I reject the scholar's assertions in which he provided no proof. 

The word 'wa' does not necessarily signify equality. 

For example...

Surah 33:56

Lo! Allah and (wa) His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.

Does this show equality between Allah and the angels? NO WAY!

Surah 4:59

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and (wa) those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.


Does this show equality between Allah, the messenger and the people in authority? NO WAY!

So I don't know what this scholar is talking about. I have a feeling that Sam didn't quote him properly. However, I don't want to accuse Sam for something I have no evidence for. 

So the fact of the matter is that just because you have two people in the same sentence and the word 'and' is between them that does not necessarily show equality or partnership. 

So should I go ahead and use the same argument against Sam's Bible?

Sam says that the word 'kai' in John 17:3 signified equality between Jesus and the Father. So lets take a look at these verses...

1 Thessalonians 2:15

who killed the Lord Jesus and (kai) the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men

1 Timothy 5:21

I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and (kai) the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

So does that mean that your 'Lord' Jesus is also in equality to the prophets and angels?


Sam Shamoun said:

Thus, Muslim sources, not Christians or Orientalists, emphatically affirm that Muhammad’s name being combined with Allah through the use of the Arabic conjunction wa implies partnership, that Muhammad is a partner with Allah! This is especially true when we realize that according to Sunni Islam the recitation of the Islamic creed is a necessary first step in attaining salvation. In other words, Muslim salvation is dependent on reciting that Allah is god alone and Muhammad is his messenger, which means that Muhammad is just as much a necessary object of salvation as is Allah!


My Response:

YES, acknowledging the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is as important as acknowledging there is Allah. Of course! If I don't believe in Prophet Muhammad then I automatically don't believe in Allah (not that I become an atheist but I don't believe in the true concept of God). 

Let me give another example. Can Sam Shamoun come up and say that he does not believe that the Law is the inspired word of God? No he cannot! Because Jesus confirmed and gave authority to the Law. If you don't believe in the purity of the Law then you don't believe in everything Jesus said! So believing in the authenticity of the Law is as important believing in Jesus because the two are inseparable beliefs. 

This in no way shows equality between the Prophet and Allah. 


Sam Shamoun said:

Interestingly, even the unbelievers saw that Muhammad’s statements were similar to what Christians were professing about Jesus!

It is related that ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said to the Prophet, "Part of your excellence with Allah is that He has made obedience to you obedience to Him. Allah says, ‘Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah’ (4:80) and ‘If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you.’" (3:31) It is related that when this ayat was sent down, people said, ‘Muhammad wants us to take him as a mercy IN THE WAY CHRISTIANS DID WITH ‘ISA,’ so Allah revealed, ‘Say: Obey Allah, and the Messenger.’" (3:32) (Iyad, p. 9; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Thus, Islamic tradition has basically turned Muhammad into a god by grouping him with Allah in its official creed as an object of salvation. It has done the inconceivable (in the words of Alford) by associating God with a creature.


My Response:

Well again I don't have the book. However, if read with context it is possible that it is talking about the true Christians who followed Jesus and showed him respect and acknowledged his Prophethood. Not the false Christians that went as far enough to worship Jesus. 

Its impossible that the Prophet wanted the same respect as the Trinitarian Christians give to Jesus (as God) because the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said...

Saheeh Bukhari

Volumn 004, Book 055, Hadith Number 654.
Narated By 'Umar : I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."


Sam Shamoun said:

Several responses to these erroneous assertions are in order. In the first place none of the hadiths that include Jesus within Islam’s creedal confession is directed to Christians or Jews. The narrations are directed to all individuals:

Narrated ‘Ubada:
The Prophet said, "IF ANYONE TESTIFIES that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle, and that Jesus is Allah's Slave and His Apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit from Him, and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true, Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he had done even if those deeds were few." (Junada, the sub-narrator said, "‘Ubada added, ‘Such a person can enter Paradise through any of its eight gates he likes.’") (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 644)

It is narrated on the authority of Ubadah b. Samit that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: HE WHO SAID: "There is no god but Allah, He is One and there is no associate with Him, that Muhammad is his servant and His messenger, that Christ is servant and the son of His slave-girl and he (Christ) His word which He communicated to Mary and is His Spirit, that Paradise is a fact and Hell is a fact," Allah would make him (he who affirms these truths enter Paradise through any one of its eight doors which he would like. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 0043)

Thus, everyone is required to publicly confess Christ as part of his or her testimony of faith.


