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

Rebuttal to Craig Winn "Prophet of Doom: Chapter 6" article:

This article is a rebuttal to Craig Winn's article that is located at:   http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter6.html.

Important Note to the Reader:

Craig Winn purposely twisted and modified the English translations that he used!  He changes words in translations and uses non-Muslim ones.  I've noticed this a lot through his translations of the Noble Verses that he used from the Noble Quran.

Please visit:

List of Craig Winn's fabricated lies and deliberate alteration of quotes, WITH CLEAR-CUT PROOFS!

Before we get into the detailed rebuttal of this article, let's look at the following from his Bible:

Having said all of that, let us now proceed:

He wrote:

CHAPTER 6

HEART OF DARKNESS

“I fear that a demon has possessed him.”

     It’s time I share something disturbing about the five holy books we are using to expose Muhammad, Allah, and Islam. They were not contemporaneous writings. Muslims say that Islam, unlike Judeo-Christianity, was played out in the light of recorded history but the opposite is true. The prophets and patriarchs of the Bible were lettered, and their contemporaries were literate. Their written scrolls encountered an educated audience of voracious readers within a generation of the events they described.

My response:

The authors of the books and gospels of your pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", were not even known!  Let alone them being anointed by GOD Almighty.  Let's see the crystal clear proof from your own resources:

From www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm:

Who were the authors of the Bible?  Were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses  . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament, that of 'Hebrews':

"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."

From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition

and one book of the Old Testament:

"In tradition, [David] is credited with writing 73 of the Psalms; most scholars, however, consider this claim questionable."

Encarta Encyclopedia, under "David"

Is this how we define "inspired by God"?

I asked a reverand of the local church in my neighboorhod, on what gospel most often quoted and used, he quickly answered, the Gospel of St. John!

Let us examine the Contextual Problems of the Gospel of John - Highly Recommended!

End of article.

Also, consider the following few examples that consist of historical contradictions in the Bible:

It is quite obvious that Christians today believe in third party authors' words as the words of GOD.  This is a very serious corruption in the Bible that must be taken into deep consideration by the Bible's followers.  Please visit "Is the Bible the true word of GOD?" to see a full and complete paper about the logical corruptions in the Bible, along with many Christian famous priests and ministers opinions that agree with the Bible's corruption.  I have their personal quotes in that site.

Also, as to the parts of the Bible that Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

After that, please visit:  Prophet Muhammad was foretold in many places in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.

He wrote:

The Islamic scripture, however, was all based upon long lines of oral tradition. No copy of the Qur’an dated to within a hundred years of the prophet’s death survives.

My response:

Where did you get your utter nonsense and lies from?!  Where is the evidence for all of these baseless and worthless claims?!  The Noble Quran was documented on paper on the spot!  It was also memorized by Prophet Muhammad's close companions.  Not only that, but many parts of the Noble Quran get recited during the Muslims' five-daily prayers.  And last but not least, the Muslims, especially during Prophet Muhammad's times, recite the entire Noble Quran during the Holy Month of Ramadan.  The Noble Quran did not get documented 100 years after our Prophet peace be upon him.   Allah Almighty said:

"Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "God is witness between me and you; This Quran hath been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can ye possibly bear witness that besides God there is another God?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the one God, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."  (The Noble Quran, 6:19)"

"When the Quran is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy.  (The Noble Quran, 7:204)"

"This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.  (The Noble Quran, 10:37)"

"Verily this Quran doth guide to that which is most right (or stable), and giveth the Glad Tidings to the Believers who work deeds of righteousness, that they shall have a magnificent reward;  (The Noble Quran, 17:9)"

"When thou dost recite the Quran, We put, between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter, a veil invisible:  (The Noble Quran, 17:45)"

"Verily in this (Quran) is a Message for people who would (truly) worship God.  (The Noble Quran, 21:106)"

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran).  (The Noble Quran, 25:52)"

The Noble Quran was sent in stages to the Prophet, and the Prophet was inspired the chronological order of the Noble Verses and Chapters:

"We send down (stage by stage) in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.  (The Noble Quran, 17:82)"

"(It is) a Quran which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages.  (The Noble Quran, 17:106)"

"And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to thee: thou knewest not (before) what was Revelation, and what was Faith; but We have made the (Quran) a Light, wherewith We guide such of Our servants as We will; and verily thou dost guide (men) to the Straight Way,-  (The Noble Quran, 42:52)"

"High above all is God, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Quran before its revelation to thee is completed, but say, "O my Lord! advance me in knowledge."  (The Noble Quran, 20:114)"

"Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.  (The Noble Quran, 25:32)"

To the reader, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation.

He wrote:

The oldest Hadith manuscript is two hundred years removed from the events it chronicles. Islam’s dark past is addressed at length in the “Source Material” appendix.

My response:

To the reader, notice this liar's tricks and deceptions.  He tried in a slick move to mix the hadiths (Sayings of Prophet Muhammad) with the Noble Quran.  While it is true that the hadiths were documented literally 100s of years after the death of our Prophet as I will prove shortly, but the Noble Quran as I proved above, especially in the link of the Noble Quran's History of Preservation and Compilation, was documented and memorized on the spot.

As to the hadiths, throughout my previous rebuttals, I've said all along that the hadiths were corrupt.   You have mentioned nothing new.  On the contrary, this debunks your points and purpose about quoting from the Al-Tabari and Ishaq throughout your entire book as if the quotes were as reliable as the Noble Quran itself. 

The hadiths were literally documented 100s of years after the Prophet's, peace be upon him, death.   Not everything you read is accurate and was necessarily told by the Prophet word for word, or even if at all!  It is important, if you wish to be objective and honest, to put the Noble Quran as the center for any Islamic argument.  If the Noble Quran makes a claim, then it is definitely agreed upon by all Muslims, and it is perfectly authentic.  Otherwise, GOD Almighty only Knows about what is true and what is false regarding the narrations that you use in Hadiths and Sunnah books.

The "Sahih Bukhari" or "Authentic Bukhari" in English was the first volume to be compiled.  Bukhari is not an Arabic name!  Bukhari is derived from the word "Bukhara", which is a city in Afghanistan:

"We now come to the Iron Gate which corresponds exactly to the Quranic description, and has the best claim to be connected with Alexander's story.  It is near another Derbend in Central Asia, Hissar District, about 150 miles southeast of Bukhara......."  (www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm)  

For anyone who knows the Islamic history, this means that the Muslims spread Islam to the pagan Arabs, established the Islamic State in Arabia, then fought the Persians (Iranians) and the Romans; invaded the Persians and crushed the Romans, then fought the Hindus in Hindustan, invaded much of their lands such as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", and much of the Indian territories, convert people there to Islam, and then Brother Bukhari appeared from his home town, Bukhara and decided to compile the Hadiths of "Sahih Bukhari".

Are these narrations all 100% perfect and reliable?  Any person with the least atom of a brain would say no.  I am not saying that all of the Hadiths must be rejected.  But for us to day to have close to 2,000,000 of them is quite ridiculous, because they can't all have been written down during our Prophet's times in Arabia.  Most of the Hadiths' chains of narrations today have 10s of narrators in them.  In the Hadith books, you would see something like the following:

"About such and such, that he heard his father say that such and such said, that he heard such and such say, that he heard such and such say, etc...."  Most of the narrations' links have tons of narrators in them, many times more than 10, and these people would be generations after each others!  In other words, they're not people at the same age or the same group.  And the worst dilemma of all, is that many of these chain of narrations have broken links in them, meaning, that two or three generations are missing in the chain!

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

He wrote:

    Muslim Traditions allege that the Qur’an first became a book at the direction of Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law, during the War of Compulsion.

My response:

There was no war EVER in Islam's history called the "war of Compulsion".  I don't know where you get your garbage from?!  In fact Mr. liar, Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran clearly and directly exposes your lie to your reader:

"Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion:  Truth stands out clear from error...(The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

The "War of Compulsion"!  Ridiculous indeed!  Of course, Craig Winn thinks very low of his non-Muslim Western readers' knowledge and intellect, who only know little about Islam.  He thinks his lies will survive with them.

He wrote:

We are told that the first Caliph feared that Muhammad’s divine revelations would be lost because most of the best “reciters” had become warriors. According to a lone Hadith, Umar, the second Caliph, convinced Bakr that something had to be done. The fleeting memories of Jihad fighters were the sole repositories of the Qur’an, and they were being killed at an alarming rate. The loss of most or all of Muhammad’s “revelation” was imminent. Legend has it that Zaid, a native of Medina and one of the prophet’s helpers, was assigned the task. He “gathered together the fragments of the Qur’an from every quarter, from date leaves, bones, stone, and from the breasts of men.”

My response:

Where is your proof to the quote above, and to all of out-of-context things you mentioned?  While it is true that the Noble Quran was COMPILED and not written (because it was already written) after the Prophet, peace be upon him, but Muslims never had any disputes regarding the quantity of the Noble Verses and their validities, because the Noble Quran was carefully documented and memorized during Prophet Muhammad's times.

He wrote:

According to J. M. Rodwell, one of the early Qur’an translators, “Zaid and his coadjutors did not arrange the materials which came to them with any system more definite than that of placing the longest and best known surahs first. Anything approaching a chronological arrangement was entirely ignored. Late Medina surahs were often placed before early Meccan ones; the short surahs at the end of the Qur’an were its earliest portions; while verses of Meccan origin were embedded in Medina surahs, and verses promulgated at Medina were scattered up and down in the Meccan surahs.”

My response:

J.M. Rodwell is a non-Muslim.  How can his quote be fair?  Plus, like you, where did he get his nonsense from?  You can always quote another clown like you who wrote a book and claim that it is the Truth, because it exists in some book.  This deception doesn't work.  Your Western readers are not as stupid as you think they are.

And to the Western reader, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation, to learn the Truth about the Noble Quran's validity and authenticity from true Islamic resources and history, and not from clowns and liars like Craig Winn and his likes.

He wrote:

    Muslim scholars don’t dispute Rodwell’s claim. And that’s alarming, because it means that no one was able to discern when a surah was revealed. No one even knew what comprised a surah. They were jumbled together gobbledygook, completely out of order. And if Muhammad’s contemporaries were this confused, there is no chance they actually remembered the detail of what he claimed was disseminated by the almighty.

My response:

Oh really?  And who are those "Muslim scholars"?  Are they non-Muslim clowns like you and Rodwell?  If not, then who are they?  Is this too much to ask a clown and a liar like you to produce?

He wrote:

    Rodwell continues his analysis with these words: “It would seem as if Zaid put his materials together just as they came to him, and often with entire disregard to continuity of subject and uniformity of style. The text, therefore, assumes the form of a most unreadable and incongruous patchwork, and conveys no idea whatever of the development and growth of any plan in the mind of the founder of Islam, or of the circumstances by which he was surrounded and influenced.” Then after praising Zaid for his lack of “tampering” Rodwell adds that it is “deeply regrettable that no contemporary provided any historical reference, suppressed contradictory verses, or excluded inaccurate statements.”
    Therefore, even in the best possible light, the Qur’an as first assembled was a mess. It was out of order, jumbled together, contradictory, and inaccurate. Yet there is no proof that even this best-case scenario is reliable. There is no corroborating evidence that the “revelations” actually became a book under Bakr, Umar, or Zaid. There are no fragments or tablets.

My response:

This is utter nonsense, because the Noble Quran order was determined by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and the Noble Chapters and Verses were all memorized as the Noble Quran was Revealed.  Again, the Noble Quran was documented on paper on the spot!  It was also memorized by Prophet Muhammad's close companions.  Not only that, but many parts of the Noble Quran get recited during the Muslims' five-daily prayers.  And last but not least, the Muslims, especially during Prophet Muhammad's times, recite the entire Noble Quran during the Holy Month of Ramadan.  Allah Almighty said:

"Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "God is witness between me and you; This Quran hath been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can ye possibly bear witness that besides God there is another God?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the one God, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."  (The Noble Quran, 6:19)"

"When the Quran is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy.  (The Noble Quran, 7:204)"

"This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.  (The Noble Quran, 10:37)"

"Verily this Quran doth guide to that which is most right (or stable), and giveth the Glad Tidings to the Believers who work deeds of righteousness, that they shall have a magnificent reward;  (The Noble Quran, 17:9)"

"When thou dost recite the Quran, We put, between thee and those who believe not in the Hereafter, a veil invisible:  (The Noble Quran, 17:45)"

"Verily in this (Quran) is a Message for people who would (truly) worship God.  (The Noble Quran, 21:106)"

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran).  (The Noble Quran, 25:52)"

The Noble Quran was sent in stages to the Prophet, and the Prophet was inspired the chronological order of the Noble Verses and Chapters:

"We send down (stage by stage) in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust it causes nothing but loss after loss.  (The Noble Quran, 17:82)"

"(It is) a Quran which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages.  (The Noble Quran, 17:106)"

"And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to thee: thou knewest not (before) what was Revelation, and what was Faith; but We have made the (Quran) a Light, wherewith We guide such of Our servants as We will; and verily thou dost guide (men) to the Straight Way,-  (The Noble Quran, 42:52)"

"High above all is God, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Quran before its revelation to thee is completed, but say, "O my Lord! advance me in knowledge."  (The Noble Quran, 20:114)"

"Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.  (The Noble Quran, 25:32)"

To the reader, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation.

