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.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Keith Truth Amateur and Fishy...

I’ve never really understood why the most zealous of Christian fundamentalists shun scholarship in favour of conjecture.

Here we have one of those young Islamophobic Christian apologists simply being unscholarly and presenting fanciful claims dressed up as “air tight” arguments. I introduce to you Keith Thompson (aka Keith Truth)

Note: If the video does not play please view here:

Allah is not an idol called Hubal

He is claiming Allah is Hubal (a pre-Islamic pagan idol) despite the fact true scholarship tells us the two were not the same. I guess Keith Thompson has been reliant on Islamophobes on the net for information – he has admitted he has been in consultation with an Islamophobe (Mr Shamoun) who claims Muslims can have sex with animals amongst other bouts of lunacy. Yikes!

Hey Keith, you may want to start shunning the lunacy on the net in favour of academics. Just a thought!

[See the video to see Keith Thompson’s Hubal theory debunked in a matter of seconds]

Is the Trinity in the Old Testament? No.

Keith Thompson is claiming he has “air tight” arguments for the “fact” of the Trinity in the OT.

Erm, somebody should have told him the world renowned CHRISTIAN apologist and scholar, William Lane Craig, does not agree with these “air tight” arguments of the Trinity being in the Old Testament. Though the scholar (William Lane Craig) believes the OT does not necessarily oppose the belief in the Trinity he admits if one reads the Old Testament he/she does not come away with the Trinity. Essentially the Trinity is not there – never mind being an “air tight” “fact”.

It appears Keith Thompson is over playing the neo-Trinitarian renditions of the Trinity being within the OT. Accuracy would dictate us to mention, neo-Trinitarians would point to verses which they believe to be allusions to the Trinity within the OT. Quite how Mr Thompson has elevated this to the level of “air tight” and “fact” is beyond us.

[See the video for the clip of William Lane Craig]

A word on the Angel of the Lord

Keith would do well to recognise our previous refutations of neo-Trinitarian claims of the OT angel of the Lord being God. I would suggest he further consults scholarship in the form of Samuel Meier on the said topic as well as common sense. Common sense is a fine thing.

Invitation to Keith

Keith, if you read Mark Siljander’s book you will recognise his admission that Jesus was likely to have used the word Allah (“Alah”) to refer to God. Consult scholarship on the historical practices of the early Christian communities – prior to Islam – you will note D. MacCulloch tells us Christians were praying in the manner of the Muslims and the use of prayer mats spanned from Syrian to Northumbria. Northumbria is a county in the UK. All this was before God revealed the Quran.

The real question is why were Christians praying like the Muslims prior to Islam? The answer is that they were simply following Jesus as Jesus worshipped Allah in the Muslim-style of prayer. I invite you to do the same – if it’s good enough for Jesus…

The choice is yours; do you want a relationship with the God of Jesus? If yes, come to Islam.

Keith avoid the crazed Islamophobes

You seem to have taken to much of the Islamophobic rhetoric which is banded about within extreme Christian circles. Don't be an Islamophobic - it's not healthy.

If you want to become a truth seeker you would do well to disassociate from the Islamophobic crowd and begin to research things for yourself. Oh, just in case some of the Islamophobes through concern that you are being swayed to the Truth decide to feed you with dribble of Muslims being allowed to lie to advance Islam through something called “taqiyya” try reading the scholarly truth about taqiyyah:

Here is more info about Arab pagans prior to Islam:

Mike Licona on Gospel contradictions:

Full: William Lane Craig Discussion with Rabbi Tovia Singer on Lee Strobel’s show

Christian missionary Pastor converts to Islam:

May Allah send His peace and blessings on all the Prophets. Ameen


David Wood's Pool of Murky Water - Acts 17 Apologetics

It appears as though Christian missionaries are confusing folk concerning the sun setting in a pool of slimy water via a dubious narration. IslamOnline clears the confusion as the narration is not thought to have come from the Prophet Muhammad (p):

The author claims that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also explained it in a literal sense. He quoted a hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported as saying, “Do you know, Abu Dharr, where this sun sets?”

He answered, “God and His Messenger know better.”

Muhammad said, “It sets in a spring of slimy water.”

According to most authorities, this statement is not from Prophet Muhammad but it is attributed to Ka`b Al-Ahbar, a Jewish rabbi who converted to Islam and who reported this from the Torah, not from Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).”

