Help IslamDunk with your generous contribution.

The haters are growing in numbers, Islam is being attacked every day by people working full time (as Shamoun claims). We as Muslims need to work even harder to let people know the truth of Islam. To do that we need your help. We need your contribution to this project. Donate towards our work and support our cause. Use the Donate Tab on your right hand side in the home window.

Teeth Breaking Responses To Those Who Want To Extinguish The Light Of Allah

TTT is our brother/sister site that deals with writing articles responding to the most common attacks on Islam. The articles are unarguable and most scholastic (in the English language) following a unique traditional style, giving explanations of scholars, expositions of commentaries and most important of all in a simple short and clear way that everyone can understand.

Help Us Spread The Message

In order to reach as many people as possible IslamDunk needs your help. Almost everyone has a facebook account, an email list or other social connections on the web. All you need to do is use one of our logos or post a link or post our articles and videos, favor them, rate them and keep doing that over and over. This work that we are doing needs to reach every corner of the Earth so that everyone will know the truth of Islam

Shamoun's Lowly Character

Sam thinks he can beat everyone in a debate and that he has already done so. Things have not even happened yet he can predict with certainty outcomes. He thinks no one can answer him. Check out a list of answers right here.

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Shamoun LOST

Assalamo Aleikum wrb
Dear brothers and sisters as you know Sam Shamoun is one of the biggest hate mongers and Islamophobes that are out there.  He claims he was a Muslim before (Nation of Islam - non Muslims), and that he has studied Islam and is out to tell Muslims what THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT ISLAM, and to spread the teachings of Jesus (which he rarely does - he's to busy hating).
But he really got lost when he tried to debate me just a few months back.  Him and his sidekick Keith got themselves in a huge mess that culminated with THEY LYING THAT I WAS RUNNING AWAY in a video dated a day later than the VIDEO IN WHICH I WAS SAYING I'M WAITING FOR THEM WITH OPEN ARMS, and I even allowed them THEIR TRINITY TOPIC as long as they were gonna give up one of theirs so we can both fairly have TWO AND TWO not 3 and 1.
What a shame.
Shame Shamoun 

Monday, December 12, 2011

Islam Dunk show 10 HD powerful

Saturday, December 10, 2011

This is what Wesley PHD inspires his followers to write - translations of the Quran

Dr. Wesley Muhammad, you are doing a excellent job. Keep up the beautiful work you are doing!
This my beautiful translation of Majestic Qur'an is dedicated to You!

7:26 O children of black (intelligent) virtuous mortal, We have indeed sent down to you clothing to cover your shame (of the abilities to incline towards degradation), and (clothing) to beauty (your souls); and clothing that keeps your innate (good) pure innocent virtuous nature clean — that is the (superior) beautiful (goodness). This is of the (beautiful) wonderful symbols and messages of Allah that they may be mindful.
7:27 O children of black (intelligent) virtuous mortal, let not the devil seduce you, as he expelled your parents from the (beautiful) garden, pulling off from them their clothing that he might show them their shame (of the abilities to incline towards degradation). He surely sees you, he as well as his host, from whence you see them not. Surely We have made the devils to be the friends of those who are not devoted (with gratitude).

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Are you a Muslim?

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Jesus: Sinless or Divine?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

An analysis of the proofs used by Christian Missionaries and a clear exposition of the deception

by Waqar Akbar Cheema and Gabriel K. AbdulRahman AlRomaani
 
Missionaries such as Sam Shamoun, Silas and others have tried to prove from many Islamic sources that Jesus was the only one who never sinned and that even Islamic sources fail to mention even one sin against Jesus. They quote different ahadith, especially a famous one that is called the hadith of intercession in which only Jesus is said not to mention any sin (as opposed to the other prophets). We will look at the narrations in question and show the Islamic view on Jesus and sin, and finally we will show the selective citation by missionaries (which is an oft repeated technique) and show what the bible says about Jesus’ sins.
.
Narrated Abu Huraira: Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah Apostle and the meat of a forearm was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, "I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection. Do you know the reason for it? Allah will gather all the human being of early generations as well as late generation on one plain so that the announcer will be able to make them all-hear his voice and the watcher will be able to see all of them. The sun will come so close to the people that they will suffer such distress and trouble as they will not be able to bear or stand. Then the people will say, 'Don't you see to what state you have reached? Won't you look for someone who can intercede for you with your Lord' Some people will say to some others, 'Go to Adam.'    …    [then] they will go to Jesus and say, 'O Jesus! You are Allah's Apostle and His Word which He sent to Mary, and a superior soul created by Him, and you talked to the people while still young in the cradle. Please intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?' Jesus will say. 'My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before nor will ever become thereafter. Jesus will not mention any sin, but will say, 'Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Muhammad.' So they will come to me and say, 'O Muhammad ! You are Allah's Apostle and the last of the prophets, and Allah forgave your early and late sins. (Please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?" The Prophet added, "Then I will go beneath Allah's Throne and fall in prostration before my Lord. And then Allah will guide me to such praises and glorification to Him as He has never guided anybody else before me. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad Raise your head. Ask, and it will be granted. Intercede It (your intercession) will be accepted.' …. "[1]
 
The Missionaries mention this hadith to show that every prophet had a sin or mistake but Jesus does not mention any sin or even any issue, except saying Myself!. It is very important to not here that sins as mentioned in this hadith are not sins but small errors or things that are not even to be considered errors but out of the fear and awe of the prophets to show the severity of the day of judgment even a possibility of a mistake looks like a mountain of burden. The hadith is very well known in Muslim scholarship however the missionaries fail to quote the other hadith that is related to the topic to show that Jesus believes that he has made a mistake or he is scared because people took him for worship. The hadith goes as follows: 

Abu Sa’id Khudri reported that Allah’s Messenger –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him- said : I will be the chief of the children of Adam on the Day of Resurrection - no boast about it. And, in my hand will be the standard of praise (hamd) and this is no boast. There will be no Prophet that day, including Adam, but will be under my standard, and I will be the first for whom the earth will be split open (on resurrection) - and this is no boast. People will be terrified three times. They will come to Adam and say, “You are our father. So intercede for us with your Lord.” He will say, “I committed a sin for which I was sent down to the earth. But go to Noah. So, they will come to Noah and he will say. “I had prayed against the people of the earth (to be punished) and they were destroyed. But, go to Ibrahim.” They will come too Ibrahim and he will say, “I lied three times.” Allah’s Messenger –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him- said: None of that was a lie except that he helped Allah’s religion with it. (Ibrahim will tell them.) “But, go to Musa.” So, they will come to Musa and he will say, “I had killed a soul. But go to Jesus.” They will go to Jesus. He will say, “I was worshiped besides Allah. But go to Muhammad.“ So, they will come to me and I will go with them.[2]
 
Scholars of Islam use comprehensive methodologies of looking at narrations, however missionaries use whims and desire based methodologies that serve their evil intentions towards attacking Islam. It is clear from the above hadith that Jesus will be in the same boat as the other prophets believing that maybe he has done a mistake that people took him as a god besides Allah, and that he is not worthy of the help that the people are seeking from him. In the end what the missionaries have to understand and fail to realize is that both narrations are meant to establish the status of Prophet Muhammad –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him-, and to show that he is the one who will be granted the right of intercession by Allah on the Day of Judgment. The missionaries try to use a magic card trick where the audience is distracted from the main issue and directed towards a distraction so that the magician can do his trick. Missionaries are exposing their double standard by taking that he does not mention any sin (with regards to Jesus) statement and not paying attention to Intercede It (your intercession) will be accepted (with regards to Muhammad). This type of logic is like saying the statement I have two million dollars but I owe three means that I am rich. It is this type of logic which leads missionaries to believe in the trinity. 