He wrote:

All we have is a flimsy oral tradition suggesting that this best-case scenario occurred. There isn’t even a letter or a historical reference from any of the literate nations conquered by the first Muslim warriors to suggest that the Qur’an existed.

My response:

You are a total joke!  Again, giving ridiculous statements without backing them up with any reliable historical account.  To the reader, again, please visit:  History of the Noble Quran's Preservation and Compilation.

He wrote:

    By contrast, there are 25,000 ancient Bible parchments, scrolls, fragments, and letters testifying to the immediacy and accuracy of today’s Judeo-Christian scriptures.

My response:

Let us see how accurate your pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", really is:

From www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm:

Who were the authors of the Bible?  Were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses  . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament, that of 'Hebrews':

"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."

From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition

and one book of the Old Testament:

"In tradition, [David] is credited with writing 73 of the Psalms; most scholars, however, consider this claim questionable."

Encarta Encyclopedia, under "David"

Is this how we define "inspired by God"?

I asked a reverand of the local church in my neighboorhod, on what gospel most often quoted and used, he quickly answered, the Gospel of St. John!

Let us examine the Contextual Problems of the Gospel of John - Highly Recommended!

End of article.

Also, consider the following few examples that consist of historical contradictions in the Bible:

It is quite obvious that Christians today believe in third party authors' words as the words of GOD.  This is a very serious corruption in the Bible that must be taken into deep consideration by the Bible's followers.  Please visit "Is the Bible the true word of GOD?" to see a full and complete paper about the logical corruptions in the Bible, along with many Christian famous priests and ministers opinions that agree with the Bible's corruption.  I have their personal quotes in that site.

Also, as to the parts of the Bible that Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

After that, please visit:  Prophet Muhammad was foretold in many places in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.

He wrote:

Yet the only archeological evidence that has survived from the Qur’an’s first century is a coin and an inscription inside the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish Temple Mount. These fragments differ from each other and from today’s book.
    The Qur’an’s chasm of historical credibility is the good news. The other four books of Islam that comprise the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta’rikh (History), and Hadith, didn’t find parchment or scroll for one to three hundred years after the events were played out. Turning to Rodwell we learn: “The first biographer of Muhammad of whom we have any information was Zohri, who died A.H. 124; but his works, although quoted by later writers, are no longer extant.” Said another way, Zohri’s biography may have been written one hundred years after the events occurred, but it doesn’t matter because no one has ever found a copy. “Ibn Ishaq, who died in A.H. 151 (763 A.D.), composed a biography of Muhammad for the Caliph’s use. Although there are no surviving copies of his work either, much of it was salvaged by Hisham, an admittedly biased editor. He died in A.H. 213.” Ibn Hisham’s Life of Muhammad begins with a stunning confession. He says that he removed material that discredited Muhammad from Ishaq’s original manuscript.

My response:

What?!  What does the Dome of Rock in Palestine have anything to do with the Noble Quran in Mecca, which is approximately 1500 miles away?!  The clown, Rodwell, that you're quoting and learning all of your lies and BS from is no better than quoting from your own dubious book, the "Prophet of Doom" nonsensical book.  Both of you are clowns, and quoting from either of you is useless and worthless.

Also, Islam has no five books.  Islam only has One Holy Book and that is the Noble Quran.  And as to the Hadiths' volumes, there are 6 Sahih books and other Volumes such as Sunan Abu Dawud, Misbah Al-Masabeeh and others.  So the number of the Hadiths collections ALONE is far greater than 5 books.  So you're quote: "The other four books of Islam that comprise the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta’rikh (History), and Hadith, didn’t find parchment or scroll for one to three hundred years after the events were played out" not only reveals your stupidity and ignorance in Islam, but it also shows that you are a clear LIAR AND FULL OF SH***.

Another proof for the reader that you are a liar, and that the false information above was not an innocent mistake is your quote itself.  You said: "The other four books of Islam that comprise the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta’rikh (History), and Hadith, didn’t find...."   Your quote only mentions three books!  This proves that:

(1) You don't know what you're talking about because you couldn't even come up with the fourth book.

(2) You don't even know the Islamic books that make up the hadiths.  Otherwise, you would not fall short in listing only three of them, which is a very small number when compared to the many volumes that make up the literally 2 million hadiths out there.

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

He wrote:

    Tabari didn’t edit Ishaq to make Muhammad look better, but he only referred to the earlier work when it conflicted with his own collection of oral testimony or Hadith. Tabari completed his History of Prophets and Kings in A.H. 310—three hundred years after the prophet’s death. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says: “His work became the definitive resource.” This makes his annals of Muhammad’s creation of Islam the earliest surviving unedited account of the prophet’s words and deeds, and therefore of the context in which his Qur’an was revealed. It also means that there was a three hundred year gap filled principally by oral transmission for the lone unedited collection of Islamic Hadith containing any chronology or context.
    Rodwell, in the preface of his early Qur’an translation, tells us: “It may be considered quite certain that Traditions concerning Muhammad were not reduced to writing for at least the greater part of a century. They rested entirely in the memory of those who have handed them down, and must necessarily have been colored by their prejudices and convictions, to say nothing of the tendency to formulate myths and fabrications to serve the purposes of the contending factions…. It soon becomes obvious to the reader of Muslim Traditions that both miracles and historical events have been invented for the sake of expounding a dark and perplexing text [the Qur’an]; and that the earlier Traditions are largely tinged with a mythical element.”
    He goes on to say: “These ancient writers [Ishaq and Tabari] are the principal sources whence anything approaching authentic information as to the life of Muhammad has been derived. And it may be safely concluded that after the diligent investigations carried on by the professed collectors of Traditions in the second century after the Hijrah, that little or nothing remains to be added to our stores of information relative to the details of Muhammad’s life, or to facts which may further illustrate the text of the Qur’an. There are no records posterior in date to these authorities that should be considered.”
    While every Islamic scholar I have studied agrees with Rodwell’s assessment, that’s not the end of the bad news. The people of Central Arabia in the sixth through eighth centuries were illiterate. Thus Hadith were passed along by word of mouth through the generations, father to son through chains of transmitters called isnads.
    Let’s view this problem from a more contemporary perspective. Imagine reconstructing the history of the American Revolution today based entirely upon oral traditions handed down over nine generations. Without books, letters, paintings, or pictures, it would be impossible to recreate the words of Cornwallis and Washington or to resurrect the drama as it was actually played out. Now, imagine writing this history in London, thousands of miles from where the events unfolded—in the home of those who were defeated. Such is the story of Islam. The first and best Hadith, Sunnah, and Sira were compiled in Baghdad, not Mecca or Medina, two to three centuries removed. And like detailing the American Revolution in Britain, each of the Persian scholars wrote in a highly politicized climate for men with a personal agenda. A compelling argument can be made for Islam being Persian rather than Arabian; the birthplace being Baghdad, not Mecca.
    Yet while none of this attests to the reliability or unbiased nature of the Islamic scripture, it doesn’t actually matter. If Muhammad were really a prophet, if Allah were really a god, and if the Hadith and Qur’an were really divinely inspired and dictated, the accuracy of these books would be of paramount importance. Our eternity would rest upon their every word. But since Muhammad was as feeble-minded as his deity and as emotionally disturbed as his scripture depicts him, an accurate witness and a faithfully maintained account is irrelevant.
    So if much of this isn’t true, why bother? Because through force, fate, and faith, over a billion people believe it’s true. They believe Muhammad was a prophet, Allah was his God, and that the Qur’an was comprised of divine revelations. They even think the sayings of the prophet, upon which the Hadith, Sira, and Sunnah are based, were divinely inspired scripture. Because most Muslims aren’t free, literally trapped by fate and force in this delusion and in the hellish conditions the doctrine inspires, compassion compels us to expose the fraud and release them from the shackles of Islam.
    Oh, and then there is the another problem—Islamic terrorism. This stuff is corrosive, causing people to act in accordance with its teachings, prophet, and god. Islam commands and conditions men to murder. It motivates them to commit acts of terror. If we want to thwart this foe we must first understand what its adherents believe and what drives them to such ungodly behavior. If we want to rid the world of terror, we must first expose the doctrine that makes men terrorists. Remember, prior to Muhammad, Arabs conquered no one. After Islam they subjected much of the known world to their sword. What changed them, pray tell, if not these words?
    While the Islamic “holy books” aren’t historically reliable, they are Islam —not a version, interpretation, or corruption of Islam, but the essence of the religion. Muhammad can be no different than these books depict him. If they don’t accurately present the prophet and his dark spirit, they are unknowable and thus irrelevant. Frankly speaking, Islam loses either way.

My response:

As to the hadiths, throughout my previous rebuttals, I've said all along that the hadiths were corrupt.   You have mentioned nothing new.  On the contrary, this debunks your points and purpose about quoting from the Al-Tabari and Ishaq throughout your entire book as if the quotes were as reliable as the Noble Quran itself. 

Like I mentioned above,  the hadiths were literally documented 100s of years after the Prophet's, peace be upon him, death.   Not everything you read is accurate and was necessarily told by the Prophet word for word, or even if at all!  It is important, if you wish to be objective and honest, to put the Noble Quran as the center for any Islamic argument.  If the Noble Quran makes a claim, then it is definitely agreed upon by all Muslims, and it is perfectly authentic.  Otherwise, GOD Almighty only Knows about what is true and what is false regarding the narrations that you use in Hadiths and Sunnah books.

The "Sahih Bukhari" or "Authentic Bukhari" in English was the first volume to be compiled.  Bukhari is not an Arabic name!  Bukhari is derived from the word "Bukhara", which is a city in Afghanistan:

"We now come to the Iron Gate which corresponds exactly to the Quranic description, and has the best claim to be connected with Alexander's story.  It is near another Derbend in Central Asia, Hissar District, about 150 miles southeast of Bukhara......."  (www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm)  

For anyone who knows the Islamic history, this means that the Muslims spread Islam to the pagan Arabs, established the Islamic State in Arabia, then fought the Persians (Iranians) and the Romans; invaded the Persians and crushed the Romans, then fought the Hindus in Hindustan, invaded much of their lands such as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", and much of the Indian territories, convert people there to Islam, and then Brother Bukhari appeared from his home town, Bukhara and decided to compile the Hadiths of "Sahih Bukhari".

Are these narrations all 100% perfect and reliable?  Any person with the least atom of a brain would say no.  I am not saying that all of the Hadiths must be rejected.  But for us to day to have close to 2,000,000 of them is quite ridiculous, because they can't all have been written down during our Prophet's times in Arabia.  Most of the Hadiths' chains of narrations today have 10s of narrators in them.  In the Hadith books, you would see something like the following:

"About such and such, that he heard his father say that such and such said, that he heard such and such say, that he heard such and such say, etc...."  Most of the narrations' links have tons of narrators in them, many times more than 10, and these people would be generations after each others!  In other words, they're not people at the same age or the same group.  And the worst dilemma of all, is that many of these chain of narrations have broken links in them, meaning, that two or three generations are missing in the chain!