Islamophobic missionary (David Wood – Acts 17 Apologetics) is invited to look into real errors and contradictions:

IslamOnline’s clarification of the reference to Zul Qarnain in Quran 18:86 can be viewed here:


Further reading:

Sexism: A reason to the change the Bible?

Numbers and the Bible do collide on more than one occasion

Discover Islam

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

The True Meaning of Jihad - By Dr Kenneth Atkinson

Dr Kenneth is a non-muslim Historian and Archaeologist who specializes in the history of religions. Being a non-muslim, he has no reason to lie about Islam in order to support certain beliefs.

Please watch this interesting presentation about the most misunderstood issue in Islam (Jihad).

Monday, April 25, 2011

I Dunk Show 5

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Funniest Muslim-Christian Debate Ever!

Friday, April 22, 2011

Muslim Calls in a Christian Show

I am not posting this video to say I agree with the Muslim, but it's just interesting to hear this discussion to see how people don't understand each other.

Why the Devil is called “Iblis”?

By Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud, formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani
With a supplement by Waqar Akbar Cheema
It is one of the characteristic features of the Qur’an that almost all the proper and common nouns contained in it possess a plain meaning, and that they are introduced into all the languages spoken by Muslims, in their original Arabic form without the least change of pronunciation or orthography. The wisdom of such a course is obvious; for most of such words as were revealed by Allah uttered by His Apostle can have no equivalent terms in pagan literature. The old Prophets of Israel would have been horrified to see, for example, the name “Ilohim” rendered “Baal,” “Mardukh,” or any other heathen god. The names “Khuda” and “Tanri,” as used by the Persians and Turks respectively before their conversion to Islam, either because of disputed etymology or mythological association, do not express the comprehensive meaning of the holy name of Allah.
 The New Testament, on the other hand, contains numerous names and words which were unknown to Jesus Christ and to the Jewish multitudes that listened to his sermons and parables. For this book is not written in the language spoken by Jesus and his disciples. Consequently such names as God, Devil, Paraclete, heaven, hell and so forth, are not scriptural expressions, but borrowed from pagan mythologies.
  The reason why I have selected the name “Iblees” (or Iblis) for the present article is, because it is connected with the first promise made by the Supreme Being concerning the “Seed” of the woman who should bruise the “Serpent’s” head (Gen. iii). I cannot enter here into the question concerning the authenticity, the date, and the composition of the book of the Genesis, nor discuss the theory typifying man as image of his Creator and the Serpent as a type of the Evil Spirit, which may be ascribed to a late editor imbued with Zoroastrian views. But I believe in the promise, because I see its fulfillment in Muhammad (upon whom be peace). There are innumerable prophecies and predictions in the sacred writing of the Jews which are literally fulfilled in the Prophet Muhammad; otherwise they would remain senseless absurdities. The word “Iblis” is derived from an old Semite verb “beles” –that is, from the consonants, b, l, s, which when pointed read “beles,” which means “to bruise to death,” or “to crush underfoot.” Therefore the name “Iblis” signifies “the bruised one.”
   Of course it would be useless for any scholar to attempt to discover the exact word used by Jesus for that he rendered in the Greek text as “Diabolus” – or Devil. The Assyrian version called “Pshitta,” which is only a translation from the Greek text, has rendered the word “diabolus” “Akhil-Qarsa,” which literally means “an eater of strife,” and therefore “an accuser” or “adversary.” The analogous name for “Iblis” in the Aramaic tongue is “Blisa,” just as “Islam, Ahmad, Iqlim, iklil,” correspond to the Aramaic “Shalma, Himda, qlima, klila” respectively.
  It is very remarkable that neither the word “Devil” nor “Iblis” occurs in the Old Testament; and it is very strange too that the authorities of the British and Foreign Bible Society have borrowed from the Qur’an the name Iblis in their translations of the New Testament into Muhammadan languages, forgetting the fact that Devil was not in the time of Jesus “the bruised one,” but the very opposite: he was then the “Bruiser”!
    The truth is that no prophet, not even Jesus Christ, ever ventured to use the appellation “Iblis” for the fallen Archangel before the appearance of the last Prophet, Muhammad.
  Now let me briefly contemplate the fulfillment of this divine promise. There is a series of divine promises, often repeated, and prophetic allusions concerning a great prophet who, among many other things, would bruise the head of the Devil, whom Christ calls the “Liar” and the “Father” of the Jews (St. John viii). Elsewhere in the Apocalypse, the Devil is described as “the ancient Serpent.”