Let us now take a look of the issue in itself. If Jesus would be a prophet without sin, would that show that he is God or that he is somehow superior? The answer is NO. Christians try on many occasions to prove divinity through exclusivity or that because Jesus is the only one to be called or to have done something (such as virgin birth), he is God. In this case they try to say that Jesus is the only one without sin, therefore he is God. They fail to realize that there are all the angels (as Muslims believe) that have no sins and are created perfect to worship Allah. Looking at the Islamic texts we also see the hadith which explains not only why Jesus was never influenced by the devil to commit sins but why his mother is in the same boat: 

The mother of Mary said: 
"I place her and her progeny under Your shelter against Satan, the rejected."[3]
 
The Messenger of Allah -may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him said:
"No child is given birth to, but the devil pricks it so that it weeps due to the pricking of the devil, except Maryam (Mary) and her son."[4]
 
Is Maryam God? No, of course not and nor is Jesus. Maryam’s mother prayed a prayer that was granted by God and her daughter and her progeny i.e Jesus were protected from Satan. It is also very important to mention here that just because no sin is ever mentioned for Jesus (flawed logic) does not mean he never sinned and therefore he is God, as the same could be applied for Mary. 

It is also very important to notice that the missionary approach is lacking any understanding of Islamic sources and logic in the light of proof. Before we Turn The Tables on the missionaries and expose them, let us briefly show the Islamic stance on prophets and sins. It is agreed upon by all scholars that prophets never commit any major sins, but they can make small mistakes as they are human. The mistakes they make serve as big lessons for humanity. It is also important to understand that “ma’soom” or infallible in Islamic terms means infallible in delivering the message from God, and being protected from God in failing to achieve the purpose they were sent for. 

It is also important here to quote a hadith from Musnad Ahmad which indicates that the only one who has never committed a sin is not Esa (Jesus) but Yahya or John the Baptist. The narration goes as follows: 

"There has never been one from the offspring of Adam who did not err (qad akhta') or was inclined (hamma) to it except Yahya bin Zakariyya"[5]
 
Compared to the narrations about Jesus and Mary which imply that they did not have sin, or that they committed no sin, this narration says specifically that none of the progeny of Adam erred except Yahya. If we were to follow missionary logic and approach we could play day and night with such narrations and try to build whatever we want but that is not the case. The reality is that the narration is not fully authenticated by most scholars. The reality is that missionaries have no logic or sincere approach in this subject and that they can establish nothing but conjecture. 

The prophets were always fearful and humble even though they did not do anything that could be termed a sin. This is the sign of true and ultimate piety[6], and this is the trait of a true believer who lives his or her life in a balance of love, fear and hope, not in a state of arrogance and comfort as if they deserve paradise. To highlight this point the following narration says: 

It is narrated from Abu Huraira, he said the Messenger of Allah -may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said, "If my Lord was to judge me and Ibn Maryam (Jesus) even by the amount of the shadow between these two fingers, He would have punished us without being unjust."[7]
 
This narration kills any missionary attempt to claim divinity for Jesus –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him- based on Islamic texts. 

The Muslim has no problem in admitting that Jesus or Mary or John or anyone else for that reason is without sin, as this does not establish any proof for divinity for anyone with an ounce of intellect. As Allah created angels without sin, and perfect obedient creatures, He created others and selected them with special characteristics and all is by the will of Allah, not by the will of the creation, and all praise goes back to Allah not to the creation. And anyone who tries to twist Islamic texts and dupe people to believe that Muslims cannot show that Jesus sinned therefore he is God, let it be known that such people are lacking any real insight or intellect and only follow conjecture and doubts, which can never counter reason, proof and truth. 

LET ME TURN THE TABLES!
 
When a Christian tries to use the argument that Jesus is God because Jesus was sinless we need to point out the fallacy of such an argument. Christian missionaries have been desperate to prove Jesus’ divinity, as there is categorically no unambiguous evidence of such in the Bible, and such Christian theology is ambiguous. Why is the Christian argument a fallacy and illogical argument? Can this litmus test be applied? Let us break the argument in a few points for the sake of simplicity: 

There is no correlation between being sinless and being divine. Christians build the premise but it’s a false premise. We have already shown that there is no proof that Mary sinned, or John the Baptist or angels for that matter. The most one can say here is that Jesus was a sinless man. 

There is no correlation between being sinless and being God. A God cannot be subjected to SIN standards; no matter what God does is never considered a sin. God ordered the killing of men, women and children[8] but that cannot be a sin. So the statement God is sinless does not even apply or make sense, as the two words could never be put together. 

Now if one were to apply the true apparent meaning of the argument and that is – Jesus never committed a sin (killing, genocide, killing small children, killing animals etc.) and God never committed a sin (such as killing, genocide, killing children etc.) therefore Jesus is God, one would realize after reading a few chapters of the Bible that the first statement might be true, but the second is definitely false. God whipped out nations, killed children and infants, ordered massacres and genocides, destroyed lands and crops and much more. Is Jesus better than God? 

Any objective reader who is looking for truth and applies any principle of reason can see the fallacy of the missionary attempt. It is with such futile attempts that these people fool people in poverty stricken lands such as Africa and India, converting them and leading them astray from Islam.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

[1] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4712
[2] Jami' Tirmidhi, Hadith 3148. Classified as Sahih by Albani
[3] Qur’an 3:36
[4] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3431
[5] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 2294, narrated by Ibn Abbas.  Shaikh Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih
[6] Today Muslims try to follow that path and when asked by Christians (who think they are going to paradise for sure) DO YOU KNOW IF YOU WILL END UP IN PARADISE?  The Muslim responds NO I DON’T, ONLY ALLAH KNOWS, even though we know that anyone who says THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH will eventually enter paradise. 
[7] Hilya al-Awliya 8/132. Also quoted in Kanzul 'Ummal Hadith 5905
[8] The Bible, Book of Numbers Ch. 31

Monday, November 14, 2011

Variant of Qur’an 33: 56 – A Myth

Some Islamophobes use a narration from al-Suyuti’s al-Ittiqan to insinuate as if there was a variant in Qur’an 33:56 in the mushaf of ‘Aisha -may Allah be pleased with her. Some cults use the same report to attack the mainstream Muslim texts and scholarship. 

Let’s bury this lie as well.

The narration


Quoting from Abu ‘Ubayd Qasim bin Salam’s Fada’il al-Qur’an, al-Suyuti puts the narration as; 

عَنْ حُمَيْدَةَ بِنْتِ أَبِي يُونُسَ قَالَتْ قَرَأَ عَلَيَّ أَبِي وَهُوَ ابْنُ ثَمَانِينَ سَنَةً فِي مُصْحَفِ عَائِشَةَ " إِنَّ اللَّهَ وملائكته يصلون على النبي يأيها الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُصَلُّونَ الصُّفُوفَ الْأُوَلَ " قَالَتْ قَبْلَ: أَنْ يُغَيِّرَ عُثْمَانُ الْمَصَاحِفَ

Humaydah bint Abi Yunus narrates: “My father who was eighty years old recited for me the verse of salutation from the Mushaf of Aisha: “Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect. And on those who came to the first lines of prayers.” She said, “[It was so] before Uthman changed (ghayyara) the Masahif.” (al-Ittiqan 3/82 Section 47) 

The narration comes of Abu ‘Ubayd’s Fada’il al-Qur’an 1/324. It is also narrated by Ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitabul Masahif No.238 

The issues

There are two issues here. 

1- Did ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- actually consider the words “And on those who came to the first lines of prayers.” a part of the Qur’anic text? 

2- Did Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- actually changed the Masahif in the sense of distorting them? Why did he change the Masahif? 

