Sami Zaatari's Refutations to Shamoun
[Introduction, Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals to Shamoun, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Tawassul in Christianity]
by
Bassam Zawadi
Below is a list of articles authored by Shamoun on the subject, which have been either fully or partially addressed by our brother Sami Zaatari, the owner of www.muslim-responses.com:
Brother Sami has done a fine job refuting many of Shamoun's points. I, of course, recommend the readers read Sami's rebuttals before proceeding to read this one. I would like to refute some of the arguments made by Shamoun that Sami didn't touch upon and possibly add some extra points to some of the refutations that Sami has made towards some of Shamoun's arguments.
Sam Shamoun said:
Praying through Muhammad's Mediation
Not only are Muslims addressing Muhammad directly during their daily prayers there is also the Islamic practice of invoking Allah through Muhammad. For example, there are certain Muslim sources which state that Adam beseeched Allah by the right of Muhammad to forgive him of his sin in eating of the forbidden tree:
Al-Bayhaqi cited the following hadith in his book "Dala'il an-Nubuwwah" (Signs of Prophethood): Narrated 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab: the Prophet said: "When Adam committed the sin, he said to Allah, 'O My Lord, I ask You with reference to Muhammad to forgive me'. Allah said: 'O Adam! How did you know about Muhammad, for I have not yet created him?' Adam replied, 'O My Lord, when You created me, I looked up and saw inscribed on the legs of the Throne the words: There is no God worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger. I knew that you do not attach to Your name but the name of the dearest of Your Creation.' Allah said to Adam, 'You have spoken rightly, Adam. Muhammad is the dearest of My Creation. I have forgiven you because you asked by Muhammad. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR HIM, I WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED YOU.'" This hadith was narrated by al-Hakim who also classified it as sahih (authentic). Among the transmitters of this hadith is 'Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn Aslam. Al-Haythami said: "This hadith was reported by at-Dabarani and in its chain of transmitters are people I do not know. Al-Hakim was therefore mistaken in classifying this hadith as sahih because he himself criticised 'Abd ar-rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn Aslam in his book ad-Du'afa, so how can he state the authenticity of the hadith after he had criticised him?!!" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by Sheikh Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London: Second Edition 1998], p. 107, fn 10; underline and capital emphasis ours)
And:
Abu Muhammad al-Makki, Abu'l-Layth as-Samarqandi and others related that when Adam rebelled, he said, "O Allah, forgive me my error BY THE RIGHT OF MUHAMMAD!" Allah said to him, "How do you know Muhammad?" He said, "I saw written in every place in the Garden, 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.' So I knew that he was the most honoured creation in Your eyes." SO ALLAH TURNED TO HIM AND FORGAVE HIM. It is said that this is the interpretation of the words of Allah, "Adam learned some words from his Lord" (2:27)
Another variant has that Adam said, "When you created me, I lifted my gaze to Your Throne AND WRITTEN ON IT WAS: 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,' so I knew there would be no one held in greater esteem by You than the one whose name You placed alongside Your own name." Allah then revealed to him, "By My might and majesty, he is the last of the prophets among your descendants. IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR HIM, I WOULD HAVE NOT CREATED YOU." It is said that Adam was given the kunya, Abu Muhammad. Some people say that it was Abu'l-Bashar (the father of mankind). (Qadi 'Iyad, p. 89; capital emphasis ours)
My Response:
These narrations are not reliable.
Shaykh Al Munajjid states:
This hadeeth is fabricated, as was explained by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him), because Allaah only created the jinn and mankind to worship Him alone with no partner or associate, and Adam (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) is one of mankind. And Allaah is the source of strength. End quote.
Majmoo' Fataawa Ibn Baaz (26/327)
Al-Bayhaqi said concerning it in Dalaa'il al-Nubuwwah (5/489): It was narrated only by 'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, who is da'eef (weak). End quote.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said concerning it in al-Tawassul (p. 166):
It was narrated in marfoo' and mawqoof reports attributed to 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him), but (its isnaad) includes 'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Aslam, who is da'eef according to their consensus and he makes many mistakes. End quote.