  The Holy Apostle of Allah bruised  the head of the Devil, by the utter destruction of his abominable cult, by complete uprooting of idolatry from all the lands where his ancestor Abraham had set his foot: the lands which were promised  to this very Muhammad in the person of Ishmael, long before Isaac was born! These lands included all the territories between Nile and the Great Euphrates (Gen. xv). Infact the Covenant between Allah and Abraham was made and sealed by the Circumcision of  Ishmael some thirteen years before the birth of Isaac (Gen. xvii). The only account of the Sacrifice of the “only son” of Abraham as reported in the book of Genesis (xxii), and the significant silence if the rest of the Old Testament – and moreover, the very mention of the tetrogramme MoRIaH which is the same in root and meaning as the Qur’anic MaRWaH (chap. Ii) – leave no room for doubt that the boy taken to Merwah was not Isaac, but Ishmael. The two adjacent hills in Mecca, called Safa (meaning, like “Sion,” a stone or rock), and Marwah (the same as Moriah, i.e. “the place where IaHWaH was seen”), were two ancient monuments where the Sacrifice of Ishmael was commemorated by the pagan Arabs and is still perpetuated by all Muslims.
   No Muslim ever denies that special blessings were also granted to Isaac, and that the land of Canaan was assigned to the people of Israel; but either that land or the royal “Scepter” and the gift of Prophecy (Gen. xlix. 10) would cease from Judah after the coming of Shiloh – a name which, if nor corrupted in its orthography, means exactly the popular epithet of Muhammad before his Apostleship, namely “Emin.” But most probably the last letter is not “hi” but “het” and then the correct form would be Shilohah, or Shiloah, meaning Rassul Allah! It is quite evident from the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 10) that Shiloh would put a stop to the Power and the Law of the Jewish people, and that he would belong to another nation. However, the truth is safeguarded by the history of the People of Israel, which shows their greatest kings, David and Solomon were never able to subdue and possess all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates; that the Jews during their two monarchies were rather idolaters than monotheists; and that they never purged the “Promised Land.” Including Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia (Gen. xv. 18-21) of idolatry.
    All the lands above mentioned were entirely cleansed and purged of idols, so they remain as an inheritance for the Muslim Unitarians, called by the Prophet Daniel (ch. Vii) “the Holy People of the Most High”!
  It is wonderful that this vision of Daniel (vii) is literally fulfilled in Muhammad, who destroyed the fourth Beast, which was the Roman Empire; that the eleventh “Horn” could be none but Constantine the Great; and that the “three centuries and a half” therein predicted correspond to the epoch between the Emperor and the later destruction of idolatry and the establishment of Islam in the Promised Land by Muhammad and his disciples. Any other interpretation is scarcely tenable.
  I am cognizant, of course, of the old Christian archaeology, depicting the skull of Adam and the figure of a serpent under the foot of the cross of Jesus! If the fable of the Crucifixion and all the mythological doctrines attached to it are to be persistently believed as truths, then the Churches and their innumerable sects must indefinitely wait for a second advent of the Christ of their imagination in order to bruise the head of the Serpent! The impartial reader should answer this question for himself: Both Christ and Muhammad found the world in general, and his own country in particular, dominated by the Devil and the practice of idolatry; which of the two, then rendered more service to the cause of the religion of the true and One Eternal Being, and the extermination of idols from the Promised Land? Did Jesus bruise the head of the Serpent? If you answer in the affirmative, then: Whose servant was Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem? Whose servants were the ten Roman Emperors called “ten horns” (Dan. Vii) who persecuted the early Christians? There were all pagans, and consequently the servants of the Devil! It must logically admitted, therefore, that Muhammad extirpated idolatry or the cult of the Devil once for all, and thus saved not only the Jews, but also the Christian inhabitants of the Promised Land from the persecutions of the pagans, as well as from the Trinitarians.
  Is not the Qur’an, then, absolutely justified in naming the Devil “Iblis,” or the “Bruised”?
The respected and learned author found the origins of word “Iblis” in idolatry or the cult of Devil being rooted out from the Promised Lands. I find it on the lines of what the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him, told in a certain Hadith.
As Hafiz Nuruddin al-Haithmi quotes, the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, said;
أَنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ قَدْ يَئِسَ أَنْ يُعْبَدَ فِي جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ 
“Certainly the Devil has despaired of being worshipped in the Arabian Peninsula.” (Majma’ al-Zawaid, Hadith 16609 and 16613 cf. Tabarani & Bazzar. Haithmi said the chain is Hasan)
In the translation of the Hadith above I used the word “Peninsula” for easy comprehension otherwise the Arabic word used is “Jazeera” which literally means “island.” As the classical understanding goes the “Jazeera” of Arab is surrounded by the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and towards the north by the Euphrates River (See Mu’jam al-Baldan of Yaqut al-Hamwi)
This definition includes all the lands included in the divine covenant.
The article first appeared in ‘The Islamic Review’ vol. XIV No. 10 pp. 391-395 October, 1926