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

He wrote:

Returning to the Hadith, we discover an interesting artifact concerning the early Meccans and their Ka’aba. It also heralds from the Year of the Elephant. Abdul Muttalib was a big shot in town, a wealthy idolater born two generations before Muhammad. In the line of Qusayy, he became the custodian of the Ka’aba. Tabari VI:15 “After the death of his uncle al-Muttalib, Abdul Muttalib took over the privilege of watering and feeding the pilgrims which the sons of Abd Manaf had held before him. He was honored and was a man of great importance, for not one was his equal.” Ishaq:62 “Sleeping on the graves of Hagar and Ishmael he was ordered in a vision to dig Zamzam. ‘Allahu Akbar,’ he shouted. ‘This is the well of our father Ishmael.’” Tabari VI:15 “He brought out what was buried there, namely, two golden gazelles, swords and coats of mail. He made the swords into a door for the Ka’aba.” It’s interesting that the Ka’aba’s treasure contained the implements Muhammad would use to loot the world: swords and coats of mail. The door to Allah’s House and the path to Islam were the same.
    Ownership of the newfound booty was determined by a gambling game. Divining arrows were thrown at Hubal’s feet, “the greatest of the idols.” Ishaq:64 “Muttalib prayed to Allah and the priest threw the arrows. The Ka’aba won the gazelles.”
    Abdul Muttalib “was the first to institute the two yearly caravans.” He was “the first to obtain for the Quraysh guarantees of safety which allowed them to travel far and wide from the sacred precincts of Mecca,”—guarantees Muhammad would break.
    Then one day, sun boring down on the treeless town, Muttalib was struggling to clear the well of Zamzam when: Ishaq:66/Tabari VI:2 “It is alleged, and Allah only knows the truth, that Abdul Muttalib encountered opposition when he was digging Zamzam. He vowed that if given ten sons, to make his labor less arduous and to protect him, he would sacrifice one of them to Allah at the Ka’aba.” Bad move, because eventually he had ten sons. So, foolishly faithful to the rocks, he tossed divining arrows at Hubal’s feet to determine which son should die.  Ishaq:67 “They used to conduct their affairs according to the decisions of the arrows.” His youngest lost. The boy’s name was Abd-Allah, or Slave-to-Allah.
    Now why would someone name a kid “Slave-to-Allah” a generation before Islam’s prophet claimed Allah was the creator-god of the universe? The answer is as embarrassing as any in the annals of religious lore. For all Muhammad really did was promote one of the existing Meccan idols, the moon god Allah, above Hubal, Al-Lat, Manat, Al-Uzza, and hundreds of others. On this day Allah had to compete for adoration, as Muttalib’s tossing arrows at Hubal’s feet attests. A Bukhari Hadith confirms the godly congestion: Bukhari:V5B59N583 “When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka’aba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick.”
    Islamic scholar Montgomery Watt, one of the English translators of Tabari, adds an interesting footnote. He says, “The name [not word] Allah has throughout been [wrongly] translated as ‘God.’ It should be kept in mind, however, that in the pre-Islamic period it does not necessarily mean “God” in a monotheistic sense. It is known from the Qur’an (29:61 and 39:38) that many pre-Islamic Arabs believed in Allah as a god who was superior to the other gods whom they also recognized.”
    Allah was a name, much like the Judeo-Christian “Yahweh.” But Muslims desperately needed the world to see it otherwise. For if Allah was a proper name—not a word—their religion was a fraud. The creator of the universe can’t be a pagan god, no matter how big a stick Muhammad swung. And Allah can’t be Yahweh any more than I can be George Washington.
    Arabic, like Hebrew before it, is a Semitic language. In Hebrew, “el,” was the word for god—lower case “g”—as in idols. Elohiym was used with the article to convey “God” with a capital “G.” In Arabic, “el” became “il.” Then, over time, Arabs derived a secondary word for god, “ilah.” With “al” being the Arabic word for “the,” Muslims would have us believe that “Allah” is a contraction of “al” and “ilah.” But the first pillar of Islam contradicts this claim when it says: “There is no ilah but Allah.” If “Allah” were the Arabic word for god it would have been written: “There is no allah but Allah. Moreover, the Qur’an itself uses “Ilah” when Allah claims to be “the God of Abraham” (Qur’an 2:132). And that ends the debate because the only way Muslims can claim Allah, not Ilah, is the Arabic word for “God” is for the Qur’an to be errant or for its author to be either ignorant or deceitful. Further, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Islamic traditions like the one we just reviewed that confirm that Allah was the name of a well-known pagan deity (at least in Mecca). Their own scriptures profess that Allah had an ignominious rule as a Meccan rock idol centuries before he was transformed from god to God, from an ilah to Allah. All of which serves to destroy the most essential Islamic myth: “We all worship the same God.”
    Back in Mecca: Ishaq:67 “When Abdul Muttalib had ten sons grown to maturity and he knew that they would protect him, he told them of his vow, and called on them to keep faith with Allah in this matter. They expressed their obedience, and asked what they should do. He replied, ‘Let every one of you take an arrow, write his name on it, and bring it to me.’ They did this, and he went into the presence of Hubal in the interior of the Ka’aba. Hubal was the greatest of the idols of Quraysh in Mecca.” Ibn Ishaq, the earliest compiler of Muslim Traditions, just told us that the high god of the Ka’aba was Hubal—not Allah. Doesn’t this make Allah (also the second god of the Qur’an following Ar-Rahman) a second rate deity?
    Papa Muttalib started having second thoughts. So he went off and consulted with a sorceress, hoping to get the “right” advice. Tabari VI:2 “By Allah! You shall never sacrifice him but you must get an excuse for not doing so.” This sounds innocent enough until you realize that the person swearing by Allah is a Devil worshipper. “There is a sorceress who has a familiar spirit; ask her, and you will know what to do. If she commands you to sacrifice him, you will sacrifice him, and if she commands you to do something which offers relief to you and to him, you can accept it.” Sorceresses are occult mediums: in other words, witches. Their familiar spirits are demons.
    The noose around Islam’s neck is tightening. We have multiple gods in the Ka’aba and a witch deciding the fate of Muhammad’s father. “So they went to Medina where they discovered that the sorceress had moved to Khaybar. They rode until they reached her. She said, ‘Retire from me until my familiar spirit visits me and I can ask him. Abdul Muttalib stood and prayed to Allah.” Now there’s a picture: idolaters praying to Allah in Islamic fashion in the presence of a Devil worshiper. So, what do you think Satan’s representative had to say? Would she pardon Muhammad’s papa and allow Islam to be born?
    Lucifer must like Islam because...“On the following day they went back. She said, ‘Yes! News has come to me. How much is the blood-money among you?’ They replied, ‘Ten camels.’ She said, ‘Bring forward the young man and ten camels, and cast arrows. If they fall against the boy, add camels until your Lord [Would that be Satan, Hubal, or Allah?] is satisfied.’”
    We continue with Ishaq’s account: Tabari VI:5 “They returned to Mecca when they had all agreed on the matter, Abdul Muttalib stood and prayed to Allah inside the Ka’aba beside Hubal. The arrows fell against Abdallah, so they added ten camels, making twenty. With Muttalib standing and praying to Allah they went on this way ten times. Each time the arrows fell against Abdallah.” Satan’s representative seems to have been considerably more accommodating. There is just one chance in 1024 that fifty-fifty odds will go awry ten times in a row.
    Tabari explains the horror of it all: “Abdul Muttalib stood beside Hubal in the interior of the Ka’aba, calling upon Allah. The custodian of the arrows took and cast them, and the lot fell against Abdallah. So Muttalib took Abdallah by the hand. He grabbed a large knife. Then he went up to the idols Isaf and Nailah [the fornicating stones] who Quraysh used to slaughter their sacrifices, to sacrifice Abdullah.”
    But rather than slice his son’s throat, Muttalib opted for one more cast of the divining arrows. They finally fell in favor of the boy. So Abdul, the stones, idols, gods, diviners, and sorcerers came to an understanding. Abdallah’s life was spared. “Your Lord is satisfied at last. The camels were slaughtered and left there. No man or wild beast was turned back from eating them.”
   “Abdul Muttalib took Abdallah by the hand. It is alleged they passed by Umm Qattal bt. Abd al-Uzza [Slave-to-the-goddess-al-Uzza], the sister of Waraqa [the Hanif]. She was by the Ka’aba. When she looked at his face she said, ‘Where are you going, Abdallah? I have seen many camels slaughtered for you, so sleep with me now.’” Sure, why not add a little prostitution into the mix. We’ve already got devil worship, paganism, gambling, and child abuse occurring around the Ka’aba.
    But the bribe was evidently insufficient. So the proud papa, king of Mecca, custodian of the Ka’aba, and heir to the religious scam, took his son to the wealthiest and most powerful man of the neighboring clan, the Banu Zurah, and arranged for his son Abdallah to marry the chief’s daughter Aminah. The blushing bride’s grandmother was abd al-Uzza, which made her “genealogy and status” perfect, according to Ishaq.
    Before we consummate this marriage, I must say I’m surprised Bukhari, Tabari, and Ishaq recount this sordid tale. Muhammad grew up a stone’s throw from where it occurred. Yet he chose to ignore his ignominious past, revising Jewish history instead, in order to make the near sacrifice in his backyard shrine look monotheistic. In lieu of the truth, he said that the Hebrew patriarch Abraham had nearly sacrificed Ishmael at Allah’s House.
    Take a deep breath. The next Hadith begins with an inordinately long sentence. Tabari VI:6 “It is alleged that he consummated his marriage to her there as soon as he married her, that he lay with her and that she conceived Muhammad; then he left her presence and came to the woman who had propositioned him, and said to her, ‘Why do you not make the same proposition to me today which you made to me yesterday?’” To which she replied, “The light which was with you yesterday has left you, and I have no need of you today.”
    Remember, these Hadith found paper in Baghdad centuries after Muhammad’s passing. By that time, the Muslim scholars who authored them had well-defined agendas. In particular, they had to make their guy look as godly as that Christian guy, or they’d be out of business. The Gospels proclaimed that Christ was the light of the world, so Muslims contrived this Hadith to make their prophet appear similarly enlightened. And if you think that I’m being too cynical, listen to the next line from Tabari. “She had heard about this from her brother Waraqa bin Nawfal, who was a [Hanif turned] Christian and had studied the scriptures; he had discovered that a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael was to be sent to this people; this had been one of the purposes of his study.”
    Holy hogwash. The Bible says no such thing about the descendants of Ishmael. It says that he’ll give rise to twelve rulers and that his descendants will live like wild asses of men, hands raised against their brothers, living in hostility with the world. While prophetic, it’s hardly prophet material.
    So why did the Muslim scholars choose to deceive us? They needed to, that’s why. And within their community they could get away with it. And Arabs would never be wiser for it. They were illiterate, and even the miniscule percentage who could read were out of luck when it came to the Bible. There is no trace of an Arabic translation of the Old Testament prior to that of Saadias Gaon in 900 A.D., decades after this delusion was promulgated. And the oldest Arabic New Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 from a transcription of a 1171 Coptic scroll.
    In the territories controlled by the Muslim warlords of the seventh through tenth centuries, words were irrelevant, as unimportant as evangelists. Islam grew by sword through conquest, not by words and reason. And those who benefited from this ruse knew that by the time their deception was exposed, it would be too late; the victory would have been won.
    For those who may think I am perhaps making too much of too little, consider this: Tabari VI:7 “When Abdul Muttalib was taking Abdallah to marry Aminah they passed by a female soothsayer called Fatimah, a convert to Judaism from the people of Tabalah who had read the scriptures and who saw light in his face. ‘Young man,’ she said, ‘would you like to lie with me now, and I will give you a hundred camels?’” Contriving a phony Christian endorsement of the Muslim prophet was not enough. Now a Jewish soothsayer is called to verify the light. But why would a Jew react this way? The Judeo-Christian scriptures say nothing—zip, zero, zilch—about the father of a prophet having a light in his face. Further, Judaism and soothsaying are mutually exclusive. Jews serve Yahweh; soothsayers serve Satan.
    The third variant of this desperate grope for credibility demeans Abdallah. “His father took him and married him to Aminah and he stayed with her for three days. Then he left her and when he passed by the Khath’am woman he felt a desire to accept the proposition which she had made. He asked her, ‘Would you like to have what you wanted before?’ ‘Young man,’ she said, ‘I am not, by Allah, a woman of questionable morals. I saw light in your face and wished it to be within me. But Allah willed that He should place it where He wished.’” The Devil worshiper wanted the Devil’s child.
    Then our Allah/Devil-serving soothsayer: “recited the following verses: ‘I saw a sign which shone in the black clouds. I comprehended it as light which illuminated like the full moon. I hoped to have it as a source of pride which I might take back with me…. By Allah, no other woman has plundered your person of that which Aminah has…. Not all the fortune which the young man inherits comes from resolve, nor does that which escapes him come from remiss. So if you desire something, behave with restraint for two grandfathers combined to ensure it for you. A hand clenched or outstretched will ensure it for you. When Aminah conceived that which she conceived from him, she conceived an incomparable glory’” From black signs to pride, from full moons to plundering, from inherited fortunes to grandfathers ensuring loot, the young prophet would get what he desired from both open and clenched fists. This passage is so fraught with portent, so twisted with harbingers of Muhammad’s con, the originator must have laughed himself silly as his quill met parchment. He evidently got himself so worked up he bungled the tense in his parting salvo. Once again a simple story belies the nature of Islam. “Our guy is better than your guy and we will say anything, no matter how absurd, to prove it.”
    Abdallah lived long enough to father a son, but not to see him born. In a haunting overture of what was to come, the prophet’s father died while on a business trip to Yathrib. Fifty-two years later the religion of Islam would die there as well when a prophet went on a business trip to Yathrib and became a profiteer.

My response:

Again, throughout my previous rebuttals, I've said all along that the hadiths were corrupt.   You have mentioned nothing new.  On the contrary, this debunks your points and purpose about quoting from the Al-Tabari and Ishaq throughout your entire book as if the quotes were as reliable as the Noble Quran itself. 