Al-Albaani (and Allaah have mercy on him) ruled that it is fabricated in al-Silsilah al-Da'eefah (25). (Source)
He also states elsewhere:
This hadeeth is mawdoo' (fabricated). It was narrated by al-Haakim via 'Abd-Allaah ibn Muslim al-Fahri (who said), Ismaa'eel ibn Muslimah narrated to us, 'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam told us, from his father, from his grandfather, from 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him), that he said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "When Adam committed his sin." Then he quoted the hadeeth as the questioner quoted it.
Al-Haakim said: The isnaad of this hadeeth is saheeh.
This is what al-Haakim said! But a number of scholars rebuked him and denounced him for classing this hadeeth as saheeh. They ruled that this hadeeth is false and fabricated, and they pointed out that al-Haakim contradicted himself when commenting on this hadeeth.
There follow some of their comments:
Al-Dhahabi said, criticizing the words of al-Haakim quoted above:
Rather it is mawdoo' (fabricated), and 'Abd al-Rahmaan is not reliable, and I do not know who 'Abd-Allaah ibn Muslim al-Fahri is.
Al-Dhahabi also said in Meezaan al-I'tidaal: It is a false report.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar agreed with him in Lisaan al-Meezaan.
Al-Bayhaqi said:
'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam is the only one who narrated it with this isnaad, and he is da'eef (weak). Ibn Katheer agreed with him in al-Bidaayah wa'l-Nihayyah, 2/323.
Al-Albaani said in al-Silsilah al-Da'eefah, 25: (it is) mawdoo'.
Al-Haakim himself (may Allaah forgive him) accused 'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd of being a fabricator of hadeeth, so how could his hadeeth be saheeh?
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Qaa'idah al-Jaleelah fi'l-Tawassul wa'l-Waseelah (p. 69):
Al-Haakim's narration of this hadeeth is something for which he was denounced, and he himself said in his book al-Madkhil ila Ma'rifat al-Saheeh 'an al-Saqeem:
'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam narrated fabricated ahaadeeth from his father, and it is obvious to any competent hadeeth scholar that he is the one to blame for fabricating ahaadeeth. I say: 'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam is da'eef (weak) because he made a lot of mistakes.
See Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth al-Da'eefah by al-Albaani, 1/38-47. (Source)
Sam Shamoun said:
Abdullah bin Qurt narrates.
I then departed from the Masjid via Ethiopia Gate and said to myself, "I will commit a grave error if I fail to make salam at the tomb of Rasulullah, for I do not know whether or not I will see it again."
So I went to the room where 'Aishah was sitting at the grave. 'Ali and al-'Abbas were also present with al-Husayn sitting in 'Ali's lap and al-Hasan in al-'Abbas's lap. They were reciting Suratul-An'am while 'Ali was reciting Surah Hud. I made salam to Rasulullah.
'Ali: O Ibn Qurt, are you going to Syria?
Ibn Qurt: Yes, O cousin of Rasulullah. I think that once I reach there the two armies will already be deeply embroiled in fighting. They will see me coming without help or reinforcements. I really fear that they will become weak and frightened. I wish that I could reach them before they fight so that I can at least advise them and counsel them with patience.
'Ali: So what is stopping you from asking 'Umar to make du'a for you?.
Ibn Qurt: I am well aware of all these virtues of 'Umar which you have mentioned, but in addition I would like your du'a and the du'a of al-'Abbas, the paternal uncle of Rasulullah, especially here at the noble tomb of Rasulullah.
Al-'Abbas raised his hand in supplication. 'Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, 'Aishah (and Hafsah and Umm Salamah who had also arrived) joined them. He prayed, "O Allah, we seek intercession THROUGH THIS CHOSEN PROPHET AND SELECTED MESSENGER THROUGH WHOM ADAM ALSO SOUGHT INTERCERSSION and then You forgave his error. O Allah, make the road easy for 'Abdullah and fold up the long distances for him. Help the Sahabah of Your Prophet with victory. You are the Hearer of Du'a."