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Hadith Compilation by the Companions of the Prophet

By Waqar 
Orientalists, Christians Missionaries and Hadith rejecting cultists often argue that Hadith compilation started in the 3rd century After Hijrah. This can be anything but certainly not the truth.
In the following lines I give some evidences for Hadith compilations by different companions of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, and their pupils.
Please note in this particular paper I am not going to discuss compilations made on the directives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him. Insha’Allah a separate paper will soon come out on it. For now let us consider the manuscripts and compilations made by companions themselves or their immediate students.
1- Abdullah bin ‘Amr’s Manuscript:
A well known companion of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, named ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As (d. 63 A.H.) had prepared a manuscript with narrations he directly listened from the Prophet. The manuscript is famous by the name, ‘Sahifa al-Sadiqah’
Mujahid said: I saw a manuscript with Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As so I asked about it. He said: “This is al-Sadiqa and in it is what I listened to from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, in it (means narrations therein) there is no step between myself and the Prophet.” (Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra Darul Sader ed. 2/373)
Abu Rashid al-Hurani said: I went to ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As and I said to him: “Narrate to me what you listened from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him.” He handed me over a manuscript and said: “This is what I wrote from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him …”(Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 6851. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaut authenticated it)
This was later passed on to his great grandson ‘Amr bin Shu’aib (d. 118 A.H.)
Although the book is not extant today, perhaps still we can  find out the narrations in it.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr has quoted that Yahya bin Ma’in said: “When ‘Amr bin Shu’aib narrates from his grandfather through his father it is from (that) book.” (Tahzib al-Tahzib 8/49)
With a computer program I searched for this chain in just 20 well known Hadith compilations and found nearly 850 results.
2- Manuscript of ‘Ali:
Sayyidina ‘Ali (d. 40 A.H.), may Allah be pleased with him, also had a manuscript of Hadith with him.
‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “We have not written anything from the Prophet except the Qur’an and what is in this manuscript …” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3179)
Various narrations throw light on the contents of this manuscript. It had injunctions on, “Blood-money, Qasas, releasing of captives.” (cf. Bukhari, Hadith 111), “Sanctity of Madina” (cf. Bukhari, Hadith 3179) etc. And ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, used to keep it tied with the scabbard of his sword (cf. Sahih Muslim)
3- Compilations of narrations of Abu Huraira:
Al-Hassan bin ‘Amr said: I mentioned a Hadith to Abu Huraira which he did not acknowledge. I said, “Verily I have listened to it from you.” He said, “If you got it from me then it must be written with me.” He held my hand and took me to his home and we saw many books of Hadith of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, then we found the Hadith. So he said, “Indeed I told you if I narrated it to you then it is written with me.” (Jami’ Bayan al-‘ilm, Hadith 422)
One may say this Hadith contradicts the narration from Sahih Bukhari in which Abu Huraira himself said that he did not write the Ahadith. But this is not a problem for it appears Abu Huraira did not record the Ahadith in written form during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, and initial years of Khilafa but later he started writing them.
As per the narration recorded by Ibn Sa’d, Abdul ‘Aziz bin Marwan (d. 80 A.H.), the father of ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz, wrote to Kathir bin Murrah al-Hadharmi:
“At Hims you have met seventy of the companions of Messenger of Allah who fought at Badr … Write to me what you have heard of the Ahadith of the Messenger of Allah from his companions, except those of Abu Huraira for they are with us.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra 7/448 Entry: Kathir bin Murrah)