Authenticity of the narration

Firstly the narration is not reliable according to the rules of reporting. It has been graded as Da’if (i.e. weak) due to the weakness of a sub narrator Muhammad bin Abi Humayd. See, 

Al-Ittiqn fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an with research of scholars at Markaz Dirasat al-Qur’ania, Saudi Ministry of Publications p.1458 

Kitabul Masahif with research by Dr. Muhibbudin Wa’iz, Darul Basha’ir al-Islamiyya, Beirut, 2002 part 1.p.370 

Reality of the issues

Let me elaborate on the two issues raised on this narration. 

Truth about the additional words in Qur’an 33:56

1- The additional words i.e. “And on those who came to the first lines of prayers” were never a part of the Qur’anic text. These words are actually a Hadith of the Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Reports on this account come from Bara’ bin al-‘Azib and Sayyidah ‘Aisha herself –may Allah be pleased with them both. Narrations from ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- are found in Sahih Ibn Hibban (Hadith 2163, 2164) as well but the similar words as in the narration under consideration are found in al-Mu’jam of Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ibrahim Ibn al-Muqri’ (d. 381 A.H.). 

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ: قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى الصُّفُوفِ الْأُوَلِ»

It is narrated from ‘Aisha that she said: The Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “Verily Allah Almighty and His angels send blessings on (those who pray in) first lines (in salaah).”  (al-Mu’jam li-Ibn al-Muqri’ Hadith 1218, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 2003 p.225. The report has been classified as Sahih) 

It is clear that ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- actually heard it from the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- as a Hadith. It is thus easy to understand that she added these words to her personal manuscript with Qur’an 33:56 only because it is related to point mentioned there. Actually it is only due to the importance of the issue Sayyidah ‘Aisha had written these words along with the verse mentioning something similar i.e. Allah and His angels sending blessings. 

Ibn al-Jazri writes about the fact of companions writing additional material in their personal masahif; 

“At times they used to add to the recital the commentary for clarification and explanation for they were people knowledge. As they had learnt the Qur’an from the Prophet –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, so they were safe from any confusion (between the actual Qur’an and its commentary). And at times some of them would even write it along with the actual text.” (al-Nashr fil Qira’at al-‘Ashr 1/32. Also quoted in al-Ittiqan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an) 

A similar case regarding ‘Aisha’s –may Allah be pleased with her- personal mushaf has been explained earlier

Did ‘Uthman distort the masahif?
 
The second issue is, if ‘Uthman distorted the Masahif? An ordinary reader would get the impression from the wording of the otherwise dubious narration that ‘Uthman distorted the masahif. This is far from the truth!
Actually ‘Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- involved himself with the process of doing away with anything that could give rise to controversies about the Qur’anic text as we have earlier discussed. In this case too, he was simply trying to get all the masahif uniform or confiscating and even destroying some personal masahif. 

Details of his bid at changing the masahif can be understood from the following narrations. 

Talking about the reaction of Ibn Masud to ‘Uthman’s afforts, Khumayr bin Malik said: 

“Changes (ghayyara) in the Masahif were ordered.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 3929) 

And further according to Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif Abu Qilabah reports that Malik bin Anas (grandfather of Imam Malik) told him; 

“When the mushaf had been prepared [‘Uthman] wrote to people of all cities: ‘I have done so and so. And I have omitted (from the mushaf) what was with me (of commentary and abrogated part), so you too erase (from the masahif) what is with you (of the same).’” (Kitab al-Masahif, Narration 75) 

Conclusion

Even if the narration is accepted it does not put to question the stability of and uniformity of the Qur’an text with all Muslims. ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- had added the words only because they were relevant to the Qur’an and she had heard these from the Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. What she did was a known practice with some of the Companions, and it never caused confusion to the Muslims as a community. 

And ‘Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- did not distort the masahif, rather he simply arranged for getting the commentary notes etc. removed from the masahif to avoid any potential trouble. 

in-sha’Allah some other famous lies of the kind will be responded to in coming days. 

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Friday, November 11, 2011

Should Christian women wear bikinis?

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Exposing Wesley Muhammad on Prophet Muhammad's Complexion: Refutation of NOI’s Racist Theology


by  Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani
 
Wesley Muhammad PhD of Nation of Islam (NOI) has made his career following the steps of Wallace Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad claiming that the black man is divine by nature and that it is the body that contains Allah’s radiance.  A deep explanation of their theology is not needed here, however one can do some research and can find much of NOI material, especially Wesley’s articles, where he outlines the theology of the group NOI.  Such theology has made scholars of Islam deem the group as outside the fold of ISLAM.  

The racist approach that Wesley has taken to his academics cannot be fully understood but speculated as a reactionary one: blacks have been oppressed around the world for centuries and it’s only reasonable and fair that they should make it known to the world.  However in doing so, there have been many groups that have formed causing the same damage that whites have done in the past.  Instead of trying to solve racism, racism was only painted with a different color.  Such is the case of NOI who is not only a Black Nationalist Movement but a religion, a theology built on color.  A reaction to Christianity’s white Jesus gave NOI’s black god, black man divine, back prophets, black nation and chosen people.  This has not only affected the relationship between NOI and whites, blacks and other (be them Christians or others), but also the dynamics between orthodox Muslim communities.  With a convincing resume and academic studies, Wesley and others like him have managed to attract some of the mainstream Muslims (especially blacks) to follow their way.  
 
In this article we will deal specifically with one issue which ties all, and that is the color of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  To a normal Muslim this might not be an issue, and one can go on their whole life without even thinking of such a topic being an issue. Islam’s foundation and practice is based on ideologies and principles not on persons.  Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not venerated or worshiped (except by deviant-ignorant), nor is his color important to the ideology or practice of Islam.  It is true that scholars have written books and composed poetry on the physical characteristics of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but never has such an issue become a theological one.  The Shamail of the Prophet by Al-Tirmidhi and other works have been recorded and described the physical attributes of prophet Muhammad.  Such were done out of love for him, out of scholarship but not out of racism and intention to propagate a theology that is based on color and to give superiority to a color skin over the other (something that Wesley does whether explicitly or implicitly).   Wesley objected to such a statement quoting a Muslim scholar, Ahmad bin Abi Sulayman- a companion of the great Maliki jurist, Sahnun), who said “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black (aswad) should be killed“ (al-Shifa).  We respond by saying that you will always find someone who will give death fatwas, for many unreasonable reasons. Osama bin Laden’s famous fatwa to “kill Americans wherever you find them” is only one such example.  Second, when we go and analyze the circumstantial evidence around the text of Ahmand b. Abi Sulayman we see that Muhammad al-Zarqani in Sharah Al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyya says that the statement was made not because of looking down upon black complexion but because it goes against the facts known through mutawatir reports. And according to the Maliki school of thought anyone who denies any characteristic of the Prophet (pbuh) should be killed even if it is known that degrading or disparaging was not intended.  Wesley’s scholarship failed to mention that or was not interested in researching a bit more about it. 
 
Wesley 1The color of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) might be important only as a fact, and would he have been white or black or Chinese for that matter it should not add or take away from a Muslim’s faith in Allah.  
 
We decided to take Wesley’s article and show the rest of the world, especially his followers, what happens when someone puts on the specs of racism and will see everything in one color.  Wesley tries to prove in his article that Prophet Muhammad was a black man.  To go further one needs to understand that black here does not mean colored or brown as an Arab might be but black as AFRICAN BLACK, just like Wesley and most of the followers of NOI.  This is important because it ties in to the whole theology of NOI and their movement of racism.  Of course in the attempt to gain converts and superiority over humanity, people such as Wesley have claimed that most if not all of the prophets were black. Wesley 2
 
It is important that we start with a verse from the Quran to put everyone at ease and to show that Allah has created human beings in different colors and that such makes no difference to Him:
 
O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the most God fearing (righteous). Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Quran, Hujarat v. 13)
 
Refuting Wesley’s article
 
It is very important for the reader to pay close attention to the following refutation and see the academic twists that Wesley tries to make be it out of ignorance (which is hard to believe as he claims to know Arabic)  or on purpose.  We will refute his claims by analyzing the meaning of the words in reference to skin color, analyzing the Arabic of the narrations in question, quoting narrations which give the full picture of the issue in question, and showing how Wesley has selectively quoted and misquoted texts in order to propagate his racist ideology.
 