He then said, "Go Abdullah, for it is unlikely that Allah will reject the du'a of 'Umar, 'Abbas, 'Ali, al-Hasan, and the wives of Rasulullah, especially when they have interceded through the best of all creation." (Al-Imam al-Waqidi, The Islamic Conquest of Syria, A Translation of Futuhusham: The Inspiring History of the Sahabah's Conquest of Syria, translated by Mawlana Sulayman al-Kindi [Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., London 2005], Part 3: Al-Yarmuk, pp. 287-288; capital and underline emphasis ours)
My Response:
First, nothing is polytheistic about seeking intercession through the Prophet (peace be upon him). This narration doesn't show people calling out to the Prophet (peace be upon him); rather, they are calling out to Allah but seeking intercession through the Prophet (peace be upon him). How is that polytheistic?
Secondly, Shamoun cites Al Waqidi, someone whom Shamoun knows fully well and is suspicious of when it comes to narrating hadith (as Shamoun documented himself over here). Does this mean that everything Al Waqidi reports is false? No, but since we can't treat Al Waqidi like Saheeh Al Bukhari, we are forced to provide evidence for the authenticity of anything that Al Waqidi reports. Has Shamoun done that here? No.
Sam Shamoun said:
It is just as necessary to have esteem and respect for the Prophet after his death as it were when he was alive. This means to show it whenever the Prophet, his hadith or sunna are mentioned, when anyone hears his name or anything about his life or how his family and relatives behaved. It includes respect for the People of his House (ahl al-bayt) and his Companions...
Abu Humayd said, "Abu Ja'far, the Amir al-Mu'minin, had a dispute with Malik in the Prophet's mosque. Malik said to him, 'Amir al-Mu'minin, do not raise your voice in this mosque. Allah taught the people how to behave by saying, "Do not raise your voices above the Prophet" (49:2) He praises people with the words, "Those who lower their voices in the presence of the Messenger of Allah." (49:3) He censures people, saying, "Those who call you..." Respect for him when he is dead is the same as respect for him when he was alive."
"Abu Ja'far was humbled by this. He asked Malik, 'Abu Abdullah, do you face qibla when you supplicate or do you face the Messenger of Allah?' He replied, 'Why would you turn your face from him when he is YOUR MEANS and the means of your father, Adam, to Allah on the Day of Rising? I face him and ASK HIM to intercede and Allah will grant his intercession. Allah says, "If, when you wronged yourselves, they had come to you."'" (4:64) (Qadi 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. 237-238; capital and underline emphasis ours)
My Response:
This story is inauthentic and contradicts several authentic narrations regarding how Imam Malik says something contradictory. See here and here for a detailed analysis.
Sam Shamoun said:
II. Ah.mad Recommended Tawassul in Every Du'a'
Abu Bakr al-Marwazi narrated in his Mansak that Imam Ahmad preferred for one to make tawassul through the Prophet in EVERY supplication with the wording: "O Allah! I am turning to you with your Prophet, the Prophet of mercy. O Muhammad! I am turning with you to my Lord for the fulfillment of my need." The report is mentioned in the books of the Hanbali madhhab as it bears on the adab of du'a as a fiqh issue.7
My Response:
Yes, Imam Ahmad is said to have taken the position that making supplication to Allah through the intercession of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is valid, however, nowhere did he say that one could pray directly to and call out the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
There is no evidence for the authenticity of this particular narration that Shamoun cited. Furthermore, it contradicts other sayings from Imam Ahmad, who stated that one should not call out to anyone but Allah. In addition, Imam Ahmad is not a prophet, and we are not obliged to agree with him if we believe that the evidence goes against him.
Sam Shamoun said:
The renowned hadith compiler al-Bukhari included a specific report where Umar asked Allah by Muhammad and his uncle for rain:
III: People asking the Imam to ask for rain when there is a drought
963. It is related that the father of 'Abdullah ibn Dinar said, "I heard Ibn 'Umar reciting the poem of Abu Talib:
Faultless, he is asked, by his noble face, to pray for rain,
A support for the orphans, a defence for the widows."
It is related that Salim said that his father (Ibn 'Umar) said, "Sometimes I remembered the words of the poet while looking at the face of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he was praying for rain. He did not get down until the rain was flowing in every gutter:
Faultless, he is asked, by his noble face, to pray for rain,
A support for the orphans, a defence for the widows.