This proves Abdul Aziz bin Marwan had the Ahadith of Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him, in written form with him. And it further proves that efforts were being made to put the Ahadith in writing during the time of the companions for certainly many companions lived even after 80 A.H. when Abdul Aziz died. Isn’t it much before the third century After Hijrah?
4- Manuscript of Anas bin Malik:
Anas bin Malik (d. 92 A.H.) had his own manuscript of Hadith which he copied from the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him:
Ma’bad bin Hilal says: When many of us were with Anas bin Malik he came to us with a manuscript saying, “I heard this from the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and so I wrote it and presented it unto him.” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 6452)
This shows companions started making private Hadith collections right during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him.
5- Books of Ibn ‘Abbas:
Another well known companion Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68 A.H.), may Allah be pleased with him, had multiple treatises:
Musa bin ‘Uqbah said: “Karib bin Abi Muslim put in front of us a camel load or equal to a camel load of books of Ibn ‘Abbas.” (Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra 5/293)
6- Manuscript of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud:
Another great companion, Abdullah bin Mas’ud (d. 32 A.H.), may Allah be pleased with him, also had his own manuscript.
M’an said: ‘Abdul Rahman bin ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud came to me with a book and swore, “Verily my father wrote it with his own hand.” (Jami’ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadhlihi, Hadith 399)
7- Manuscript of Samurah bin Jundub:
Another famous companion, Samurah bin Jundub (d. 58 A.H.), may Allah be pleased with him, also had his collection of Hadith:
Ibn Hajr writes:
“Suleman bin Samurah bin Jundub transmitted a large manuscript from his father.” (Tahzib al-Tahzib 4/198)
8- Manuscript of Jabir bin Abdullah:
Jabir bin Abdullah (d. circa 70 A.H.) is also reported to have made a manuscript of Hadith with narrations on Hajj.
Consider the following narration from one of his top students.
“Mujahid narrated from the manuscript of Jabir.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra 5/467)
9- Compilation of Bashir bin Nahik:
A student of Abu Huraira, Bashir bin Nahik also compiled the Ahadith he learnt from Abu Huraira:
Bashir bin Nahik said: I used to write whatever I learnt from Abu Huraira. Then as I intended to part from him I came to him with the book and read it to him and asked, “This is what I heard from you?” Abu Huraira said, “Yes.” (Sunan Darmi, Hadith 494. Shaykh Hussain Salim Asad graded the report as Sahih)
10- Mauscript of Hammam bin Munabbih:
Another student of Abu Huraira, Hammam bin Munabbih (d. 132 A.H.) made a collection of the Ahadith he learnt from Abu Huraira. All praise be to Allah, it is extant to this day. Dr. Hamiddulah, an erudite scholar of recent times, found two manuscripts of it in Berlin and Damascus and published it. It has 138 Ahadith. Imam Ahmad has quoted all these narrations in his Musnad. Sometimes back I made a little research on the first 20 narrations of this manuscript and compared them with Musnad Ahmad. My findings are given Here.
All these facts refutes the lie about Hadith writing being a phenomenon originating more than 200 years after the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him.
May Allah guide all to true Islam!
Indeed Allah knows the best!

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Former Christian Jamal Zarabozo finds Quran Fascinating

A nice talk about the Quran and why this former Christian found it so fascinating that he ended up becoming
a Muslim (one who submitted himself to God Almighty Almone) to learn more visit and to find out more
on Islam you can also call 877-why-Islam please tell your friends about the new show TheDeenShow

The lost tomb of the cruscified man ( not jesus christ ) was found.

Israeli construction workers building an apartment complex in Jerusalem's East Talpiot district first uncovered 10 of the 2,000-year-old ossuaries - or limestone coffins - in a tomb in March 1980.

Archaeologists said that the burial cave was probably that of a Jewish family with similar names to that of Jesus and his family .

what does islam say about Jesus and cruscifiction .

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Shaikh Essam Tawfik's New Website Coming Soon!

Be inspired, be refreshed, renew your faith.
Coming soon!