Mr. Wesley Muhammad in his article tries hard to ‘prove’ that Prophet Muhammad may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was black in complexion. The racism within him prompts him to come up with such ‘interesting research’. Let us analyze the issue and see where his theory stands in the light of evidence.  We will also analyze his intellectual honesty.
 
Meanings of the keywords used to describe the complexion
With regards to the meanings and connotation of the words used to describe the complexion we must remember that in any language it’s the usage of the words that matters more than their dictionary meanings. To facilitate things for non Arabic readers, the dictionary meanings of the keywords around which the discussion revolves are given, as it will help understand their usage better. All the meanings are from Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon.
 
Meaning of Adam/Udma;
 
آدم  Of the colour termed أُدمة (Book I, p.37)
 
أُدمة... and in human beings, a tawny colour; or darkness of complexion; syn. سُمرة or an intermixture, or a tinge, of blackness or intense سُمرة (Book I, p.36)
 
Meaning of Asmar/Sumra:
 
أسمر  [Tawny, or brownish; dusky; dark-complexioned or dark-coloured;] of the colour termed سُمرة (Book I, p.1426)
 
سُمرة  [A tawny, or brownish, colour, of various shades, like the various hues of wheat; duskiness; darkness of complexion or colour;] certain colour, well known, between white and black, …  (Book I, p.1425)
 
Meaning of Ahmar/Humrah:
 
حُمرة [Redness;] a well-known colour; (Msb, K;) the colour of that which is termed أحمر …. But when relating to complexion, whiteness; (Book I, p.640)
 
Meaning of Azhar/Zuhrah:
 
أزهر Shining; giving light; bright. (S.,K) …. White; (S.,K;) and beautiful: (K.:) or of a bright white colour: (TA:) or of any shining colour: (AH.n,R:) (Book I, p.1262)
 
زُهرة Whiteness; (Yaakoon,S,K;) and beauty: (K:) whiteness, or fairness, characteristic of good birth: (S:) or bright whiteness: (TA:) or any shining colour. (AHn,R) (Book I, p.1262)
 
How the Arabs use the words?
As Mr. Wesley said, Imam al-Dhahbi has described as to how the Arabs use these words.
Here are the actual words of al-Dhahbi (d. 748 A.H.) and their rightful translation:
 
إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ
 
“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)
 
In the second instance where these words appear, al-Dhahbi continues:
 
فَمَعْنَى ذَلِكَ: أَنَّ بَنِي آدَمَ لا ينفكون، عن أحد الأمرين. وكل لَوْنٍ بِهَذَا الاعْتِبَارِ يَدُوْرُ بَيْنَ السَّوَادِ وَالبَيَاضِ الَّذِي هُوَ الحُمْرَةُ.
 
“So this means, mankind cannot escape either of these two things (fairness and darkness of complexion). And every complexion is a shade between blackness and, whiteness which (in this context) is redness.” .”(Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 3/448)
 
Word about the trickery of Mr. Wesley on this quotation follows towards the end of the article.
 
Meaning of ‘Abyad’ when used for people:
 
Mr. Wesley also tends to argue that Arabs use ‘abyad’ not to mean whiteness of complexion but the purity of one’s character.  It might be used to mean purity of one’s character but to say that it is not used to mean whiteness of complexion is a mistake. This is evident from the very page of the classical work Lisan al-‘Arab from which Wesley quoted, but he failed to be honest enough to present the whole thing. Moreover, this can be said of some usage only, there are instances when the statements categorically relate ‘abyad’ to color/complexion. 
We shall see the details of Lisan al-‘Arab quote towards the end. And the examples forcing the understanding of ‘abyad’ relating to colour/complexion will fall within our scope of discussion.
 
Principle of ‘addad
 
Coming to the idea of ‘addad’ (a word understood to imply the opposite of its first meaning) which Wesley brings forward, this might be the case in some rare instances. But if it’s with regard to colors in some contexts it does not mean ‘addad’ applies always. To suggest this is insanity. And again we shall see some usages that just do not allow any such sense of the word.
 
Complexion of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
 
Here in a quote narrations from different Companions about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him.
 
Abu Bakr (RA)
 
On being questioned about the appearance of Holy Prophet (pbuh) by a monk, Abu Bakr (RA) said:
 
أبيض اللون، مشرب بحمرة
 
“White in complexion (abyad al-lawn), imbued with redness.” (Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 18524 cf. al-Zawzni, Abdul Razzaq)
 
Same is mentioned in al-Ins al-Jalil bi-Tarikh al-Quds wal Khalil of Abdul Rahman bin Muhammad al-‘Alimi (d. 928 A.H.)
 
Now here the fact that ‘abyad’ is attached with the word ‘lawn’ (lit. colour) kills the idea that it is all about character.
 
‘Umar (RA):
 
Ibn ‘Asaakir (d. 571 A.H.) quotes;
 
Bashir al-‘Abdi says, people came to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and asked him about the appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him. He said:
 
كان نبي الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أبيض اللون مشربا حمرة
 
“The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was of white complexion (abyad al-lawn) imbued with redness (mushraban humrah).” (Tarikh Damishq 3/264 No. 653, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut 1995)
 
‘Aisha (RA):
 
Ibn Asaakir also gives the following narration:
 
عن عائشة قالت أهدي للنبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) شملة  سوداء فلبسها وقال كيف ترينها علي يا عائشة قلت ما أحسنها عليك يا رسول الله يشوب سوادها بياضك وبياضك سوادها
 
Narrated ‘Aisha: A black turban (shimlatu sawda) was gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he put it on and asked, ‘How do you see on me O ‘Aisha?” I said, “How beautiful it looks on you O the Messenger of Allah! Its blackness (sawaduha) suits on your whiteness (bayadak) and your whiteness (bayadak) on its blackness (sawaduha). (Tarikh Damishq 3/310-311 No. 705)
 
Now this leaves nothing ambiguous. Here blackness (sawad) of turban is brought in contrast to whiteness/fairness (bayad) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), so it cannot be anything of the kind of addad or any other sense of ‘bayad’.
 
Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (RA):
 
In Tabqatul Kubra, also sometimes referred to as, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, we read:
 
عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم أَبْيَضَ مُشْرَبًا بِحُمْرَةٍ 
 
Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: “The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).” (Tabqat al-Kubra 1/419, Dar al-Sader Beirut 1968)
 
Abu Huraira (RA):
 
Similar Abu Huraira (RA) narrates that some Bedouins came and inquired about the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him, the Companions guided him. Saying this Abu Huraira (RA) describes how the Prophet appeared, saying:
 
وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبيض مشربا بحمرة
 
“The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).” (Kanzul Ummal 18533)
 
‘Ali (RA):
 
Another very close companion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ‘Ali (RA) described the complexion of the Holy Prophet in the following words:
 
كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مشرَّباً بَيَاضُهُ حُمْرَةً، وَكَانَ أَسْوَدَ الْحَدَقَةِ
 
“He had white complexion, his whiteness being imbued with redness (abyad musharraban bayaduhu humrah) and his iris was black (awsad).” (Dalail al-Nubuwwah lil-Baihaqi 1/212-213 Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya Beirut 1405 A.H.)
 
Reports to this effect from ‘Ali (RA) are found in many works of Hadith.
 