Those were the words of Abu Talib."
My Response:
Abu Talib was a disbeliever. We don't learn our religion from him. None of the companions uttered such a supplication.
Sam Shamoun said:
964. It is related from Anas, "If there was a drought, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab would ask al-'Abbas ibn 'Abdu'l-Muttalib to do the rain prayer. He would say, 'O Allah, we seek intercession with You by Your Prophet and we ask You for rain. We seek intercession with You by the uncle of our Prophet, so give us rain!'" He added, "And they were given rain." (Aisha Bewley, Sahih of al-Bukhari Collection, Chapter 21. The Rain Prayer; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)
My Response:
This is an awful and highly misleading translation. Aisha Bewley is a Sufi, and it's possible that her biases played a role in this translation. The correct translation is as follows:
Volume 2, Book 17, Number 123:
Narrated Anas:
Whenever drought threatened them, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, "O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain."(1) And so it would rain.
And anyone able to read Arabic could see that by comparing the translations with the original text:
عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ
كَانَ إِذَا قَحَطُوا اسْتَسْقَى بِالْعَبَّاسِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ فَقَالَ اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّا كُنَّا نَتَوَسَّلُ إِلَيْكَ بِنَبِيِّنَا فَتَسْقِينَا وَإِنَّا نَتَوَسَّلُ إِلَيْكَ بِعَمِّ نَبِيِّنَا فَاسْقِنَا قَالَ فَيُسْقَوْنَ
As for seeking intercession through the Prophet's (peace be upon him) uncle, it is obvious by looking at the context of having him make the supplication on behalf of the Muslims.
This narration, if anything, shows that Tawassul, by the status of the Prophet (peace be upon him) after his death, was not practiced by the companions, since after the Prophet (peace be upon him) died, they stopped praying to Allah through the Prophet (peace be upon him) and have now instead appealed to his uncle.
Sam Shamoun said:
According to another report Muslims actually went to Muhammad's grave in order to pray for rain, at the orders of his child bride Aisha no less!
al-Darimi in the Chapter 15 of the Muqaddima (Introduction) to his Sunan (1:43) entitled: "Allah's generosity to His Prophet after his death," relates from Aws ibn `Abd Allah with a good chain: "The people of Madina complained to `A'isha of the severe drought that they were suffering. She said: "Go to the Prophet's grave and open a window towards the sky so that there will be no roof between him and the sky." They did so, after which they were watered with such rain that vegetation grew and the camels got fat. That year was named the Year of Plenty." (Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine, III. QUESTIONS ON TAWASSUL; sources [1, 2])
My Response:
Despite the attempts to authenticate this story, it is still doubtful which side of the debate is correct. See here.
Even if we assume it is authentic, this cannot be used as proof that one could call out to the Prophet (peace be upon him), for the narration itself does not show that.
Shaykh Al Munajjid states:
This hadeeth is not proof for what the extreme Sufis believe about it being permissible to seek rain by the help of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). You cannot find in the hadeeth anything which indicates that, by any stretch of the imagination. The most that can be said is that it shows how Allaah honoured his Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) after he died, as al-Daarimi described in his Musnad in the chapter heading under which he included this hadeeth. This is the blessing of his pure body and his honour before Allaah. But that does not mean that it is permissible for the Muslims to go to him and seek his help whilst he is in his grave. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) did not do that, rather they opened a hole in the roof of his room so that it might be directly open to the sky, but none of them asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for rain, and they did not speak to him concerning that. (Source)
Sam Shamoun said:
The problem which Zawadi faces here is that the Quran ascribes some of the names of Allah to his creatures. For example, the Muslim scripture mentions that Allah's names include al-aziz and al-qawi:
In Allah's help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty (al-azizu), the Merciful. S. 30:5
Say: Show me those whom ye have joined unto Him as partners. Nay (ye dare not)! For He is Allah, the Mighty (al-azizu), the Wise. S. 34:27
Allah is gracious unto His slaves. He provideth for whom He will. And He is the Strong (al-qawiyyu), the Mighty (al-azizu). S. 42:19 - cf. 22:40
However, the Quran says that the name of the man to whom Joseph was sold was al-aziz:
And women in the city said: "The wife of Al-'Aziz is seeking to seduce her (slave) young man, indeed she loves him violently; verily we see her in plain error." S. 12:30
(The King) said (to the women): "What was your affair when you did seek to seduce Yusuf (Joseph)?" The women said: "Allah forbid! No evil know we against him!" The wife of Al-'Aziz said: "Now the truth is manifest (to all), it was I who sought to seduce him, and he is surely of the truthful." S. 12:51
It even says that the prophet Moses was called al-qawi!