CNN: Hebah Ahmed, MuslimMatters Blogger, Debates Mona Eltahawy over French Niqab (Burka) Ban

MuslimMatters blogger, Hebah Ahmed, went head to head with prominent commentator Mona Eltahawy on the issue of the face-veil (niqab) ban in France on CNN. Even while getting far less speaking time, Hebah pretty much pwned (excuse the lingo) Mona. Hebah’s confident and composed appearance surely won the day against a somewhat shrill Mona. This happens when you argue reason (Hebah) against pure emotion (Mona). There are many lessons that all Muslims, regardless of view on niqab, can learn from Hebah’s TV appearance: composure, succinctness, drawing out themes and buzz-words that average audience will latch onto, etc. Also, you can’t discount the importance of sounding more American than the other (yes that includes accent)! It was refreshing to watch a Muslim woman making her own case for what she believes (or not), instead of some talking-head.

Also, we must appreciate the CNN moderator Spitzer for being fair and balanced, making the playing field much more even for the participants.


Thursday, April 14, 2011

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Discussed: Variant Readings within the Bible and the Quran


by Yahya Snow

Some internet Christian apologists have been shifting the goal posts in their conspiratorial attempts to attack Caliph Uthman’s control of the Quranic text as well as the variant readings of the Quran.

As usual, our Christian counterparts operate an unwitting double standard due to their ignorance of Old Testament (as well as New Testament) textual criticism as well as Quranic preservation

Variant readings in the Gospels

Previously, we have seen the New Testament (Gospel) variants arose due to dishonest scribes or incompetent scribes – so much so that our Christian friends, now, do not know which variants represent the original wording of the Gospel writers and which were due to scribal errors/forgeries.Christian apologists are now beginning to admit this difficult situation [1]

Christians misrepresent the Dead Sea Scrolls

At times, our Christian friends do misrepresent the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a wholesale confirmation of the Old Testament text – it is not!

Geza Vermes writes:

The Dead Sea finds partly confirm and partly question the reliability of the wording of the Bible handed down by Jewish tradition. On the one hand, as was shown in chapter VI, the Qumran Scripture is substantially identical with that passed on by the synagogue from the time of Jesus to the present age. [2]

Note: Vermes is not confirming the Dead Sea finds corroborate entirely with the present day OT (substantially). More importantly, he is not denying any OT corruptions prior to the first/second century CE either. Jeremiah 8:8 gives us an indication of the depth of corruption in the earlier days of the OT:

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? [NIV, Jeremiah 8:]

Variant Readings in the Old Testament

Geza Vermes confirms “the Dead Sea Scrolls furnish documentary proof of what has been surmised before, namely that, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, unity was not achieved and different forms of the Hebrew text coexisted, showing verbal and stylistic variations, additions, omissions and changes in the order of the textual arrangement.” [2]

Vermes does suggest the OT variants may not be due to corruptions:

Before the Qumran discoveries, we presumed the Samaritan Bible (restricted to the five books of the Law of Moses), the form of the Hebrew Bible from which the ancient Greek version, known as the Septuagint, was translated, and the type of the text that was to evolve into the traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew Old Testament, existed side by side in different social groups.

Qumran has corroborated this theory and has demonstrated the diversity could obtain in one and the same groups. This phenomenon implies that the variant readings in the biblical text do not necessarily represent corruptions or deliberate alterations, but can just as well, if not better, echo earlier discrete written traditions. [2]

Of course, this theory is more than a little sketchy – partly due to there being no tradition informing us of such being the case as well as to the limitations of Vermes’ conjecture-based argument.

Nevertheless, it is food for thought for our Christian and Jewish friends. Do they want to faith-shatteringly admit the Old Testament variants are proof of corruptions or will they run with the idea of the variants echoing “earlier discrete written traditions”?

I would imagine they would prefer the latter – otherwise they will have to admit the Old Testament’s unreliability is on par with the New Testament.

Variant Readings in the Quran

The variant readings of the Quran are not due to scribal errors or forgeries – unlike the New Testament. The variants of the Quran are meant to exist as supporting tradition teaches us this – unlike the Old Testament.

The hadith reports tell us that the Quran was actually revealed in seven modes (al-ahruf al sab’a). This has been narrated by more than ten of the Prophet’s companions, among them Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas and others [3].

Dr M.M. Al Azami counts the companions who have narrated hadiths confirming the Quran was revealed in seven dialects as over twenty [4] So, these variants were known to exist during the lifetime of the Prophet and did not arise due to scribal errors.