Like I mentioned above,  the hadiths were literally documented 100s of years after the Prophet's, peace be upon him, death.   Not everything you read is accurate and was necessarily told by the Prophet word for word, or even if at all!  It is important, if you wish to be objective and honest, to put the Noble Quran as the center for any Islamic argument.  If the Noble Quran makes a claim, then it is definitely agreed upon by all Muslims, and it is perfectly authentic.  Otherwise, GOD Almighty only Knows about what is true and what is false regarding the narrations that you use in Hadiths and Sunnah books.

The "Sahih Bukhari" or "Authentic Bukhari" in English was the first volume to be compiled.  Bukhari is not an Arabic name!  Bukhari is derived from the word "Bukhara", which is a city in Afghanistan:

"We now come to the Iron Gate which corresponds exactly to the Quranic description, and has the best claim to be connected with Alexander's story.  It is near another Derbend in Central Asia, Hissar District, about 150 miles southeast of Bukhara......."  (www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm)  

For anyone who knows the Islamic history, this means that the Muslims spread Islam to the pagan Arabs, established the Islamic State in Arabia, then fought the Persians (Iranians) and the Romans; invaded the Persians and crushed the Romans, then fought the Hindus in Hindustan, invaded much of their lands such as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", and much of the Indian territories, convert people there to Islam, and then Brother Bukhari appeared from his home town, Bukhara and decided to compile the Hadiths of "Sahih Bukhari".

Are these narrations all 100% perfect and reliable?  Any person with the least atom of a brain would say no.  I am not saying that all of the Hadiths must be rejected.  But for us to day to have close to 2,000,000 of them is quite ridiculous, because they can't all have been written down during our Prophet's times in Arabia.  Most of the Hadiths' chains of narrations today have 10s of narrators in them.  In the Hadith books, you would see something like the following:

"About such and such, that he heard his father say that such and such said, that he heard such and such say, that he heard such and such say, etc...."  Most of the narrations' links have tons of narrators in them, many times more than 10, and these people would be generations after each others!  In other words, they're not people at the same age or the same group.  And the worst dilemma of all, is that many of these chain of narrations have broken links in them, meaning, that two or three generations are missing in the chain!

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

He wrote:

   In an attempt to make Muhammad appear Messianic, our hero was portrayed as having been born to considerable fanfare. There were celestial fireworks, regal visitors, an angelic host, and a veritable cornucopia of miracles. In that the worst of these were laughable, and the best were copied from the Gospels, I’ll spare you the gory details—especially since none of them make any sense in context of what happened next. There is, however, one in Ishaq’s Biography that is intriguing: Ishaq:69 “It is alleged in popular stories (and only Allah knows the truth) that Aminah, the mother of Allah’s Apostle, used to say when she was pregnant, ‘A voice said to me, “You are pregnant with the Lord of this people and when he is born say, I put him in the care of the One from the evil of the envier; then call him Muhammad.”’” She saw a light come forth from her by which she could see the castles in Syria.” Envy is what drove Muhammad to create Islam. The care of the Evil One— better known as Lucifer or Satan—may well have been what inspired him.
    The truth is rather ignoble. Muslim scholars know nothing about Muhammad’s birth, and very little about his childhood. They missed his birthday by eighteen years when they claimed he was born in the year of the elephant, recently dated to 552 A.D. But to make their prophet fit Qusayy’s profile of being forty when he staked his claim to the Ka’aba, Islamic historians claim Muhammad was born in 570—exactly forty years before the first “revelation.” Missing a date this important by eighteen years calls all of Islam’s oral testimony into question. By way of example, this did not occur: Ishaq:70 “I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from Yathrib, ‘O Jews, tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.’”
    Born fatherless, Muhammad’s mother abandoned him, giving him up to be suckled by a Bedouin woman. With his father dead and his mother poor, no wet-nurse wanted the infant because the burden exceeded the potential remuneration. Raising another’s child in the inhospitable desert was done for money, not love. The least qualified of the wet-nurses, we are told, after failing to find a wealthy kid, reluctantly snatched the last available newborn, the would-be prophet, and hauled him off into the wilderness. A Hadith explains: Ishaq:70 “Halima went forth with her baby whom she was nursing, with other women, in search of babies to nurse. She was destitute and could not sleep because of the weeping of her hungry child. She had no milk to give him.” Halima was obviously in no position to suckle another child. This was a disaster waiting to happen.
    Ishaq:71 “When Halima reached Mecca, she set out to look for foster children. The Apostle of Allah was offered to everyone of us, and each woman refused him when she was told he was an orphan, because we hoped to get payment from the child’s father. We said, ‘An orphan!’ And we spurned him because of that. Every woman who came with me got a suckling except me. And when we decided to depart, I said, ‘I do not like the idea of returning with my friends without a suckling. I will take that orphan.’ I took him for the sole reason that I could not find anyone else.” So much for the “light” theory. Women were throwing themselves at Muhammad’s dad to sire him, but no one wanted to raise him. That doesn’t make any sense.
    What happened out there in the blowing sands and blistering heat is anybody’s guess. All we know is that a baby was abandoned by his mother and given to a woman who was ill prepared to care for him. The only testimony that survives is in the Qur’an—a haunting and recurring theme that suggests he may have been abused. Allah’s revelations speak of an orphan boy with wealthy relatives being abandoned, treated poorly, and being shut out of the family business—The Ka’aba Inc. Permutations of this theme permeate Allah’s book, compelling the Muslim sages to give this mess a prophetic twist.
    Ibn Ishaq claims that when Muhammad was two, Halima brought him back to his mother Aminah. Ishaq:72 “But she sent him back. Some months after his return to the desert two men in white seized the boy, threw him down and opened up his belly, stirring it up.” We are told that Muhammad was “livid.” “Halima said, ‘I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so I want to take him back before the result appears.’ She carried him back to Aminah and said, ‘I am afraid that ill will befall him, so I have brought him back to you.’ She asked what had happened. I said, ‘I fear that a demon has possessed him.’” She was right.
    Muhammad confirms the “spiritual” encounter. Ishaq:72 “They seized me and opened up my belly, extracted my heart and split it. They extracted a black drop from it and threw it away. They washed my heart and belly with snow until they had cleaned them.” Muslim:B1N311 “Gabriel came to Muhammad while he was playing with his playmates. He took hold of him and lay him prostrate on the ground and tore open his breast and took out the heart. Then he extracted a blood-clot out of it and said: ‘That was the part of Satan in you.’ And then he washed it with the water of Zamzam in a golden basin and then it was joined together and restored to it place. The boys came running to their mother and said: ‘Muhammad has been murdered.’ They all rushed toward him. I myself saw the marks of needle on his breast.” If this occurred, it was Lucifer, not Gabriel, and he was placing his spirit inside.
    Organ removal and washing are Satanic—part of occult ritual worship—the kind of thing Muhammad’s father and grandfather were into. And ironically, if it had happened, it would be miraculous and therefore it would be in conflict with the Qur’an. Allah’s book says that the only miracle associated with the prophet was the revelation of the surahs themselves. In Qur’an 21:5 we find that one of the many arguments used by Muhammad’s critics at the time was that he couldn’t do miracles. Since the Judeo-Christian Prophets could, and did, they said he couldn’t be a prophet. If Muhammad had been involved in a miracle, or could do one, all he would have had to do to silence his critics was to explain the ones that had taken place, or simply summon his god’s power to perform one. But no.
    Sixth century surgery aside, the Islamic sages say that before the year was out, Aminah died. A slave girl took care of our young hero for a while before his grandfather finally took an interest. And even this is potentially disturbing, for the scriptures say of Abdul Muttalib’s affection: Ishaq:73 “He would make him sit beside him on his bed and would stroke him with his hand. He was extremely fond of him and used to constantly pet him.”
    Straight from the Devil we learn: Ishaq:79 “There was a seer [occultist prophet] who came to Mecca to look at Muhammad. She said, ‘Bring me that boy, for I saw just now that by Allah he has a great future.’” Then, disaster strikes once more: Tabari VI:44 “Abdul Muttalib died eight years after the Year of the Elephant. He entrusted the future Messenger’s care to his uncle Abu Talib, because Abu and Abdallah had had the same mother.” Needless to say, Muhammad had one whacked-out childhood. It’s not hard to understand why he was so insecure or why he turned out as he did.
    Virtually everything associated with Muhammad was decidedly unprophet-like. His birth was not foretold. The circumstances surrounding it were nasty. He couldn’t perform a miracle. He never issued a single prophetic utterance that came true as predicted. His scripture was abysmal—devoid of context and chronology. It focused on hate, violence, and punishment. His “new” religion was simply repackaged paganism blended with a plethora of plagiarized and twisted Bible stories. What little was inventive was tragic. War was elevated to a paramount religious duty. Plunder was approved, as was incest, thievery, lying, assassination, genocide, and rape to name a few Islamic innovations. Paradise became a lustful orgy. The would-be prophet’s depictions of hell told us more about him than about the place. And his life was an example of what not to do, rather than how to behave. Then there was his god—a trickster, angry and demented.
    According to the Qur’an, the Meccans knew the prophet was full of it. They ridiculed him on every occasion—a hundred variations of the never-ending argument were faithfully recounted in the Islamic holy book. But the Meccans were eventually conquered and criticizing the prophet became a deadly game. So the next time the Muslim hierarchy was confronted with the notion that their man didn’t measure up was when they paraded his legacy out to the literate word. The enlightened didn’t buy it either, and for all the reasons we have just mentioned.
    That put the Muslim warlords in a tough spot. They had raided everyone from India to Spain. Now they needed to control that which they had conquered. And they recognized that there is no better way to subdue a population than to impose a religion. So about a hundred and fifty years after the prophet’s death, the Persians rolled out the first version of the Islamic “religion.” It was as dismal a failure as it had been in Mecca. Their subjects said, “This guy’s no prophet and this stuff isn’t scripture.” By way of example, Al-Kindi, a Christian polemicist employed in the Caliphal court in 830 A.D. wrote: “The result of this process by which the Qur’an has come into being is that it’s patently obvious to those who have read these scriptures that Muslim histories are all jumbled together and intermingled. It is an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. As such, the conditions are right for a new revelation to be sent down from heaven.”
    So the Islamic sages retreated to Baghdad and went back to the drawing board. Over the course of the next hundred years they buffed up their boy and their book, releasing a new and improved Islam. This time there were miracles and Christians and Jews ever at the ready to testify on the prophet’s behalf.
    Let’s listen in, but with a critical ear, to see how well the sages cleaned up the prophet of Islam. Under the title, “The Messenger of Allah Is Recognized by the Monk Bahira” Tabari parades out a Hadith shared by Ishaq. Tabari VI:44/Ishaq:79 “Once Abu Talib was going on a trading expedition to Syria with a party of Quraysh, but when he had made his preparations and was ready to set out, the Messenger, so they allege, could not bear to be separated from him.” Before I go on, I’d like to point out something that should be obvious. Tabari and Ishaq share a set of code words. When they say, “so they allege,” “it is alleged,” “it is said,” “some say,” or “Allah knows best,” they are simply reporting what they were told to write. They don’t believe it any more than you should.
    “Talib took pity on him, ‘By Allah, I will take him with me, and we shall never part,’ or words to that effect. The caravan halted at Busra [Bostra?] in Syria, where there was a learned Christian monk named Bahira in his cell. There had always been a monk in that cell, and their knowledge was passed on, it is alleged, [the code words again] by means of a book which was handed down from generation to generation.” There is no record of this monk, his cell, or his book outside this Hadith. But that’s small potatoes compared to what comes next.
    Tabari VI:44/Ishaq:79 “Bahira prepared a meal for them because while he was in his cell he had seen the Messenger shaded by a cloud which marked him out from among the company. When they halted in the shade of a tree, he observed the cloud covering the tree and bending down its branches over Muhammad until he was in the shade. Bahira descended from his cell and sent the caravan a message inviting them all. When he saw the Messenger, he observed him very intently, noting features of his person whose description he had found in his Christian book.” Judeo-Christian prophets aren’t described physically in any “book.” But in order to create a Christian endorsement from a learned monk, the Muslims have invented this monk, story, and book.
   “After the company had finished the meal and dispersed, he asked the Messenger about certain matters which had taken place both when he was awake and when he was asleep. Muhammad told him, and he found that these things corresponded to the description which he had found in his book. Finally he looked at his back, and saw the seal of prophethood between his shoulders in the very place described in his book.” Camel-dung—every word of it. First, the Gospels are clear. No great prophet after the Messiah is foretold. Second, there isn’t a set of “awake and asleep” criteria for a divine calling, which is probably why the Hadith doesn’t bother listing them. Third, there is no Biblical “seal of prophethood.” The concept was derived from Arabian pagan mythology to designate occult practitioners who talked to demons. Furthermore, the “seal” was actually nothing more than a hairy mole. (Tabari IX:159)
    Next, the “Christian” Monk swears by the Meccan idols. Tabari VI:45/Ishaq:80 “‘By Al-Lat and Al-Uzza,’ Bahira said.’ ‘Take him back to your country, and be on your guard against the Jews, for, by Allah, if they see him and recognize what I have, they will seek to do him harm.’” The Jews spent years, not hours, with the “prophet.” They let him move into their town and sold him stories from their Talmud. They never lifted a finger to harm him, even though he annihilated them in genocidal rage.
    The hardest part of lying is remembering what you said. So in true Islamic form, we have a second variant of the “mark of the prophet” tale. “Abu Talib set off for Syria accompanied by the Messenger and a number of shaykhs. When they were above the monk’s cell they went down and unloaded their camels. The monk walked among them, coming up and taking the hand of the Messenger. He said, ‘This is the Chief of the Worlds, the Messenger. This person has been sent by Allah as a mercy to the Worlds.’” Let’s call this “Holy Hogwash, Version Two.” First, chief is a political term, not a religious one. Second, this time there were no questions, no signs, no seals—just a baseless, over-the-top endorsement. Third, how many “worlds” are there? And fourth, how could Muhammad have been a “mercy” to Christians when he and his god told Muslims to wipe them out to the last?
   “The shaykhs of the Quraysh said to him, ‘What is it you know?’ He replied, ‘When you appeared at the top of the pass there was not a tree or a stone which did not prostrate itself in worship; and they only prostrate themselves to a prophet.’” Hard to believe, but HH-2 is more pathetic than its predecessor. Neither Christians, stones, nor trees prostrate themselves—not even to wannabe prophets. Besides, prophets aren’t supposed to be worshiped. God is.
    Inanimate objects showering Muhammad with devotion was hardly a one-time occurrence. Tabari VI:63 “Before Gabriel appeared to Muhammad to confer on him his mission as Messenger of Allah, it is said that he used to see signs and evidences indicating that Allah wished to ennoble him. Two angels came to him, opened up his breast, and removed the hatred and impurity which were in it. [I’d sue them for malpractice.] It is said [the Islamic code words for “this is rubbish”] that whenever he passed by a tree or a stone, it would greet him.”
    Not to be outdone, in a Hadith from a line of transmitters—or isnad—that includes three Muhammads, a pair of Alis, two Slaves-to-Allah, and an Abd Ar-Rahman, we learn: “Whenever Muhammad went out to attend his business [answer the call of nature] he would go a great distance, out of sight of houses, and into the ravines and wadi beds. And then every stone and tree he passed would say, ‘Peace be upon you, Messenger of Allah.’” Even today, Muslims, no smarter than the stones, are required to add “peace be unto him” after the mention of Muhammad’s name.
    Returning to the monk: Tabari VI:46 “I also recognize him by the seal of prophethood which is below the cartilage of his shoulders and which is like an apple.” Delicious. The apple has become the symbol of temptation. It’s perfect for Islam.
    HH-2 wasn’t finished destroying Muhammad’s prophetic credentials. It went on to establish the Christian Byzantines as enemies in addition to the Jews. But I suppose having Christians and Jews endorse a religion that would grow by plundering them makes about as much sense as Muhammad being a prophet. “While Bahira was standing by them beseeching them not to take the Messenger to the land of the Byzantines, since if these saw him, they would recognize him by his description and would kill him.” Muhammad forbade Muslims from drawing his likeness. If his appearance was testimony of his prophetic credentials, and so easily recognizable, why would he do such a thing?
    Patricia Crone, an Islamic scholar and archeologist says: “There are fifteen different versions of Muhammad being blessed by a representative of a non-Islamic religion who ‘recognized’ him as a future prophet. Some place this encounter during his infancy, others when he was nine; some say he was twenty-five. One Tradition maintains he was recognized by Ethiopian Christians, several say by a Syrian monk, many claim by Yathrib Jews, one suggests it was a local Hanif, while others maintain it was a sorcerer. Some even suggest it was the belly of a dead animal. So what we have here is nothing more than fifteen equally fictitious versions of an event that never took place.”
    The Muslim sages who can’t remember what their prophet told them in Mecca are telling us that they can recreate a conversation between opposition parties in Syria. Let’s listen in, and while we’re doing so, let’s try to determine why the Hadith contains this dialog in the first place. “The monk turned around and suddenly beheld seven men advancing from the land of the Byzantines. He went up to them and said, ‘What brings you here?’ They replied, ‘We have come because this prophet is appearing in this month. Men have been sent to every road, and we have been chosen as the best of men and have been sent to your road.’” There isn’t a prophetic utterance in any Christian book about an Arab prophet. Yet we are led to believe that Christians not only knew exactly when, but precisely where, they would find such an unspecified person. This is desperate to the point of pathetic. If Muslims need to contrive such preposterous lies to make Muhammad appear prophetic, he most certainly wasn’t.
    Yet they continue to lay planks on this flimsy foundation: Tabari VI:64 “Zayd bin Amr [a Hanif poet from whose words Muhammad based early Qur’anic revelations] said, ‘I expect a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael, in particular from the descendants of Abd al-Muttalib.’” In actuality, the first written confirmation of this precise prediction came three hundred years after Muhammad’s birth. By comparison, the last of the Biblical Messianic prophecies, for which these Islamic predictions were contrived to compete, were committed to writing 400 years prior to Christ’s birth. And unlike all things Muslim, Christians have a paper trail. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible compiled in Alexandria in 275 B.C., survives to this day.
    The post-dated Hadith of Zayd, a man who rejected both Islam and Muhammad, continues: “I shall inform you of his description so that he will not be hidden from you. He is neither short nor tall, whose hair is neither abundant nor sparse, whose eyes are always red, and who has the seal of the prophethood between his shoulders. His name is Ahmad [a variant of Muhammad], and this town [Mecca] is his birthplace and the place in which he will commence his mission. Then his people will drive him out and hate the message which he brings, and he will emigrate to Yathrib and triumph.”
    The Islamic sages who put these words in the Hanif’s mouth three centuries after his death, want you to know that every faith—Judeo-Christian to Satanic—agrees: “I have traveled around in search of the faith of Abraham. [The only pre-Islamic mention of Abraham is in the Bible. Apart from the Torah, nothing is known about him—not even his name. And the Torah is clear: Abraham didn’t have a religion; he had a relationship.] Every person whom I ask, whether Jew, Christian, or Magian, says, ‘This faith lies where you have come from,’ and they describe him as I have described him to you. They say that no prophet remains but he.’ Amir said, ‘When I became a Muslim, I told the Messenger what Zayd had said, and I gave him his greetings. He said, ‘I saw him in Paradise dressed in flowing robes.’” Although Zayd composed most of the Qur’an’s first score of surahs, he rejected Muhammad’s credentials and thus Islam. By his own admission, he can’t be in the Islamic paradise.
    These “endorsements” are so preposterous it begs the question: what must educated Muslims think when they read such nonsense? You don’t have to be a religious scholar to know that the Jewish Messiah can’t be an Arab or that Christians believe that the Messiah is the final prophet. So when this obvious deception was brought before Islam’s lone messenger for certification and he endorsed the lie, what must they think? Do they think? Why would one trust a man who must lie—or be lied for—to validate his calling?
    Ishaq:90 “Jewish rabbis, Christian monks, and Arab soothsayers had spoken about the Apostle of Allah before his mission when his time drew near. The rabbis and monks found his description in their scriptures. The Arab occultists had been visited by satans from the jinn with reports which they had secretly overheard before they were prevented from hearing by being pelted with stars.” Ishaq:91 “The Prophet explained the nature of shooting stars. ‘Allah shut off the satans by these stars which pelted them. So satans tried to steal information, listening in, mingling what they heard with conjecture and false intelligence. They conveyed it to the soothsayers.’” Every word of this is incriminating.
    Ishaq:92 “Umar bin al-Khattab [the future Caliph] was sitting with others in the Messenger’s mosque when a Bedouin came up looking for him. Umar said, ‘This man was a soothsayer in the Jahiliyyah.’” The Satan-worshiper-turned-Allah-advocate said, “During the Jahiliyyah [pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance] we used to do worse things than you. We used to worship idols and embrace graven images until Allah honored us with Islam.” You know you’re dealing with a rotten religion when an occultist tells the champions of Islam, “We used to do worse things than you.” The suggestion is that Muhammad’s behavior in Yathrib—pedophilia, incest, rape, piracy, terrorism, genocide, and the slave trade—was better than serving a demon.
    “‘O men,’ the soothsayer said, ‘Allah has honored and chosen Muhammad, purified his heart and his bowels.’” Then the future Caliph, in Muhammad’s presence, asked the former occultist what he learned from the demonic spirits: Ishaq:93 “‘Tell me,’ said Umar, ‘what is the most amazing saying which your familiar spirit [satanic jinn or demon] communicated to you?’ ‘He came to me a month before Islam and said: “Have you considered the Jinn [demons from Satan’s tribe] and the hopelessness and despair of their religion [the occult—witchcraft, tarot cards, black magic, astrology, séances, etc.]?’” The Islamic hierarchy was interested in what the Satanic types had to say. Kindred spirits, I suppose.
    Tabari VI:66 “Then Umar said, ‘By Allah I was by one of the idols of the Jahiliyyah. An Arab sacrificed a calf to it, and we were waiting for it to be divided up in order to receive a share. I heard coming from the belly of the calf a voice which was more penetrating than any I’ve heard—this was a year before Islam. The dead calf’s belly said, ‘There is no ilah but Allah.’”
    The next Hadith comes courtesy of a fine isnad of four Muhammads and a future Caliph. “We were sitting by an idol a month before the Messenger commenced his mission, having slaughtered camels. Suddenly we heard a voice calling from the belly of one: ‘Listen to the wonder; There will be no more eavesdropping to overhear inspiration; We throw down shooting stars for a prophet in Mecca; His name is Ahmad. His place of emigration is Yathrib’ We held back and marveled; then the Messenger began his mission.” The moral of the story is: the next time one of those pesky Christians or Jews says that Muhammad wasn’t a prophet because there were no prophecies pointing to his mission, you can tell them it just isn’t so. A dead camel and a cow told you he was Allah’s boy.
    How about one more, just to be fair. “A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘Show me the seal which is between your shoulders, and if you lie under any enchantment [a demonic curse or spell] I will cure you, for I am the best enchanter [a witch practicing black magic] of the Arabs.’ ‘Do you wish me to show you a sign?’ asked the Prophet. ‘Yes. Summon that cluster.’ So the Prophet looked at a cluster of dates hanging from a palm and summoned it, and began to snap his fingers until it stood before him. Then the man said, ‘Tell it to go back,’ and it went back. The enchanter said, ‘I have never seen a greater magician than I have seen today.’” Takes one to know one.

My response:

The Prophet peace be upon him did not need to "look Messianic".  He didn't need to prove anything to anyone.  His Divine Message, the Noble Quran, was Sent to him by his Creator, Allah Almighty, and was Protected by Allah Almighty.   Islam in Arabia started with one man, and now has 1.4 billion followers world-wide.   Not to mention all of the great accomplishments that Muslims contributed to civilizations and science during the Islamic Empire from Medicine (small example is: Curing Chicken Pox), to Math (small example:  Inventing Algebra, which was named after Al-Jaber), to Physics and Astronomy (small example:   Calculating the distance between the sun and the earth), Chemistry, Biology, Geology and so much more!

Like I mentioned in my previous rebuttals, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was foretold in the Bible as the PROPHET OF ARABIA, and the Prophet from the people of "Kedar".  Kedar was a descendent of Ishmael, peace be upon him:

From www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah.htm:

Isaiah 42:

This chapter seems to clearly speak about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him for the following reasons:

Isaiah 42

The Servant of the Lord

¹ "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.
² He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets.
³ A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
⁴ he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope."

The Justice brought to the nations, the complete System of GOD Almighty's Laws on earth, the Truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad all point to these verses:

"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do.  (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"

"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For Allah, as witnesses To fair dealing, and let not The hatred of others To you make you swerve To wrong and depart from Justice. Be just: that is Next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do.  (The Noble Quran, 5:8)"

"But if anyone earns A fault or a sin And throws it on to one That is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood And a flagrant sin.  (The Noble Quran, 4:112)"

"Allah commands justice, the doing Of good, and liberality to kith And kin, and He forbids All shameful deeds, and injustice And rebellion: He instructs you, That ye may receive admonition.   (The Noble Quran, 16:90)"

"...Help ye one another In righteousness and piety, But help ye not one another In sin and rancour: Fear Allah: for Allah Is strict in punishment.  (The Noble Quran, 5:2)"

Continuing with chapter Isaiah 42:

⁵ This is what God the LORD says- he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
⁶ "I, the LORD , have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles,
⁷ to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

The Gentiles are the non-Jews.  These verses clearly suggest that the coming Prophet will be among the Gentiles.  As to the covenant, please visit: Jesus told the Jews that GOD will take His Kingdom from them and give it to the Muslims.  (The article is too lengthy to copy and paste here.  So I ask the reader to read it thoroughly since it does contain Jesus' own quotes from the New Testament).