Abu Tufail (RA):
 
According to Sahih Muslim, when Jurairi asked the last to die Companion, about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- he said:
 
كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مَلِيحًا 
 
“He was beautifully white (abyada malihan).”  (Sahih Muslim 2340 Darul Ahya al-Turath, Beirut)
 
Abu Umamah (RA):
 
Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat al-Kubra narrates from Abu Umamah that he described about the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, as:
 
رَجُلًا أَبْيَضَ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ
 
“A man of white complexion with red tinge in it (abyad ta’luhu humrah).” (Tabaqat al-Kubra 1/413)
 
Anas (RA):
 
There are numerous narrations from the Anas (RA) about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
 
Rab’ia bin Abdul Rahman narrates from Anas (RA)  who while describing the appearance of the Holy Prophet said:
وَلَا بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ، وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ
 
“And he was neither white as lime (abyad al-amhaq) , nor brown (adam).” (Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1)
 
Same is narrated in Tabawat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d etc.
 
This narration has important points pertinent to our discussion. The very fact that the narration says ‘abyad al-amhaq’ i.e. ‘white as lime’ belies the assertion that ‘abyad’ does not mean ‘whiteness’ when used for complexion. 
 
Also the wording asks one to laugh at Wesley’s idea of taking ‘abyad’ to mean the opposite for it is unfathomable to find some sane person saying, ‘black as lime.’
 
Also it proves the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was far from being dark for in that case there was no need to say it was not lime white - a sharp contrast to blackness.
 
In fact his complexion was white but not extremely white. The detail of it is explained in another narration from Anas (RA).
 
Humayd said, he heard Anas (RA) saying:
 
وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ
 
“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness leaning to be tan (bayaduhu ilas-sumrah).” (Dala’il al-Nubuwah 1/204)
 
This Hadith shows his complexion was not even pure ‘asmar’ (tan) but rather something between pure white and pure tan. Surely describing complexion is not very easy!
 
In another narration from Anas (RA) we learn,
 
Thabit narrated from Anas (RA) describing the complexion of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, as:
 
كَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ
 
“The Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- was had bright white complexion (azhar al-lawn).” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2330)
 
Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) explained ‘azhar al-lawn’ saying;
أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ أَيْ أَبْيَضُ مُشَرَّبٌ بِحُمْرَةٍ
 
“azhar al-lawn’, that is: white imbued with redness (abyad musharrab bi-humrah)” (Fath al-Bari 6/569 Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut 1379 A.H.)
 
Narration from Anas (RA) quoted by Wesley
 
Now we come to the narration from Anas (Ra) quoted by Wesley.
 
Humayd narrated from Anas (ra) that he said:
 
أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ
 
“Tan in color (asmar al-lawn).” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 1754)
 
About this narration, consider the following point made by Ali bin Sultan al-Qari (d. 1014):
 
وَقَالَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ: هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا حُمَيْدٌ عَنْ أَنَسٍ وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرْنَا إِلَى مَنْ رَوَى صِفَةَ لَوْنِهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَسٍ فَكُلُّهُمْ وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا
 
And al-Iraqi said, “These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness and not tawny complexion and they are fifteen companions explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.” (Jama’ al-Wasa’il fi Sharah al-Shama’il 1/14)
 
Prophet Muhammad’s –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- complexion was not purely tan, it was white tending to be tan or white imbued with redness, not white as lime, neither dark nor purely tan.
 
This narration is rather odd and for the fact that it goes against all the narrations from other companions and even other reports from Anas (RA). It is reported through a single narrator i.e. Humayd and even his narrations do not consistently say the same. As mentioned above in one narration Humayd himself reports from Anas (RA) that he said:
 
“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness leaning to be tan (bayaduhu ilas-sumrah).” (Dala’il al-Nubuwah 1/204)
 
This is the scholarly way of handling an odd narration. Mark the difference- scholars do not agree with one narration based on an objective science comparing different narrations on the subject and then deciding on the merit whereas Wesley merely gives in to his subjective whims and desires and:
 
1- Fails to share all the various narrations from different Companions on the subject.
 
2- Twists hadiths with multiple tricks, like alluding to the idea of ‘addad’ or taking ‘abyad’ not to refer to complexion. Above details show he cannot consistently use either of these and usage of the word ‘abyad’ is itself enough to reject his ideas.
 
3- Rejects the hadiths which he is unable to twist without giving any proof for what he stands for.
 
Narration about the blackness of foot
 
Wesley plays foul and clever when he mentions that Tabaqat al-Kubra has pages dedicated to the description of physical appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him- but then fails to quote the most relevant of them. He dubs the most explicit narrations about the complexion of the Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- as later invention of Persians without citing any proof. And what more, he quotes a narration to find some support for his theological beliefs. The narration as quoted by him goes as:
“The Messenger of Allah (s) stretched his left foot, such that the blackness of its exposed part (zahiruha aswad) was visible.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-kabir, I/i,127)
To expose the trick, let me just quote the same narration from Sunan Abu Dawud where it is narrated with the same chain of narrators but with a little detail. It goes as:
 
كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا جَلَسَ فِي الصَّلَاةِ، افْتَرَشَ رِجْلَهُ الْيُسْرَى حَتَّى اسْوَدَّ ظَهْرُ قَدَمِهِ
 
“When the Prophet, peace be upon him, sat during prayers (salaah), he stretched his left foot, such that blackness of foot was exposed.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 962, Makteba l-‘Asriyyah, Beirut)
 
Clearly this is about the left foot only and that too related to prayers (salaah) and we know when a person regularly offers prayers, on his left foot blackness appears due to frequent contact with the ground (Abu ‘Abdul Rahman al-‘Azimabadi in ‘Awn al-Ma’bud 3/170) And surely this it must had been even more for we know back then they used rough prayer mats or prayed on ground.
 
It is appropriate at this time to show a narration that puts Wesley in check on his black foot narration attempt.  We are not using this narration to prove our point necessarily, as most people know that the armpits of a human being are usually lighter than the rest of his skin.  We are just giving an example of how unscholarly Wesley can get and how he picks and chooses and can only see black out of all the ahadeeth that talk about the description of the prophet.  It is important to note here that Bukhari (the most authentic book of ahadith) records it in the chapter entitled “Characteristics of the Prophet” hadith nr. 3372 narrated by Anas:
 
أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان لا يرفع يديه في شيء من دعائه إلا في الاستسقاء فإنه كان يرفع يديه حتى يرى بياض إبطيه
 
Allah's Apostle did not use to raise his hands in his invocations except in the Istisqa (i.e. invoking Allah for the rain) in which he used to raise his hands so high that one could see the whiteness of his armpits(bayad ibtayh).
 
Mark the last words
 
“Whiteness of his armpits”
 
Exposing more lies
 
Besides his play with the ideas about meaning of ‘abyad’ and failing to quote most relevant narrations and stretching narrations out of context and things like that, here are some glaring examples of Wesley’s intellectual dishonesty:
 
What did Imam al-Dhahbi actually say?
 
Mr. Wesley wrote:
According to the important Syrian hadith scholar and historian of Islam, Shāms al-Dīn Abū `Abd Allāh al-Dhahabī (d. 1348), in his Siyar a’lām al-nubalā’ [II:168]:
“When Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad),’ they mean a golden brown complexion with a black appearance (al-hintī al-lawn bi-hilya sudā’). Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”
Here he gives the impression that words ‘asmar wa adam’ and ‘sawd al-takrur’ etc. were also about Arabs. Before commenting on this, let us see what al-Dhahbi actually wrote:
 
إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ
 
“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)
 
So evidently Imam al-Dhahbi has mentioned three different types of complexion. Wheatish, tan and finally overwhelmingly black, and he makes tan a reference to people of India and black a reference to people of certain African tribes. Mr. Wesley clearly lies and makes all of it look as if about the meaning of ‘abyad.’ Though Imam al-Dhahbi does mean that ‘abyad’ does not mean something like pure white but the flow of his statement maintains ‘abyad’ is whiter than tan, which in turn is tends to be whiter than black.
 