In fact, the very nature of the variant Quranic readings being sanctioned by the Prophet [see Bukhari VI, No. 513] has led the renowned authority, Dr M. M. Al-Azami, to favour the word “multiple” reading rather than “variant” reading:

…the Quran’s case differs distinctly because the Prophet Muhammad, Allah’s sole vicegerent for the wahy’s reception and transmission, himself taught certain verses in multiple ways. There is no principle of doubt here, no fog or confusion, and the word ‘variant’ fails to convey thisMultiple is a far more accurate description….” [4]

As you can notice, the Quranic variants (multiple readings) are indeed sanctioned and meant to have existed whilst the variants of the NT and OT are unsanctioned and should not exist. We urge our Christian apologist friends to understand these points of difference and teach them to their respective Christian congregations – let the truth prevail.


Our Christian apologist friends attempt to make a big conspiratorial deal out Uthman’s control and preparation of a standard copy of the Quranic text but they fail to recognise the inconsistency (as well as the holes in their knowledge) they are operating from as the rabbis controlled the OT text and even unified it.

Unity, produced by Jewish religious authority, was usually sought in times of crisis, and was achieved by the selection of one of the existing text forms and the simultaneous rejection of all other competing versions. Such a deliberate unification is assumed to have been part of the general restructuring of Judaism by the rabbis during the years following the catastrophe of 70 CE, which entailed the loss of the temple and the supreme council of the Sanhedrin as well as the replacement of the aristocratic high priestly leadership of Jewry by rabbis largely of plebeian origin. [2]

Sadly our Christian apologist friends are either unaware of the unification of the OT text and of the strict control the rabbis had over the text or are knowingly operating an inconsistent standard in their attempts to throw conspiratorial mud at the Uthmanic control of the Quranic text – a control which was agreed upon by all the companions of the Prophet.


Simply put, the New Testament variants are the most problematic; not only due to them being borne out of scribal dishonesty and negligence but because the Christian is unable to recognise the forgeries/scribal errors within the text. The text was not controlled and those who were tasked with the preservation of the Gospel accounts never met Jesus.

In addition there could well be future Dr Tischendorf style (Codex Sinaiticus) finds, where whole passages within the Gospels were discovered to be forgeries. Prior to this 19th century find our Christian friends believed those passages to be inspired – now we know they were forgeries [5]. It says something about the Christian belief in the Holy Spirit dwelling within Christians; did the Christians before the 19th century not have the Holy Spirit as they believed what we now know as forgeries to be words inspired by God. Food for thought…

The Old Testament was strictly controlled by the Jewish authorities and does contain variants. The accusations of these variants arising from scribal forgeries/errors are indeed somewhat tempered by Geza Vermes’ theorising so the criticism is less vocal.

Those who “preserved” and “selected” OT texts never met Moses or any of the Prophets. “what constitutes the bible is nowhere strictly defined in the ancient literary sources of Judaism. It was the privilege of the successive religious authorities (Sadducee chief priests, Pharisee leaders and rabbis) to determine the list of books [6]

The Quran has variants – Muslims have known this whilst the Quran was being revealed as the Prophet taught this. The Quran was strictly controlled by authorities, like the Old Testament. However, unlike the OT and NT, the controlling authorities of the Quran were indeed the companions of the Prophet. The statement of the fourth Caliph, Ali (ra), confirms all were in agreement with Uthman’s actions to control the transmission of the Text. [7]

Sadly, Christian apologists overlook these points and inconsistently attempt to present conspiracy theories as to the Uthmanic control of the Quran. The inconsistency comes into play as the OT was “preserved” in a “controlled” environment too. The irony comes into play as the nature of the variants (proven forgeries and errors) within the NT suggests the uncontrolled mode of its “preservation” was disastrous and a controlled mode (which they desperately criticise via conspiracy theories) is superior!

The written text of the Quran was used as an aid for the memory and teaching purposes, thus the Quran was preserved via two modes in a controlled fashion – oral and written – by numerous people who met the Prophet.

May God send his peace and blessings upon all the Prophets referred to above. Ameen

Further reading:

Sexism: A reason to change the Bible?