And said one of them (the two women): "O my father! Hire him! Verily, the best of men for you to hire is the strong (al-qawiyyu), the trustworthy." He said [to Moses]: "I intend to wed one of these two daughters of mine to you, on condition that you serve me for eight years, but if you complete ten years, it will be (a favour) from you. But I intend not to place you under a difficulty. If Allah will, you will find me one of the righteous." S. 28:26-27
My Response:
Shamoun is again showing us that he knows nothing about basic Islamic doctrines. When we say that Allah is Al Qawiyyu, we mean that He is infinitely strong. That in no way means that I can't use Al Qawiyyu for anyone else.
Let's imagine a hypothetical conversation amongst Arabs:
Khalid says to the group: I need one of you to help me carry this box; which one of you is strong?
Ahmad replies back: Ziyad is the strong (al qawiyyu) one amongst us.
Note how Ziyad is referred to as "the strong" one. Now, is this blasphemy? Of course not. No scholar on earth would say such a thing because we all know they didn't intend to say that Ziyad is infinitely strong.
Similarly, Allah is Al Malik (i.e. The King). For Allah, this means that He is the King of all creation. Does that mean I can't refer to the king of Saudi Arabia as 'the king' of Saudi Arabia? Of course not, because my intention is not to declare him a king like I would for Allah.
The violation of Tawheed will only occur if one intends to ascribe the name and implication of a specific title to a creature when it only belongs to the Creator. Surely, Shamoun understands this distinction, for he argues that the attribute of goodness for God does not disallow others being good, for the implication in the context is different because others are only good by God's grace, and the source of all goodness is from God (see here). This could easily be argued in this case as well, yet because Shamoun employs double standards he failed to mention that.
Also, see here and here.
Sam Shamoun said:
The Islamic scripture even goes so far as to describe Muhammad's characteristics in the same way it depicts the very qualities of Allah! According to the Quran Allah is most kind and most merciful to the believers:
Allah turned with favour to the Prophet, the Muhajirs, and the Ansar, - who followed him in a time of distress, after that the hearts of a part of them had nearly swerved (from duty); but He turned to them (also): for He is unto them Most Kind, Most Merciful (raoofun raheemun). S. 9:117
And had it not been for the Grace of Allah and His Mercy on you, (Allah would have hastened the punishment upon you). And that Allah is full of kindness, Most Merciful (raoofun raheemun). S. 24:20
And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful (raoofun raheemun). S. 59:10
This is precisely how the Muslim scripture describes Muhammad's relationship to the believers!
Now hath come unto you an Apostle from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the Believers is he most kind and merciful (raoofun raheemun). S. 9:128
My Response:
Surah 9:128 does not state that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is All-Merciful and All-Kind. It only says that he is merciful and kind, which is perfectly fine.
Sam Shamoun said:
To make matters worse, Muhammad is not the only creature that the Quran conjoins with Allah in his attributes. In one particular passage the Islamic scripture uses the conjunction wa to ascribe honour or glory to Allah, Muhammad and Muslims:
They (hypocrites) say: "If we return to Al-Madinah, indeed the more honourable ('Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul, the chief of hypocrites at Al-Madinah) will expel therefrom the meaner (i.e. Allah's Messenger)." But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, His Messenger (Muhammad), and to the believers (WA-lillahi al-aizzatu WA-lirasoolihi WA-lilmumineena), but the hypocrites know not. S. 63:8 Hilali-Khan
What makes this rather problematic for dawagandists like Zaatari is that we are expressly and repeatedly told throughout the Quran that this attribute belongs wholly to Allah!