The quote from Lisan al-Arab
 
Mr. Wesley writes:
Ibn Manzur [Lisan al-arab IV: 209, 210] notes:
“The Arabs don’t say a man is white [or: “white man,” rajul abyad] due to a white complexion. Rather, whiteness [al-abyad] with them means an external appearance that is free from blemish [al-zahir al-naqi min al-‘uqub]; when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar)… when the Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad – bayad), they [only] mean a noble character (al-karam fi l-akhlaq), not skin color. It is when they say ‘so-and-so is red’ (ahmar – hamra’) that they mean white skin. And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”
“Red (al-hamra’) refers to non-Arabs due to their fair complexion which predominates among them. And the Arabs used to say about the non-Arabs with whom white skin was characteristic, such as the Romans, Persians, and their neighbors: ‘They are red-skinned (al-hamra’)…” al-hamra’ means the Persians and Romans…And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”
This is misleading.
 
The statement which Mr. Wesley translated as:
“The Arabs don’t say a man is white [or: “white man,” rajul abyad] due to a white complexion. Rather, whiteness [al-abyad] with them means an external appearance that is free from blemish [al-zahir al-naqi min al-‘uqub]; when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar)
It is actually what the author of Lisan al-‘Arab quotes from Shamir. And after this statement the author, Ibn Manzur, quotes Ibn Athir. Ibn Athir’s statement is hidden behind the three dots given by Mr. Wesley.
Mr. Wesley put it as:
… when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar) when the Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad – bayad), they [only] mean a noble character (al-karam fi l-akhlaq), not skin color.
The dots highlighted above hide much important text behind them. Ibn Manzur writes:
 
قَالَ ابْنُ الأَثير: وَفِي هَذَا الْقَوْلِ نَظَرٌ فإِنهم قَدِ اسْتَعْمَلُوا الأَبيض فِي أَلوان النَّاسِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ؛
 
Ibn Athir said: In this statement (of Shamir) is a problem for they do use ‘abyad’ for complexions of the people and other things.” (Lisan al-‘Arab 4/209 Dar al-Sadir, Beirut 1414 A.H.)
 
He then gives examples of such usages. This is about the usage of the word in general. Otherwise we have seen above in certain usages it will be insane to say that ‘abyad’ is not about complexion.
 
Alleged depictions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
 
It is appropriate at this time to show another cheap attempt of Dr. Wesley to gain credibility to his arguments by showing a very famous picture that he claims is a picture of a white Muhammad, which is a result of distorted depictions that took place after non black converts to Islam began distorting not only Islam but the true figure of prophet Muhammad.  
 
We have compared the picture (to the left) he uses  with a picA famous depiction of Imam Ali by some Shiitesture of Imam Ali (to the right) and have found some amazing similaritiAlleged picture of "White Muhammad" from Persia  shown by Wesleyes.  What is also shocking is that Wesley uses this picture in many of his presentations and articles as if this picture is the consensus of Muslim scholars and the Muslim nation.  He does the same by showing pictures of actors from the famous movie (The Message) by Mustapha Akkad, as if this movie weighs any scholarly evidence.  Of course this is another cheap attempt to shock his audience.  People should also keep in mind that depictions of Prophet Muhammad are not allowed, be it in the Sunni tradition or the Shia tradition.  It is also important to highlight the baseless accusation that Dr. Wesley makes to converts of Islam who are non Arab or white.
 
This shows the scholarship that he has and practices. As the companions of the prophet spread to different lands, conquering different countries where the inhabitants were white or light skinned, the Arabs of Makkah or Madinah never lost their lineage or heritage so that one can say that such a blatant corruption could happen.  One needs not to go to a great extent to prove this.  The simplest  way to do this is to go back to the tradition of the Arabian peninsula tribes, the city and Bedouin of Arabia, and know their lineage and their descent.  Their odes and poems, their literature and lineages are all preserved from the youngest to the oldest.  When one visits Mekka or Madinah one can sit with people from the Quraish, people of Banu Shaibah who are the key holders of the Kabbah from the time of prophet Muhammad and other tribes.  One can see the difference in their skin color.  
 
Some are darker, some are light, and some are in between.  The population dynamics of tribes and the gene pool allow for variation in skinGabriel K. and two other Muslims color and such Prophet Muhammad –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- happened to be lighter in color, and when we say that we don’t mean white like a  European white (like Al Ameria Tribe kidmyself, Gabriel, in the picture to the left), but white like an Arab white, somewhere between light and brown.  In the presented picture you can see myself a white European (left), an Arab (Arabized African)  from Sudan (center) and an Arab (Arabized Asian) from Al Marri tribe which is a Bolochi tribe from Asia (right).   This is not a google picture taken out of context this is a real picture three different colored skinned Muslims, brothers in faith.  What you are required to focus on is the Arab to the picture on to the right which is a boy from the Al-Ameri tribe, a tribe from Yemen.  Notice the color of his skin in contrast to the Sudanese and European Muslim. This picture says a thousand words in the context of this article, especially when reading the narrations about prophet Muhammad being not too brown nor lime-white. 
 
Allegation against Imam al-Shafi’i:
 
Finally we want to leave our readers with a short piece of the kind of theology and ideology the associates of Dr. Wesley propagate.  This is a short entry recorded on the Black Arabia blog, a site where Dr. Wesley posts much of his work.  The short entry is entitled “Imam Shafi and that Early Black Islam”. 
روى أحد تلامذة الشافعي أنه إشترى له طيبا بدينار ، فسأله الشافعي : ممن إشتريت ..؟؟ ، فقال : من الرجل العطار الأشقر الأزرق .. فقال الشافعي : أشقر وأزرق ..؟؟ ، إذهب ورد العطر ، ماجاءني خير قط من أشقر 
 
"One of Al-Shafa'i's students related that he bought some scents for Al-Shafa'i for a dinar. Al-Shafa'i asked him (the student) who he bought the scents from. The man replied, 'From that blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر) perfumer.' Al-Shafa'i said, 'Blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر)?! Take it back! Nothing good has ever come to me from a very fair complexioned (أشقر) person!'"
Now certainly this is misleading. And the way it is quoted clearly shows it was just picked from a random online Arabic discussion forum.
 
Let us quote it with due reference to a classical work.
 
قال الربيع : اشتريت للشافعي طيبا بدينار ، فقال : ممن اشتريت ؟ قلت : من ذاك الأشقر الأزرق . قال : أشقر أزرق ! رده ، رده ، ما جاءني خير قط من أشقر
أبو حاتم : حدثنا حرملة ، حدثنا الشافعي ، يقول : احذر الأعور ، والأعرج ، والأحول ، والأشقر ، والكوسج ، وكل ناقص الخلق ، فإنه صاحب التواء ، ومعاملته عسرة .
 
Al-Rabi’ said: “I bought scent for al-Shafi’i for a Dinar. He asked, ‘From whom you bought the scent?’ I said: ‘From so-and-so blue-eyed albino!.’ he said; "’Blue-eyed albino! Return it, return it! I haven’t experienced any good from an albino.’
Abu Hatim said, Harmalah narrated to us, al-Shafi’i said, ‘Beware of the one-eyed, the lame, the squint, the albino, and everyone with a deformity (especially those born with it). These are people of deficiencies and its a trouble dealing with them.’ (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala 10/40-41)
 
Following narration from the same section of the same book from which the quote under discussion comes helps understand the thing better.
 