My Response:

Sam is just not getting the point. That testimony is not obligatory to say word by word. Because when you say "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle" it covers everything. Even notice how there are other additions to the testimony in the hadith... "and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true". Sam needs to understand that when you accept  the Prophethood of Muhammad you accept the Quran and everything in it. The Quran talks about heaven and hell and Jesus and other Prophets. 


Sam Shamoun said:

Second, if the inclusion of Jesus within the creed was intended to help the Christians get their Christology right then by the same token Muhammad should have also included Ezra (Uzayr) whom the Jews believed was God’s son — according to the Quran at least:

And the Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of ALLAH,’ and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is the son of ALLAH;’ that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. ALLAH's curse be on them! How they are turned away. S. 9:30 Sher Ali

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then announce, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship.’ So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to worship Allah, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to worship?" They will reply, "We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah." It will be said to them, "You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?" They will reply, "We want You to provide us with water." Then it will be said to them "Drink," and they will fall down in Hell (instead). Then it will be said to the Christians, "What did you use to worship?" They will reply, "We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah." It will be said, "You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son." … (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s)

Using Qurtubi’s and Zawadi’s logic we would therefore expect Muhammad to have demanded that the Jews publicly profess Ezra as the slave and apostle of Allah so as to help cure them of their bad theology as well.

Third, if Nawawi’s reasoning were sound then we again would expect to find Muhammad commanding the Jews to acknowledge the apostleship of John the Baptist since they also reject(ed) him as a prophet.

As it stands none of Zawadi’s reasons provide a valid explanation why Muhammad included Jesus in Islam’s creedal statement.


My Response:

Why don't you simply argue back that if a Hindu converts to Islam then he should denounce the 300,000,000 million Gods he believed in and do it by name? Or for a Buddhist to condemn Buddha in his Shahada and so on? Sam is not getting the point. This hadith is giving honor to Jesus and his mother and this testimony is not mandatory but optional. I can make my Shahadah "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle and Moses is the servant of Allah, and I believe that Allah created everything. I also testify that the Quran is the last revelation of God..............." BUT I DON'T HAVE TO, BECAUSE "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle" expresses all of that. 

Like I mentioned, the mentioning of Jesus and his mother was beneficial for the Jews because they disbelieved in the Prophethood of Jesus and cursed his mother. 

The Hadith in no way indicates that the Shahadah that includes Jesus's name is obligatory. It just mentions the benefits of it. However, the Shahadah us Muslim say today is A PILLAR OF ISLAM and therefore mandatory.


Sam Shamoun said:

Zawadi’s quote here does nothing to help his case since this narration actually provides further support for our position. It again shows that Jesus is a necessary object of faith, just as much as Muhammad is, for a person to receive a double reward. Thus, if a Muslim wants to receive a double reward he must believe in Muhammad AND Jesus, and not simply profess faith in either Muhammad or Jesus alone.


My Response:

Of course Jesus is a necessary object of faith. If you reject Jesus (peace be upon him) then you reject Muhammad (peace be upon him). The reason for the double reward, well it is possible that the Prophet was referring to the true Christians and followers of Jesus who wore awaiting the Prophet that Jesus foretold. So maybe the Prophet gave them extra honor. 

Or the Prophet wanted to emphasize the fact that there is no Prophet between Jesus and him. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=5310



To declare that Allah is the true God and that Muhammad is His Messenger is the ultimate Shahadah. When one bears witness to this Shahadah he bears witness to everything that is in the Quran.

The reason why you found the Prophet including Jesus in some Shahadah's was to honor Jesus and was in recommendation for Christians and Jews to say it. It is also recommended for others to say it, however the Prophet did not make it compulsory. In the other hadith the Prophet did not say that this Shahadah was a pillar of Islam. But to declare that Allah is the only true God and that Muhammad is his Messenger is part of the five pillars of Islam. If Shamoun showed hadith where the Prophet said that the Shahadah including Jesus was a pillar in Islam then we would have a problem.





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

Rebuttals by Bassam Zawadi.

Islam and the Noble Quran - Questions and Answers.

Answering Trinity.

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  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") 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.


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