The following sets of verses offer even more proofs:

⁸ "I am the LORD ; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.
⁹ See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."

Song of Praise to the Lord

¹⁰Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them.
¹¹ Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the mountaintops.

Kedar is the son of Ishmael peace be upon him:  "These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,   (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 25:13)"

Please visit: The "great nation" of Ishmael and its definition in the Bible.

Also, Prophet Muhammad had a direct blood link to Kedar and Ishmael.  Please visit: Prophet Muhammad's Family Tree.

The "settlements where Kedar lives" is referring to the Arabs.  The Arabs before Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him were pagans.  They used to worship idols.  They had 360 idols in the Holy City of Mecca.

GOD Almighty in Isaiah 42:11 is clearly saying that He will send the people of Kedar (i.e., the Arabs) a Prophet and they should "rejoice" and "raise their voices" in happiness.

Also, "Let the desert and its towns raise their voices;" is clearly referring to Arabia, since Arabia is known to be made of mostly deserts.  Jerusalem was never called "desert", nor the Jews were ever called the people of "Kedar".

Important Note:  Jesus in the Bible never even once visited Arabia!  He only went to Egypt (when his mom escaped to Egypt from King Herod while he was a baby) and Palestine/Israel.  Jesus really had nothing to do with the Arabs of Kedar.  It was Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that was born and lived in the lands of Kedar, and he taught the Muslims how to Worship and Glorify GOD Almighty.  Please visit:  What is the Wisdom of Islam?

Also, please visit: The original Name for GOD Almighty in the Bible was indeed "Allah".  See the proofs from the original Hebrew and Aramaic sources.

¹² Let them give glory to the LORD and proclaim his praise in the islands.
¹³ The LORD will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior he will stir up his zeal; with a shout he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies.
¹⁴ "For a long time I have kept silent, I have been quiet and held myself back. But now, like a woman in childbirth, I cry out, I gasp and pant.
¹⁵ I will lay waste the mountains and hills and dry up all their vegetation; I will turn rivers into islands and dry up the pools.
¹⁶ I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them.
¹⁷ But those who trust in idols, who say to images, 'You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame.

Ironically, many Western anti-Islamics criticize Islam for spreading by the sword.  Islam did probably spread by the sword, but the Muslims never really started any battle.  It was the 360 pagan Arab tribes, and later the Persian and Christian Roman Empires that declared wars against the Muslims, because Islam's theology was rapidly expanding and it began to threat the pagan religion of Arabia and later the two major Empires in the region.

"he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies" clearly means that this Prophet will fight by the sword the enemies of GOD Almighty.  It was Muhammad and his Muslim followers that spread Islam by crushing and defeating the enemies in the battles. 

Jesus never fought any war nor ever led any army, so this Prophecy can not apply to him.

Continuing with Isaiah 42:

Israel Blind and Deaf

¹⁸ "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see!
¹⁹ Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD?
²⁰ You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing."
²¹ It pleased the LORD for the sake of his righteousness to make his law great and glorious.
²² But this is a people plundered and looted, all of them trapped in pits or hidden away in prisons.
They have become plunder, with no one to rescue them; they have been made loot, with no one to say, "Send them back."

Here we see GOD Almighty is upset and greatly disappointed from the Jews.  He called them "deaf and blind".

²³ Which of you will listen to this or pay close attention in time to come?
²⁴ Who handed Jacob over to become loot, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the LORD ,
against whom we have sinned? For they would not follow his ways; they did not obey his law.
²⁵ So he poured out on them his burning anger, the violence of war. It enveloped them in flames, yet they did not understand; it consumed them, but they did not take it to heart.

Like above, here also we GOD Almighty upset with the people of Israel.  Please visit: Prophet Muhammad was foretold in Isaiah 42.

From www.answering-christianity.com/god_kingdom.htm:

Introduction:  Jesus said to the Jews: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.  (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 21:43)"

What other nation beside the modern Muslims of today bow down to GOD Almighty in the most proper way?  What other nation beside the modern Muslims Glorify GOD Almighty in their 5-daily Prayers, and fast the Month of Ramadan for Him?

Let's look at what GOD Almighty said about Ishmael, the father of the Muslims: "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.  (From the KJV Bible, Genesis 17:19-21)"

The Jews were GOD Almighty's chosen people:  "We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations.  (The Noble Quran, 45:16)" 

But after they utterly failed with GOD Almighty and His Messengers (Not Moses ever liked their actions, nor Jesus ever liked them and their killings of the Prophets):

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!  (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 23:37)"

"You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.'   You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ear has not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth.   For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 48:6-9)"

"So I will disgrace the dignitaries of your temple, and I will consign Jacob to destruction and Israel to scorn.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 43:28)"

"But now, all you who light fires and provide yourselves with flaming torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches you have set ablaze. This is what you shall receive from my hand: You will lie down in torment.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 50:11)"

They became cursed, and GOD Almighty removed His Kingdom from them and gave it to another nation.  That nation is non other than the "blessed" Muslims who came from the "blessed" Ishmael.

The liars of the NIV Bible had inserted a forgery into their English translation.  In Genesis 16:11-12, they inserted a cheap name-calling "wild ass" for Ishmael, while the original scripts in the King James Version Bible called him "wild man":

"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.  (From the KJV Bible, Genesis 16:11-12)"

Ishmael was a wild man, and a "blessed" one by GOD Almighty (Gen. 17:19-21).  He fought the pagan Arabs who practiced brutal slavery and degradation of women.  It was part of the pagan Arabs' custom to bury daughters alive at the age of 4, because a birth of a female brought shame to the family.  Many pagan Arabs used to practice it.

Ironically, the New Jerusalem Bible also agrees with this ridiculous pagan practice: "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss.  (From the New Jerusalem Bible, Ecclesiasticus 22:3)"

The "blessed" Ishmael peace be upon him was Allah Almighty's Apostle: "And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations:   (The Noble Quran, 6:86)"

"Also mention in the Book (the story of) Isma'il: He was (strictly) true to what he promised, and he was an apostle (and) a prophet.  (The Noble Quran, 19:54)"

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him has a direct blood relationship with Prophet Ishmael peace be upon him.  Before Prophet Muhammad became a Prophet at the age of 40, he was a well-respected and honored person among his people.  The pagans used him to judge between their affairs.  They also used to trust him with their wealth.  He was called "Al-Sadiq, Al-Ameen", which means "The Honest, the Trust Worthy".

When Prophet Muhammad became the Messenger of Allah Almighty, he brought the Divine Religion of Islam that ended the Judeo-Christian and pagan brutal slavery, lifted the status of women and gave them their rights, and brought Justice, Light and Mercy to the Arabs and to the Muslims world-wide.

GOD in the Bible will take His Kingdom from the Jews and give it to another Nation:

The following is an email that sent to me by brother Silent Wisdom; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.  I did, however, add points to the article/email.

From:    silentwisdom_2002@yahoo.com (Silent Wisdom)
To:    Osama Abdallah
Subj:    Muhammad in the Bible!
Date:    6/28/02 2:08:27 PM Central Daylight Time

As'Salamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wa'Barakatu brother,

Here is some Further proofs about Prophecies of the Bible about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)..

Habakkuk
3:3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.
3:4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power.
3:5 Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet.

In fact This is a Clear Prophecy about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as he was the Only Prophet coming from "Mount of Paran" in Mecca..This is a Clear Verse.

Psalms
118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
118:23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.
118:24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

Matthew
21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

What other nation beside the modern Muslims of today bow down to GOD Almighty in the most proper way?  What other nation beside the modern Muslims Glorify GOD Almighty in their 5-daily Prayers, and fast the Month of Ramadan for Him?

Let's look at what GOD Almighty said about Ishmael, the father of the Muslims: "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.  (From the KJV Bible, Genesis 17:19-21)"

The Jews were GOD Almighty's chosen people:  "We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations.  (The Noble Quran, 45:16)" 

But after they utterly failed with GOD Almighty and His Messengers (Not Moses ever liked their actions, nor Jesus ever liked them and their killings of the Prophets):

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!  (From the KJV Bible, Matthew 23:37)"

"You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.'  You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ear has not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth.  For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 48:6-9)"

"So I will disgrace the dignitaries of your temple, and I will consign Jacob to destruction and Israel to scorn.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 43:28)"

"But now, all you who light fires and provide yourselves with flaming torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches you have set ablaze. This is what you shall receive from my hand: You will lie down in torment.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 50:11)"

They became cursed, and GOD Almighty removed His Kingdom from them and gave it to another nation.  That nation is non other than the "blessed" Muslims who came from the "blessed" Ishmael.

The liars of the NIV Bible had inserted a forgery into their English translation.  In Genesis 16:11-12, they inserted a cheap name-calling "wild ass" for Ishmael, while the original scripts in the King James Version Bible called him "wild man":

"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.  (From the KJV Bible, Genesis 16:11-12)"

Ishmael was a wild man, and a "blessed" one by GOD Almighty (Gen. 17:19-21).  He fought the pagan Arabs who practiced brutal slavery and degradation of women.  It was part of the pagan Arabs' custom to bury daughters alive at the age of 4, because a birth of a female brought shame to the family.  Many pagan Arabs used to practice it.

Ironically, the New Jerusalem Bible also agrees with this ridiculous pagan practice: "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss.  (From the New Jerusalem Bible, Ecclesiasticus 22:3)"

The "blessed" Ishmael peace be upon him was Allah Almighty's Apostle: "And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations:   (The Noble Quran, 6:86)"

"Also mention in the Book (the story of) Isma'il: He was (strictly) true to what he promised, and he was an apostle (and) a prophet.  (The Noble Quran, 19:54)"

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him has a direct blood relationship with Prophet Ishmael peace be upon him.  Before Prophet Muhammad became a Prophet at the age of 40, he was a well-respected and honored person among his people.  The pagans used him to judge between their affairs.  They also used to trust him with their wealth.  He was called "Al-Sadiq Al-Ameen", which means "The Honest the Trust Worthy".

When Prophet Muhammad became the Messenger of Allah Almighty, he brought the Divine Religion of Islam that ended the Judeo-Christian and pagan brutal slavery, lifted the status of women and gave them their rights, and brought Justice, Light and Mercy to the Arabs and to the Muslims world-wide.

In Psalms 118:22 and Matthew 21:44, Both are Talking about a Stone, in Fact a Corner Stone that completes the Building of Prophets and God's Kingdom.

In Matthew 21:43, It's a Clear Warning from Jesus (peace be upon him) to Jews that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from them and will be given to another nation can serve it, This nation must be the Great nation of Ishmael mentioned in Bible..and definitely the nation of Islam ,followers of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

The word Stone (Corner Stone) in both verses was used by prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself referring to his similitude with other prophets:

Sahih Al Bukhari:
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 735:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: 'Would that this brick be put in its place!' So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets."

For further understanding to the Corner Stone mentioned in Psalms 118, Here is the earlier Verses of the Chapter:

118:10 All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD will I destroy them.
118:11 They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD I will destroy them.
118:12 They compassed me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD I will destroy them.
118:13 Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD helped me.
118:14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation.
118:15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
118:16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
118:17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
118:18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.
118:19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD:
118:20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
118:21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.

Regards,
Salaam (peace)

To the reader, also please visit:

From www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm:

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was foretold in the Bible:

The sections here are:

1-  Introductory Questions and my open challenge.
2-  In the Gospel of John and New Testament.
3-  In the Book of Isaiah.
4-  In other Books in the Bible, and other Biblical Prophets proving Islam.
5-  The "lost people of Israel" are the people of Afghanistan and Kashmir today. 
      See proofs from the Bible and History.  Cities were mentioned and documented.

Introductory Questions:  

Why did GOD end His revelations with Muhammad and not with Jesus?
Answer to the question.

Question: What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
Answer to the question.

* The Bible and the Hadiths (Sayings of Prophet Muhammad) were written in a 3000-year and 200-year span respectively.  They both contain a lot of Truth from GOD Almighty, and unfortunately, also a lot of falsehood and man-made corruption.

The Noble Quran, on the other hand, was documented as it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, and Allah Almighty promised that He would keep it perfectly protected by Himself Personally:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption).  (The Noble Quran, 15:9)"

"Nay, this is a Glorious Quran, (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved!  (The Noble Quran, 85:21-22)"

Prophecies about Islam in the Bible - My open challenge to anyone to refute this.