قال الشافعي : خرجت إلى اليمن في طلب كتب الفراسة حتى كتبتها وجمعتها
 
Al-Shafi’i said: “I traveled to Yemen and kept seeking the books on Physiognomy till I wrote and collected them.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala 10/41)
 
Physiognomy is all about assessment of people’s character or personality from their outer appearance.
 
What our great Imam said was not even intended to disparage those people but to be on the guard against the troubles that can come up in dealing with them. he had learnt this from his study of physiognomy.
 
Now this makes the thing clear. His comment was not about a people with a particular complexion but about those suffering from albinism and other deformities. Its shameful to use it to imply racism. Truly disgusting!
 
Conclusion
 
As we can see from above Wesley has gone to great lengths to distort many of the meanings of terms, while quoting Islamic texts and making a case for his perverse theology.  Such is the case of most people these days who attack Islam and want to destroy Islam. There are those who quote Quran, Sunnah, commentaries and other authentic sources yet to prove that Prophet Muhammad  –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- was a racist slave owner.  It is mind boggling to see such insincerity from two different spectrums dealing with the same texts.  
Indeed if the problem of racism is to be solved in the world, people have to start looking at pure Islam with an objective view and open mind, and take the following advice of Prophet Muhammad  –may Allah’s blessings be upon him-that he gave to the world before departing it:
 
“O People! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person, except in piety.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 22978)

* The links to Wesley’s articles (from BlackArabia.blogspot.com) were last accessed on November 5, 2011 8:50 a.m. GMT
Indeed Allah knows the best!

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Monday, October 31, 2011

Friday, October 28, 2011

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Monday, October 17, 2011

Islam Dunk Show Episode 9

Friday, October 14, 2011

No. of Surahs in the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

You will never find a Christian missionary talking about the preservation of Holy Qur’an and then failing to come up with issue of the surahs missing from Ibn Mas’ud’s mushaf.

Surahs missing in Ibn Mas’ud’s Mushaf:

It is said that Ibn Mas’ud’s mushaf (codex) did not have three surahs, al-Fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn (al-Falaq and al-Nas) i.e. Nos. 1, 113 & 114. (See al-Ittiqan 1/270 al-Haiyaal-Misriya, Cairo, 1974)

We shall deal the issue of al-Fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn separately. For each case we shall first see the reports becoming the basis for the confusion and then probe further to find out the truth.

Al-Fatiha:

Al-Fatiha means the ‘al-fatiha al-kitab’ i.e. opening of the Book (al-Qur’an). And its status is such an established one in Islam that no Muslim can be negligent about it. It is recited multiple times in every salah five times a day.

Ibn Mas’ud did recognize it a part of the Qur’an:

Al-Fatiha’s status as a part of the Qur’an is established from the Qur’an itself. In Surah 15 it is said:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيمَ

“We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses and the glorious Qur‘an.” (Qur’an 15:87)

Here “seven oft-repeated verses” refers to Surah al-Fatiha.

Quoting Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Dhurays, Ibn Munzar and Ibn Mardwiyah, al-Suyuti gives us the following narration;

It is narrated from Ibn Mas’ud, regarding the word of Allah, ‘We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses’ He said: “[It is] Fatiha al-Kitab.”

(Durr Manthur 5/94, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut)

This plainly confirms that the al-Fatiha was indeed a part of the Qur’an in the view of Ibn Mas’ud just like the rest of Muslims.

Why Ibn Mas’ud did not write it in his Mushaf?

If Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- did recognize al-Fatiha a part of the Qur’an, why did he not write it in his Mushaf? He himself solves the riddle.

In a narration given by Abu Bakr al-Anbari, it is stated;

“’Abdullah bin Mas’ud was asked as to why he did not write al-Fatiha in his Mushaf. He replied, ‘If I were to write I would write it before every surah.’” Abu Bakr al-Anbari explains this saying every raka’ah (in prayers) starts with al-Fatiha and then another surah is recited. It is as if Ibn Mas’ud said, ‘I have dropped it for the sake of brevity and I have trusted its preservation by Muslims (collectively).’ (al-Qurtubi, al-Jami al-Ahkam al-Qur’an. Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1964 vol.1 p.115)

Thus we learn, if he did not write a certain thing in his mushaf it does not mean it was not part of the Qur’an to his understanding. This is a vital point, I will ask the readers to bear in mind.

Al-Mu’awwazatayn (Surah Nos. 113 & 114):

Ibn Mas’ud did recognize al-mu’awwazatayn a part of the Qur’an:

The evidence that Ibn Mas’ud did consider al-mu’awwazatayn a part of the Qur’an, is too strong. Consider the following points;

1- The foremost medium of preservation of the Holy Qur’an has always been memory of the Muslim masses. In the article about Qur’an preservation during Holy Prophet’s –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- time I shared a Hadith on this point and here I reproduce it.

Allah Almighty said to the Holy Prophet- may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:

"I sent the Book to you which cannot be washed away by water." (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 5109)

Muslims experts of Qira’at (recitals) have always preserved the unbroken chain of authorities of back to the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and all his followers. And the Mutawatir Qira’ats are the ultimate and greatest authority on the words of the Holy Qur’an.

2- All the Mutawatir Qira’ats do include al-mu’awwazatayn (and certainly al-Fatiha as well). And four of the Mutawatir Qira’ats can be traced back to the Holy Prophet –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- through Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. Here I briefly mention the Mutawatir Qira’ats through Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him with reference to a monumental work on the subject i.e. al-Nashr fi Qira’at al-‘Ashr of Shams al-Din Ibn al-Jazri (d. 833 A.H.)

i- Qir’at of Aasim: Its chain reaches back to the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- through Zirr through Ibn Masud.

Please note, the same Aasim and Zirr who are the narrators of the reports in Musnad Ahmad etc. (given below) showing Ibn Masud did not write the two surahs in his Mushaf are the narrators of a mutawatir qira’at from Ibn Masud in which they did recite the two surahs on his authority. See vol.1 p.155

ii- Qir’at of Hamza: It chain reaches Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- through Ibn Mas’ud. See p. 165

iii- Qir’at of al-Kisai: Its chain back to Prophet also involves Ibn Masud. See p.172

iv- Qir’at of Khalaf: It also rests on Ibn Masud’s authority. See p.185

These ‘mutawatir qira’ats’ certainly include al-Muawazzatayn and al-Fatiha and thus leave no doubt that Ibn Mas’ud recognized and recited them as Qur’an.

Also remember by the consensus of the whole Ummah the chains of these Qir’ats are strongest of all the chains anywhere. See Fawatih al-Rahmout fi Sharh Musallam al-Thabut vol.1 p.12

The narrations that hint otherwise will be dealt with shortly.

3. Quoting from al-Daylami, Shaykh Ali Muttaqi, in his gigantic Hadith collection, records a very interesting narration.

Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: "Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-mu’awwazatayn (i.e. al-Falaq and an-Nas/Nos. 113 & 114) ...” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 2743)

Here in most explicit terms Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- refers to al-mu’awwazatayn as two surahs, showing he did believe in their divine origin and Qur’anic authority.

Reality of the opposing narrations:

Now let’s scratch the details of the opposing narrations and see as to what they actually suggest where the truth lies.

Reports from Aasim and Zirr:

Aasim narrates from Zirr, he told Ubay that Ibn Mas’ud did not write al-mu’awwazatayn in his mushaf. (Musnad Ahmad, No. 21186)

Abdah and Aasim narrate from Zirr, he said; “I told Ubay, ‘your brother Ibn Mas’ud erases them (surah 113 & 114) from his mushaf,’ and he did not object.” (Musnad Ahmad, No. 21189)

Note the following points;

1- These reports say Ibn Masud did not write the two surahs in his Mushaf. And discussing the case of al-Fatiha above we concluded not writing in the Mushaf is not same as refusing to accept as part of the Qur’an.