Those who take unbelievers for their friends instead of believers -- do they seek glory in them? But glory altogether belongs to God (inna al-aizzatu lillahi jameean). S. 4:139 Arberry
And do not let their saying grieve thee; the glory belongs altogether to God (inna al-aizzatu lillahi jameean); He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing. S. 10:65 Arberry
Whosoever desires glory, the glory altogether belongs to God (fa-lillahi al-aizzatu jameean). To Him good words go up, and the righteous deed -- He uplifts it; but those who devise evil deeds -- theirs shall be a terrible chastisement, and their devising shall come to naught. 35:10 Arberry
My Response:
The verses put together simply mean that Allah is the source of all glory, and He decides to share it with whomever He pleases.
We wish to point out a similar issue in the Bible to expose Shamoun's double standards to the readers.
The Bible states that God shares His glory with no one:
Isaiah 42:8
I am Yahweh, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images
The Bible also states that God gave glory to Jesus, who then went and gave that same glory (which came from God) to the disciples:
John 17:22
22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one
Now Shamoun could argue that the glory that God gave was not necessarily the glory that He previously promised not to share and that it was some other kind of glory, which isn't as holy. I'm sure Shamoun would be creative and come up with some kind of response. The only point that I am trying to make is that he won't even exert 1% of that effort to allow the Qur'an to be reconciled.
Sam Shamoun said:
Zaatari also cites the response of www.islamqa.com to try to refute me without realizing how the site's answer actually proves my point. This Salafi website claims that prostration is of two types, the first being an act performed for the purpose of worship with the other being a kind of greeting and honor. However, Zaatari conveniently failed to understand the implication of the following assertion made by his very own source:
The prostration of Yoosuf's parents and brothers was also a prostration of greeting and honouring, which was permissible according to the law (of Allaah) at that time [sic]. But according to the sharee'ah brought by the Seal of the Prophets, Muhammad, it is not permissible to prostrate to anyone at all except Allaah. Hence the Prophet said: "If I were to have commanded anyone to prostrate to anyone else, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands." The Prophet forbade Mu'aadh to prostrate to him when he (Mu'aadh) said that the People of the Book prostrated to the great ones among them, and he mentioned the hadeeth quoted above. The prohibition in this sharee'ah against prostrating to anyone at all except Allaah is an aspect of its perfection in achieving true Tawheed. It is the perfect sharee'ah whose perfection is manifested in all its rulings...
The questions that Zaatari should have asked himself are the following: If prostration was allowed for the purpose of showing honor and greeting then why did Muhammad prohibit it? And if Islam forbids Muslims from prostrating to anyone other than Allah because it violates tauhid al-ibaadah, i.e. his worship, then why was it allowed in the first place? How could it not be a violation of Allah's worship back then if it violates it now? And if prohibiting Muslims to prostrate before others is an aspect of perfection in achieving true tauhid does this imply that Allah's worship was imperfect at the beginning? Are we to really believe that Allah allowed his prophets and true followers to worship him imperfectly, preventing them from attaining perfection in their worship or tauhid? Does Zaatari seriously want us to believe that his deity actually put up with people honoring him in an imperfect manner? Does that even make sense?
Moreover, how many times do we hear dawagandists like Zaatari claim that the prophets before Muhammad were Muslims and believed in tauhid? If so then why did Allah permit them to violate a crucial aspect of tauhid by allowing them to prostrate to creatures? If as propagandists like Sami keep telling us that the angels and Joseph's family were not worshiping the creation but simply showing honor and respect to great prophets of Allah then why should such honor and respect be prohibited? And seeing that Islam strictly prohibits prostrating to anyone besides Allah irrespective of one's intentions doesn't this refute the oft-repeated assertion that the angels and Joseph's family were simply showing honor? Doesn't this actually prove that their actions were in direct violation of the worship which is supposed to be shown only to Allah? Of course it does and no amount of spinning and mental gymnastics on Zaatari's part will change this fact.