In the Gospel of John and New Testament:

In the Gospel of John: Muhammad is mentioned by the name and was foretold in the Gospel of John. This is a must read article!  It proves that Jesus peace be upon him predicted for the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to come after him.

The Aramaic Bible predicts the coming of Muhammad by the exact word.

Further proofs from the Aramaic Bible Society.   A very good proof from the Aramaic Bible Society web site regarding Muhammad's name mentioned in the Greek Bible.  This is a must visit link!!.

Jesus told the Jews that GOD Almighty will take His Kingdom from them and give it to the Muslims.

My detailed rebuttal to a Christian rebuttal about Muhammad was foretold by Jesus.  I addressed all of their rebuttal points and refuted them.  The article also talks about the 24,000 books that the current Bible's 66 books came from, and how that makes the current 66 chosen books extremely unreliable and doubtful.

In the Book of Isaiah:

Isaiah 42-54 seem to predict Islam and the removal of GOD Almighty's Covenant from the people of Israel.

In the Book of Isaiah: Isaiah in the Bible foretold the story of "Al-alak" that is in the Noble Quran about Muhammad.   Isaiah in the Bible foretold the story of "Al-alak" in the Noble Quran which happened to Muhammad and never happened to any other Prophet.  It is the story where the Angel Gabriel repeatedly commands the Prophet to read, and the Prophet (i.e. Muhammad) repeatedly replies "I can't read".

Isaiah's Vision: He saw Jesus riding a donkey and Muhammad riding a camel.  He also saw the destruction of Babylon (i.e. Iraq today) and its idol gods, and replacing them with a Divine Religion (i.e. Islam today).

Prophet Muhammad was foretold in Isaiah 42.

Muhammad in the Bible, (Isaiah 60), Pilgrimage to Mecca..!

Islamic Fasting was predicted by Isaiah in the Bible.

In other Books in the Bible, and other Biblical Prophets proving Islam:

Deuteronomy 18:18's Prophet is non other than Prophet Muhammad.

The "great nation" of Ishmael and its definition in the Bible.

The fall of pagan Babylon to pagan Persia in the Bible, and then the fall of pagan Persia (Iran + Iraq) to Islam.

The story of King Heraclius of the Byzantine and the foretold Prophet (Muhammad) in the Bible.  See how he was convinced that Prophet Muhammad of Arabia was indeed the foretold Prophet that Jesus predicted to come.

The emigration of the Muslims to Madina was foretold in the Bible.

The story of the 10,000 Muslims who liberated Mecca (Paran) in the Bible.

Pilgrimage of Ezekiel to Mecca.

See the Proof that "Paran" in the Bible is "Mecca".  Paran in the Bible is Mecca today - See the Archeological discoveries that prove Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.

Muhammad in the Bible; Standing upon Mount Arafat.

A great site that also shows Muhammad being foretold in the Bible.

Prophecy about Muhammad in Song of Songs 5:16.   Exposes the deliberate mistranslation of the Verse to disprove the coming of Muhammad peace be upon him.

Muhammad in the Old and New Testaments.

Muhammad in the Bible, by Sheikh (Minister) Ahmed Deedat.

Jesus' Sacred place among Muslims.  By the Christian Scholar Michael Wolfe.

Prophecies from Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

Also please visit Muhammad's (peace be upon him) life, prophecies and responses to all of the false charges against him.

The "lost people of Israel" are the people of Afghanistan and Kashmir today:

The "lost tribes of Israel" are the Muslims of Afghanistan and Kashmir -- Proved from the Bible and History -- Afghan and Kashmiri cities mentioned and documented.

He wrote:

    Moving from the ridiculous to the sublime, the religion based upon pagan practices has a chapter entitled: “The Messenger is Protected by Allah from Participating in Pagan Practices.” The first Hadith is from Ali, the prophet’s adopted son and his son-in-law, the patriarch of the Shi’ites, and one of many assassinated Caliphs. He said, “I heard the Messenger saying, ‘I was only tempted to take part in heathen practices on two occasions, and both times Allah prevented me from doing what I wanted. After that I was never tempted to evil, right up to the time when Allah honored me by making me his Messenger.” Since each of Islam’s pillars was conceived by a pagan, I believe we have caught the prophet in another lie.
    The temptation behind us, we move to one of today’s more common sins: sex in the workplace. Muhammad married his boss. Ishaq:82 “Khadija was a wealthy and respected merchant. She was determined and intelligent, possessing many properties. She was the best born woman of the Quraysh, and she was the richest, too.” Tabari VI:48 “She used to employ men to engage in trade with her property and gave them a share of the profit, for the Quraysh were merchants. When she heard of Muhammad’s truthfulness and nobility of character, she sent for him and proposed that he should go to Syria and engage in the trade with her property. She would give him more than she gave other men who traded for her….” The sentence rambles on to say that Islam’s matriarch sent one of her slaves to keep tabs on the neophyte merchant.
   “When they reached Syria he halted in the shade of a tree near a monk’s cell. The monk went up to Maysarah [Khadija’s slave], and said, ‘Who is this man who has halted beneath this tree?’ Maysarah replied, ‘He is a man of Quraysh, one of the people of the Haram sacred precinct.’ ‘No one has ever halted beneath this tree but a prophet,’ said the monk.” A sixth century monk could never have seen a prophet. Further, there is no evidence that a Christian or Jewish prophet ever set foot in Syria.
    The next line puts us in the precarious position of wondering who is lying. If the following Tradition is true, the Qur’an’s assertion that there were no miracles associated with Muhammad is false. “They assert that Maysarah saw two angels shading him from the sun as he rode his camel.”
   “When he arrived in Mecca, he brought Khadija her property, which she sold for twice the price.… She sent for the Messenger and, it is reported, said to him, ‘Cousin, your kinship to me, your standing among your people…make you a desirable match.’ She offered herself to him in marriage.” In one of history’s great ironies, the most independent, successful, and liberated woman of her day played a pivotal role in assuring that a billion women after her would be deprived of these things.
    Muhammad married money—a woman old enough to be his mother. What’s more, the would-be prophet married his boss. While this is questionable, it is not illegal. Nor is what happened next. Tabari VI:49 “Khadija sent a message to the Muhammad inviting him to take her…She called her father to her house, plied him with wine until he was drunk, slaughtered a cow, anointed him with perfume, and clothed him in a striped robe; then she sent for Muhammad and his uncles. When they came in, her father married him to her. When he recovered from his intoxication, he said, ‘What is this meat, this perfume, and this garment?’ She replied, ‘You have married me to Muhammad bin Abdallah.’ ‘I have not done so,’ he said. ‘Would I do this when the greatest men of Mecca have asked for you and I have not agreed?’”
    While achieving a prophetic marriage through alcoholic inebriation isn’t religious, it’s the last line that should give us pause. Muslims have contrived scores of pre-Islamic Hadiths to elevate Muhammad’s standing among his people. Yet according to Khadija’s father, he was a nobody. Further, he was hardly a prize specimen either: Tabari IX:157 “The Messenger was neither tall nor short. He had a large head and beard with big black eyes. His palms and feet were calloused; he had large joints, his face was white with a reddish tinge, his chest hair was long, and when he walked he bent forward as if he were descending a slope.”
    The next ten years passed without a single word from Tabari. While Muslims claim to know what the monk said in Syria, they haven’t a clue what happened in Mecca. Ishaq has but one line: Ishaq:83 “Khadija was the mother of all of the Apostle’s children except Ibrahim [who was born to one of Muhammad’s sex slaves], namely al-Qasim, al-Tayyib, and al-Tahir. They all died in paganism.” The implication here is that the prophet’s boys are all roasting in hell.
    The story of the greatest con ever sold resumes with this: Tabari VI:50 “We have mentioned the conflicting reports about the Prophet’s marriage to Khadija. Ten years later, the Quraysh demolished the Ka’aba and then rebuilt it. According to Ibn Ishaq, this was in the Messenger’s thirty-fifth year. The reason for demolition of the Ka’aba was that it consisted of loose stones rising to somewhat above a man’s height, and they wished to make it higher and put a roof over it, since some men had stolen treasures kept in its interior.”
    All along I have told you that the Ka’aba was little more than a rock pile. This Islamic Hadith confirms the ignobility of Allah’s “House.” And this is important. There is no chance that a roofless six-foot high collection of loose rocks could have survived the rigors of two millennia of flash floods and searing sandstorms. Not only is there no written or oral legacy connecting Muhammad, Mecca, and the Ka’aba with Abraham, there is no physical evidence either. The center of the Islamic faith, Allah’s House, on which the whole Islamic world bows and turns, was a rock pile for rock gods.
    Tabari, who reported Hadith claiming Allah had raised the Ka’aba above the floodwaters, now says: “The Ka’aba had been destroyed when the people of Noah were drowned, and Allah commanded Abraham and Ishmael to rebuild it on its original foundations. This they did as stated in the Qur’an 2:127. ‘When Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House [they said], ‘Lord! Accept [this] from us.’” Not only is the Qur’anic dialog gibberish, as usual, and the circumstances preposterous, it’s idiotic following the assertion that Allah’s House was a pile of loose stones. Muslims had no concept of time. The twenty-six hundred year chasm and thousand-mile divide that separate Abraham from Muhammad’s Ka’aba cannot be crossed.
    Tabari VI:52 “The Ka’aba had not had any custodians since its destruction in the time of Noah. Then Allah commanded Abraham to settle his son by the Ka’aba, wishing thereby to show a mark of esteem to one whom he later ennobled by means of his Prophet Muhammad.” Now we are being told that Allah esteemed the 20th century B.C. Ishmael by way of the 7th century A.D. Muhammad. “Abraham and his son Ishmael were custodians of the Ka’aba after the time of Noah. At the time, Mecca was uninhabited….” Since even the Islamic Hadiths aren’t bold enough to move Abraham from Canaan to Mecca, how was he the custodian? And if the place was uninhabited from 2000 B.C. to 500 A.D., why pile rocks in Mecca? It can’t be the center of worship if no one was there to worship. So what’s the point?
    Tabari tells us that the Jurhum became the custodians of the Ka’aba. He simply skipped over the intervening 2,500 years between its alleged founding and the Jurhum presence. If you recall, the Jurhum clan ousted the Khuza’a tribe from their campsites around Mecca around 500 A.D. According to the Tradition, they acted badly, “misappropriated the wealth which had been presented to the Ka’aba and oppressed those who came to Mecca. Their behavior became so unrestrained that when one of them could not find a place in which to fornicate he would go into the Ka’aba and do it there. It is asserted that Isaf fornicated with Na’ilah in the interior of the Ka’aba and that they were transformed into two stones. During the Jahiliyyah [period of pre-Islamic Ignorance] any person who acted wrongfully or oppressively in Mecca, perished on the spot.” This fanciful pagan milieu formed the basis of Islam. “Allah sent a bleeding of the nose and a plague of ants against the Jurhum and destroyed them, while Khuza’a expelled those who survived…Amir felt that he would be defeated, so he brought out the two gazelles of the Ka’aba and the sacred Black Stone.”
    The irreverent blend of Jewish history and Arab mythology continues: Tabari VI:55 “The Ka’aba was taken over by the Khuza’a except three functions which were in the hands of the Mudar. The first of these was the ijazah, the giving of permission to the pilgrims to leave Arafat…The second function was the ifadah, the permission for the pilgrims to disperse to Mina on the morning of the sacrifice.” Two more Islamic rituals associated with the hajj now have links to an ignoble pagan past. Ishaq:88 “This state of affairs lasted until Allah sent Muhammad and revealed to him and gave him the laws of his religion and the customs of the pilgrimage.” Following a hundred Hadith desperately trying to ascribe the rites and rituals of Islam to the Jewish patriarchs, and a hundred more proclaiming that they were derived from the pagan practices of Qusayy, one line contradicts them all.
    There was however, a pre-Islamic pagan custom Muhammad disregarded. And wouldn’t you know it, it was the one he should have retained. “The third function was the nasi, the delaying or postponement of the sacred month by intercalation. When Islam came, the sacred months had returned to their original times, and Allah established them firmly and abolished the nasi.” Pre-Islamic Arabs, unlike civilized people around them, had yet to switch away from the lunar calendar. But to their credit, they were at least observing intercalation to keep their seasons intact. Muhammad abandoned intercalation, condemning Muslims to a 354-day year. Not only didn’t the pagan sacred months return to their original times, he assured that they would never be established, forever floating around the solar year. While foolish, the lunacy honored his god’s lunar legacy.
    One of the most revered Islamic legends comes from this period. A series of Hadiths focused on “Rebuilding of the Ka’aba” begin with this report: Tabari VI:56 “A relative of Abd Mahaf [Slave-to-the-Sun-God] had stolen treasure from the Ka’aba. They took him to a female Arab soothsayer, who, using her occult skill, pronounced in rhyming prose that he should not enter Mecca for ten years because of his violation of the sanctity of the Ka’aba.” This Islamic Tradition confirms what I shared earlier. Soothsayers are Satanic; they are occult mediums. Further, she recited in the same style of the Qur’an—rhyming prose. And more incriminating still, a Devil worshiper is being used to proclaim the sanctity of the Ka’aba.
    The reason this story is included in the presentation of rebuilding Allah’s House is that the shrine’s low walls and open top made it easy for looters to steal the gods. So when the Meccans found that: Ishaq:84 “A ship belonging to a Greek merchant had been driven ashore by rough seas at Jeddah and had been broken to pieces, they took its timbers and prepared them for use in roofing the Ka’aba. There was a Copt in Mecca who was a carpenter, and thus they had both the materials and a craftsman ready at hand.” This serves to confirm the primitive nature of the Ka’aba and of Mecca itself. There was no source of wood, and without wood, there were no carpenters. Without wood and men to work it, all buildings were open to the harsh elements. Mecca in the time of Muhammad was a motley collection of open mud huts. This is important because Islam is said to have arisen because the Meccans were flaunting their wealth. That simply wasn’t possible.
    The next transition is as disjointed as the Qur’an, and equally revealing. “There was a snake which used to come out of the well in the Ka’aba into which votive objects were thrown. It would lie on top of the Ka’aba wall every day to sun itself. It was a terror.” There are way too many Satanic symbols associated with Muhammad and Allah. Abraham was drawn from Israel to Mecca by god’s presence in the form of a snake. The same snake coiled himself up, showing Abraham where to build the Ka’aba. Now a snake is living inside Allah’s House. The snake and the apple sign on Muhammad’s back, are Satan’s most enduring symbols.
    Ishaq:84 “People were terrified of the snake because whenever anyone went near, it would draw itself up, make a rustling noise, and open its mouth. One day, as it was lying on top of the Ka’aba as usual, Allah sent a bird which seized it and carried it off. [And who said Allah couldn’t do miracles.] On seeing this the Quraysh said, ‘We may hope that Allah is pleased with what we intend to do. We have craftsman and we have timber, while Allah dealt with the snake.’” Tabari VI:56 “This was fifteen years after the Sacrilegious War. Muhammad was thirty-five. When they made the decision to demolish and rebuild the Ka’aba, Abu took a stone from it which leapt from his hand and returned to its place.”
    This Hadith, in context of Muhammad’s imminent involvement in the Ka’aba’s reconstruction and it’s Black Stone, strongly suggests that the Meccans thought the Black Stone was Allah and that he/it actually lived in the Ka’aba. Ishaq:85 “The people were afraid to demolish the temple and withdrew in terror from it. Al-Walid said, ‘I will begin the demolition.’ He took up his pickaxe and walked up to the House saying, ‘O Ka’aba, do not be afraid. O Allah we intend nothing but good.’ Then he demolished part of it near the two corners.” One of Muhammad’s religious contemporaries is telling a rock pile not to be afraid. Approaching Allah with a pickaxe, he says that he means him no harm. How is a pickaxe threatening to God? And, if he were God, and you approached his “House” with a pick, a carpenter, and some wood, don’t you think he might figure it out?
    In this final Tradition prior to the first Qur’anic revelation, Muhammad is shown personally participating in the superstitions of his peoples’ stone-worshiping milieu. Tabari VI:58 “A man of the Quraysh who was among those demolishing it thrust a crowbar between two stones to pry one of them up. When the stone moved, the whole of Mecca shook. They knew they had reached the foundations. The clans then gathered stones to rebuild the Ka’aba. Each clan gathered separately and built separately. When they reached the place where the Black Stone was to be put they began to dispute about it, since every clan wished to lift the Stone to its place.”
    Once again we are confronted with a stark reality. Allah’s House, the center of Islam, was a rock pile and it was rebuilt in like fashion. The stones were not hewn, cut, or mortared. There was no plan. They were just collected and piled. And once more we are forced to see the sacred Black Stone for what it was—Allah.
    This next tidbit is particularly incriminating. Ishaq:85 “The Quraysh found in the corner a writing in Syriac. They could not understand it until a Jew read it for them. It read: ‘I am Allah the Lord of Mecca. I created it on the day that I created heaven and earth and formed the sun and moon.’” God writing in Syriac, not Arabic, conflicts with the Qur’an’s claim that Arabic was Allah’s language. Further, since written Arabic evolved from Syriac and migrated to Mecca, it’s clear that the written language of the Qur’an was unknown to the Meccans at the time Muhammad claims the surahs were revealed to him. Oops!
   “The Quraysh remained in this state for five days, and then they gathered in the mosque to consult together and to reach an equitable agreement.” We are reminded that mosques preceded Islam and that prostration, the Islamic prayer position from which the word was derived, was part of idolatrous worship. It is apparent that relatively little of Islam was invented by Muhammad.
    The payoff line of this Hadith is upon us. Tabari VI:59 “Men of the Quraysh said, ‘Make the first man who comes in at the door of this mosque the arbiter of our difference so that he may judge on the matter.’ The first man was Muhammad, and when they saw him they said, ‘This is the trustworthy one with whom we are satisfied. This is Muhammad.’ He came up to them and they told him about the matter and he said, ‘Bring me a cloak.’ They brought him one, and he took the Black Stone and placed it on it with his own hands. Then he said, ‘Let each clan take one side of the cloak, and then lift it up all together.’ They did so, and when they had brought it to its place he put it in position with his own hands.”
    I do not know if Muhammad actually suggested this solution. But I know that a man who reveres a stone is no wiser than the rock he reveres. 