2- We learn that even after being told of Ibn Masud’s action, Ubay “did not object.” While it has always been an established fact in the House of Islam that rejecting even a single verse makes one a disbeliever and even liable to capital punishment, it is impossible that Ubay would not react had he known Ibn Masud to altogether reject two surahs. Perhaps he knew Ibn Masud did not refuse to accept them a part of Qur’an even though he did not write them.

3- al-Suyuti quotes Abu Bakr al-Baqilani who said;

“It is not proved from him that these two surahs are not from the Qur’an. He erased them and dropped them from his Mushaf refusing to put them into writing, not rejecting them as part of the Qur’an. It was so because to him nothing was to be written in the Mushaf except what was commanded by the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- and he did not find them written nor heard an instruction in this regard.” (al-Ittiqan 1/271)

4- With above points in mind recall that Aasim and Zirr themselves recited al-mu’awwazatayn along with the rest of the Qur’an on Ibn Masud’s authority. With same people reciting the surahs on his authority and then reporting him not to write them in his Mushaf, above mentioned explanation sounds the best.

Report from Abdul Rahman bin Yazid:

Abdul Rahman bin Yazid relates that Ibn Mas’ud erased al-mu’awwazatayn from his Mushaf and said they were not part of the Qur’an. (Musnad Ahmad, No. 21188)

Same is reported in Mu’jam al-Kabir of al-Tabarani.

1- This report cannot be true for it is a solitary report narrated only through Abdul Rahman bin Yazid. A solitary report that contradicts the evidence based on Mutawatir (i.e. something narrated by such a large no. of people of each generation that their agreement on falsehood or mistake is well beyond reasonable doubt) reports cannot serve as a proof to any effect.

2- If one says that Ibn Hajr, al-Haithmi etc. have clearly graded its isnad as authentic, then he needs to know what even if isnad (chain of narrators) is authentic a report that contradicts overwhelmingly strong evidence is known as mu’allal i.e. defective.

Carefully read the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah in his Magnus Opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;

“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006. p.67)

3- Further, this narration from Abdul Rahman bin Yazid is “shaadh” i.e. anomalous which is not acceptable. Ibn al-Salah quotes its definition from al-Shafi’i who said:

“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith p.57)

Evidently it runs in direct contradiction to what is known through mutawatir qira’ats, as mentioned above. Therefore it is rejected as anomalous.

Ibn Mas’ud’s beliefs:

Before quoting the scholars on the essence of the whole issue, let me share further proofs that it is inconceivable to have Ibn Masud –may Allah be pleased with him- refusing to accept these surahs as part of the Qur’an.

1- We know the report telling us that students of Ibn Masud brought the fact of him not writing the surahs in his Mushaf to the notice of other Companions. It shows the issue was discussed. And had he actually not accepted the surahs as part of the Qur’an, other Companions would have certainly corrected him.

2- Other reports tell us that Ibn Masud would discuss things with other Companions and would not fail to revise his opinion and admit his mistake, whenever it came to it.

e.g. we read in Muwatta of Malik;

“When Abdullah ibn Masud was in Kufa, he was asked for an opinion about marrying the mother after marrying the daughter when the marriage with the daughter had not been consummated. He permitted it. When Ibn Masud came to Madina, he asked about it and was told that it was not as he had said, and that this condition referred to foster-mothers. Ibn Masud returned to Kufa, and he had just reached his dwelling when the man who had asked him for the opinion came to visit and he ordered him to separate from his wife.”

(al-Muwatta, Kitab al-Nikah)

If this was his attitude in normal issues of jurisprudence, how much more would he have been about Qur’an regarding which he has himself said;

One who rejected a single letter of the Qur’an, he (is like the one who) rejected the whole of it.” (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 15946)

3- How is it that his students who discussed the matter with other Companions would not mention the thing to him and he would then not seek to verify it, while we know of his cautiousness on this issue, as he himself reports;

“We differed about a Surah. We said [and differed if] it has thirty-five verses or thirty six verses. So we went to the Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him [to clarify the matter] …” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 832)

If he would rush to the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- on differing about a single verse to clarify the matter, how can one assume he would not consult the Companions about three complete surahs and that he would not have been corrected by other Companions?

What the scholars say?

In the end let’s have a look at what various scholars said on this issue.

Al-Nawawi (d. 676 A.H.) said:

“The Ummah has agreed that al-mu’awwazatayn and al-fatiha are part of the Qur’an and whoever denies this becomes a disbeliever. And whatever is quoted from Ibn Masud in this regard is not true.” (al-Ittiqan 1/270)

Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Nu’mani (d. 775 A.H.) wrote:

“Report of this opinion from Ibn Masud is a lie and falsehood.” (al-Baab fi ‘Uloom al-Kitab 1/249)

Shaykh Muhammad bin Nizamuddin al-Ansari (d. 1225 A.H.) said:

“Attributing the rejection of al-mu’awwazatayn as part of the Qur’an to Ibn Masud is a grave mistake. And whoever attributed such a thing to him, his isnad is not reliable compared to the isnad which have been accepted collectively by all the scholars –infact the whole Ummah. This highlights that attribution of this rejection to Ibn Masud is false.” (Fawatih al-Rahmout bi Sharah Musallam al-Thabut 2/12)

Al-Khifaji (d. 1069 A.H.) wrote in his notes to al-Baidhawi’s commentary:

“And what is reported from Ibn Masud that al-fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn are not from Qur’an has no basis.” (al-‘Inaya al-Qadhi 1/29)

Other scholars who have vehemently rejected the notion include;

Ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H.) See al-Muhalla (1/32)

Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi (d. 543 A.H.) See al-Ittiqan (1/270)

Fakhruddin al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.) See Tafsir Mafatih al-Ghayb (1/150)

Zahid bin Hassan al-Kawthari (d. 1371 A.H.) See Maqalat al-Kawthari (p.16)

Summary:

1- Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- did recite al-Fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn in Qur’an as proved from rigorous evidence of four established qira’ats whose chains of authorities (isnaad) are the strongest chains unanimously accepted by the Ummah.

2- Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- categorically identified “Oft-repeated seven verses” mentioned in Qur’an 15:87 as “al-fatiha al-kitab” (Opening Surah of the Book).

3- He did not write al-Fatiha in his Mushaf but gave his reason and the reason was refusal or doubting its status as a part of the Qur’an. This proves him not writing some verses is no evidence that he doubted their position within Qur’an.

4- Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- mentioned the virtues of two surahs (al-mu’azzatayn), thus refuting the false notions attributed to him.

5- There are narrations from Aasim and Zirr that Ibn Mas’ud did not write al-Mu’azzatayn in his Mushaf. Same people (along with other people) used to recite the two surahs with the rest of Qur’an on Ibn Mas’ud’s authority. So either the narrations are a mistake or just like al-Fatiha Ibn Mas’ud had some other reason for not writing the two surahs in his Mushaf.

6- Narration that says he categorically denied their being a part of the Qur’an is defective (mu’allal) and strange (shaadh) because it is a solitary report, narrated only the authority of Abdul Rahman bin Yazid, and contradicts the strongest and multiple isnaad.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES!

The critics of Islam with all their efforts could find only Ibn Mas’ud’s case to try question the singularity and consensus of the Muslims on the text of the Holy Qur’an whereas in case of Bible, not just an individual or a group of few but whole churches and denominations differ with each other on what all forms the canon.

Please follow THIS LINK to find Canon Comparative Chart showing what is there in which Bible. See the Christian manuscript is too flexible, you can throw away anything you like and accept whatever you find good for yourself.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Click and Order Today

 
IslamDunkTV © 2010 Design by New WP Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premiumbloggertemplates.com
Powered by Blogger