My Response:
When the angels were ordered to make prostration to Adam Iblis protested, he said, {Ara-aytaka hadha-l-ladhi karramta alai (Have you seen this [Adam] whom You have honored above me)?}, referring to the prostration which he refused to make to Adam. The angels do not follow our Shari`ah, so our acts of worship do not apply to them because they have their own system of worship. Also, the fact that they have no choice in the matter as we do annuls any chance they will fall into Shirk in any form. Humans may be weak because they have free will.
Prostrating down to a human is not in and of itself Shirk unless one does so in reverence that is only due to Allah. If bowing down by itself is Shirk, Allah would not have allowed his Prophet Ya`qub to bow down to His Prophet Yusuf. In their Shari`ah, they were allowed to do so to show respect.
However, Allah knows our weakness and our rushing to add to what He allows. As an act of mercy from Him, He closed this door that may lead to Shirk. Even though He allowed it for those before us, they misused it. So, the act itself is not Aqeedah but an act that was allowed at times and disallowed at other times. Alcohol had the same status. The difference is that since Allah knew how the Christians and Jews allowed this act, which was allowed for them, to become an act of worship and reverence towards other humans, Allah helped us by outlawing it because of what it may lead to.
Also, we do say that the faith remained the same no matter the Prophet, so we say this without hesitation. Maybe the depth of the details varied from one prophet to another, but the faith was always the same as Allah stated in the Quran that every Prophet whom He sent said to his people, {O my people, worship Allah you have no Ilah except Him}.
Sam Shamoun said:
Are the Majority of Muslims Anti-Sufis?
Zaatari continues to expose more of his ignorance of Islam, this time of Islamic history, since he claims that most Muslims do not hold to Sufi beliefs. The fact is that the majority of Muslim scholars, both of the past and present, were/are Sufis or those who perform(ed) tasawwuf. It is Zaatari's Salafi cult, itself a minority in relation to the vast majority of Muslim scholars, who deny Sufism. For the details and historical evidence that proves that the majority of scholars have been Sufis we suggest that the readers peruse the website of Shaykh Gibril Foaud Haddad (1, 2).
My Response:
Shamoun claims to have linked to articles that provide historical evidence that most scholars are Sufis, yet he didn't. He only linked to general sufi sites but failed to provide specific historical evidence.
For some objective evidence showing that the Asharis/Sufis were a later sect originating hundreds of years after the Prophet's (peace be upon him) death, please refer to the following (*,*,*,*,*)
Sam Shamoun said:
"Allah is instructing the sinners when they commit a sin to come to the messenger of Allah and ask forgiveness in his presence and then they ask him to request forgiveness. And certainly if they did that, Allah would relent towards them and have mercy on them, and for that reason He said "they would have found Allah Oft-Returning, Merciful."
And Shaykh Mansur as-Sabbagh recollected in his book "The Perfections" (ash-Shama'il) the well-known (famous) transmission from 'Utbi:
"I was sitting BY THE GRAVE OF THE PROPHET and a Bedouin came and said: 'Peace be upon YOU O Prophet of Allah. I heard Allah say: "And if they had come to thee when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and if the Messenger had also asked forgiveness for them, they would have surely found Allah Oft-Returning with compassion and Merciful." AND I CAME TO YOU asking forgiveness for my sin, taking YOU as intercessor to my Lord.'
"Then he started reciting verses: 'O YOU best of those whose bones are buried in al-Qa'a from the sweet scents of those bones the whole area of al-Qa'a and Akamu became perfumed. I sacrifice myself to the grave that you live in - it is purity and in it is incredible generosity.'
"Then the Bedouin departed and sleep overcame me. And I saw the Prophet in my sleep and he said: 'O 'Utbi, follow the Bedouin and give him the glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.'" (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Qur'an al-Adheem [Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1992/1412], Q. 4:64, volume I, p. 643; source; capital and underline emphasis ours)
My Response:
First of all, there is no chain of transmission for this narration (even according to the admission of Sufis) hence it is not considered evidence. Secondly, even if it was authentic, why should I follow this unknown Bedouin? Why didn't the companions follow his lead?
Return to Refuting Sam Shamoun
Return to Homepage