My response:

The Prophet peace be upon him was never tempted to associate any idols with Allah Almighty.  Even the dubious quote above says that he got tempted twice before he became a Messenger.  Even if we were to take the dubious quote above as Truth, it still doesn't mean anything, because the Prophet peace be upon him got tempted BEFORE HE BECAME A MESSENGER.  Temptation does not mean he actually fell into the sin itself.  So what ever your point is, it is irrelevant.

Even Jesus in your pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", got tempted and DURING HIS PROPHETHOOD:

"Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.  After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry." (Mathew 4:1-2)

If Jesus was your Creator, as your polytheist trinity pagan religion claims, then how can he even REMOTELY allow himself to get tempted!

Also, Jesus, your so-called Creator, begged GOD Almighty to save him from crucifixion, and he prostrated with his face down on the ground praying and begging GOD Almighty to save him.  Not only that, but he also compromised his own teachings about not doing repetitive prayers to GOD Almighty.  He stayed all night long praying the same prayer over and over and over!

To the reader, please visit:  Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the Bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.

As to the hadiths, again, throughout my previous rebuttals, I've said all along that the hadiths were corrupt.   You have mentioned nothing new.  On the contrary, this debunks your points and purpose about quoting from the Al-Tabari and Ishaq throughout your entire book as if the quotes were as reliable as the Noble Quran itself. 

Like I mentioned above,  the hadiths were literally documented 100s of years after the Prophet's, peace be upon him, death.   Not everything you read is accurate and was necessarily told by the Prophet word for word, or even if at all!  It is important, if you wish to be objective and honest, to put the Noble Quran as the center for any Islamic argument.  If the Noble Quran makes a claim, then it is definitely agreed upon by all Muslims, and it is perfectly authentic.  Otherwise, GOD Almighty only Knows about what is true and what is false regarding the narrations that you use in Hadiths and Sunnah books.

The "Sahih Bukhari" or "Authentic Bukhari" in English was the first volume to be compiled.  Bukhari is not an Arabic name!  Bukhari is derived from the word "Bukhara", which is a city in Afghanistan:

"We now come to the Iron Gate which corresponds exactly to the Quranic description, and has the best claim to be connected with Alexander's story.  It is near another Derbend in Central Asia, Hissar District, about 150 miles southeast of Bukhara......."  (www.answering-christianity.com/iron_gates.htm)  

For anyone who knows the Islamic history, this means that the Muslims spread Islam to the pagan Arabs, established the Islamic State in Arabia, then fought the Persians (Iranians) and the Romans; invaded the Persians and crushed the Romans, then fought the Hindus in Hindustan, invaded much of their lands such as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", and much of the Indian territories, convert people there to Islam, and then Brother Bukhari appeared from his home town, Bukhara and decided to compile the Hadiths of "Sahih Bukhari".

Are these narrations all 100% perfect and reliable?  Any person with the least atom of a brain would say no.  I am not saying that all of the Hadiths must be rejected.  But for us to day to have close to 2,000,000 of them is quite ridiculous, because they can't all have been written down during our Prophet's times in Arabia.  Most of the Hadiths' chains of narrations today have 10s of narrators in them.  In the Hadith books, you would see something like the following:

"About such and such, that he heard his father say that such and such said, that he heard such and such say, that he heard such and such say, etc...."  Most of the narrations' links have tons of narrators in them, many times more than 10, and these people would be generations after each others!  In other words, they're not people at the same age or the same group.  And the worst dilemma of all, is that many of these chain of narrations have broken links in them, meaning, that two or three generations are missing in the chain!

Most of the hadiths are corrupt and are not recognized as authentic.  Most certainly the books of Al-Tabari and Ishaq are among the weakest and most doubtful sources, because they are more like history books that were written 300 years after the Prophet's death.  Their narrations were orally transmitted by others.   Many people took hadiths out of context, and many others added or took from them, and many others even fabricated lies, as Allah Almighty Warned us in the Noble Quran:

"A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say:  Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"

Also, it is almost impossible to narrate a narration/saying accurately after 300 years in Arabic, because the language is very complex, poetical and artistic:

From www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm:

Problems with the proper Arabic language and the large quantity of narrations:

In Arabic, only original Arabs and those who speak proper (not slang) Arabic fluently, understand and appreciate the fact that the words are very minimum and their meanings are very maximum.  It is true and not a deception or innovation by translators to English that a single Arabic word can and would be translated to 3-5 English words!  The reason for this is because in Arabic (and this is part of the complexity in grammar, art and poetry of the Arabic language) meanings and not necessarily actual words can be all put together in one word.  In Arabic, a word is not original.  There are of course "root" words, but in most proper Arabic words, the actual word is not original; meaning that depending on the grammar, letters (of meaning) can be added to or taken from it to add or take from its meaning and intention.  This can change the entire meaning of the whole word  and sentence.

That is why Arabic poetry is historically known to be a very complex and advanced one.

Having said all of this, in the case of the hadiths, given the fact that there exists "weak/doubtful ones", and what is considered as "strong and reliable ones", it is difficult to know for sure if a single hadith was told as is 100% unchanged (intentionally or not intentionally) by the Prophet peace be upon him. One word taken off from the hadith and the whole meaning can and would be changed to something else.

For those "reliable or strong" hadiths, their sources are doubtful.  I have no doubt that the companions of the Prophet may Allah Almighty bless their souls did not intentionally commit forgery or lies.  But for one such as Abu Huraira to narrate thousands upon thousands of hadiths is preposterous!  Given the complexity and sensitivity of the Arabic language, it is extremely vital that every word be included in the narration.  I find it impossible to believe that Abu Huraira and many others like him were able to narrate everything perfectly in its original text.

That is why I accept the hadiths that are linked to the Noble Quran as the Truth and reject the others.

Also, there is no proof what so ever that all of the accepted hadiths of today were all written during the Prophet's time.  Some or even many of them were probably written down from individuals for personal use, but the thousands of hadiths (I was told close to 2 million hadiths!!) that exist today were not possibly all written during the Prophet's time. 

I only accept the hadiths that have a direct relationship to the Noble Quran, such as explaining how to Pray, fast, etc....

Example about my own name to simplify things:

Take "Osama" for example.  First of all, Osama in Arabic is written as "Osamat" with the "t" silent.  The "t" however is not always silent, and it can be used to give meanings and intentions to the name "Osama".  Osama can be written as "Osamatun", "Osamatan", "Osamatin", "Osamata", "Osamati", "Osamato".  The punctuations added to the "t" cause for any of these names to be pronounced.

When writing positively about "Osama", such as "Osama bin Zaid", the leader who defeated the Romans in one of the battles, these punctuations are added to his name for praising.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Arabic, nor can I explain in deep details about proper Arabic, but I know that use of punctuations IMPROPERLY can result in insulting the individual.  I can write negatively about a name using punctuations in their proper places.

THE REASON WHY THE NOBLE QURAN IS SO PERFECT IS BECAUSE its grammar was constructed in a very complex way, and the Arabic words were not only original words, but were put together uniquely in an excellent artistic fashion that no Arabic poet could match up to back then when Allah Almighty challenged the Arabs to come up with a "SURAH LIKE IT".

To the reader, please visit:  What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and Why?

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

Rebuttals to Craig Winn - "The Prophet of Doom" book.

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 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.