[1] Debate Review – Does the bible Misquote Jesus (James White – Bart Ehrman)

[2] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p214

[3] Ulum Al Quran, Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation, 2003, p112

[4] The History of The Quranic Text from Revelation to Compilation - A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, M.M.Al-Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p154

[5] Dr Von Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus (from Saint Catherine’s monastery), this codex does NOT contain the last 12 verses in the gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) as well as John 7:53-8:11 amongst other discrepancies. These are believed to be forgeries. Sadder still, Christians, prior to this find believed those words to be faithful to the New Testament.

[6] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p99

[7] Ibn Abi Dawud, al Masahif, p22; see also pp 12, 23 (sourced from Sheikh Al Azami, The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p94

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Jauniyya- the woman who sought refuge from the Prophet

By Waqar Cheema
Ali Sina uses a certain narration from Sahih Bukhari to misguide people about the noble character of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him.
The narration goes as;
“Narrated Abu Usaid: We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her.
When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, "Give me yourself." She said, "Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family." Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses.” (Sahih Bukhari, Book of Divorce, Hadith 5255)
There are certain wrong ideas that get into one’s mind as he reads this rather ‘incomplete’ narration and that too when manipulated by professional missionary liars. I call this incomplete for it does not give all the relevant details of the issue at hand. But Alhamdulillah the vast Hadith treasure saves the rest elsewhere. In the following lines I quote the narrations giving the whole story.
The Complete Story:
“Nu’man bin Abi Jaun al-Kindi embraced Islam and came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah be pleased with him, and said; ‘Shall I not marry you to the most beautiful widow in Arabia? She was married to the son of his uncle who has now died. She is widowed, is inclined towards you and wants to marry you. So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, married her giving five hundred dirhams of dower. He (Nu’man) said, ‘Please do not reduce her dower.’ The Messenger of Allah replied, ‘I haven’t set up dower of any of my wives or daughters more than this.’ Nu’man said, ‘In your example is a good model. ’ He (further) said, “O Messenger of Allah send to me one who brings to you your wife, I will accompany him and send back your wife with him.’ So the Messenger of Allah sent Abu Usaid al-Sa’di with him … Abu Usaid says, ‘I stayed with them for three days, then I bore her on the camel with covering in a sedan and brought her to Medina and made her to stay with Bani Sa’da. Women of the tribe came to her and welcomed her and as they left they made a mention of her beauty. And the news of her arrival spread in the whole of Medina.’ Abu Usaid said, ‘I turned to the Prophet, may Allah bless him while he was with Banu ‘Amr bin ‘Awf and informed him of her arrival. She was the most beautiful amongst women, so when the women (of Medina) learnt of her beauty they came unto her. One of them said to her, ‘You are a queen, if you wish to be closer to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, then say to him when he comes to you, ‘I seek refuge from you’, (this way) you will become adorable to him and he will be much inclined to you.’“ (Tabaqat al-Kubra 8/114)
Yet another narration quoted by Ibn Sa’d says it all;
“al-Jauniyya sought refuge from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, for she was told this word will make her adorable to the Prophet. No one other woman sought refuge from him. This was a deception to her because of her beauty. When those who made her to say this were mentioned to the Messenger of Allah he said, ‘They are like the women of Yusuf and their treachery is great.’” (Tabaqat al-Kubra 8/114)
Hafiz Ibn Hajr has also quoted these narrations in Fath al-Bari to expound this Hadith.
The details above prove;
1- She was married to the Prophet, may Allah bless him
2- Her own father made the arrangement for the marriage.
3- The Prophet, may Allah bless him, was told that she herself was inclined towards him and wanted to marry him.
4- Apparently the Prophet, may Allah bless him, married her for through this relation he hoped to strengthen his relations with an important tribe.
5- She did not hate the Prophet, may Allah bless him. Infact she loved him much and in that she was deceived by a certain woman; reason being the natural jealousy among womankind.
6- The Prophet, may Allah bless him, sent her back to her family before consummation giving her two dresses.
7- This infact refutes the lies that Prophet, may Allah bless him, was taken in by some passion for women as he sent her back even though he could have kept her with him.
8- Although the narration of Bukhari does not give the complete details but the fact that al-Bukhari put this narration in the Book of Divorce testifies that he knew the whole context but brought the narration giving only the part relevant to what he aimed to deduce.
9- As to the Prophet’s, may Allah bless him, words; “Give me yourself” Hafiz Ibn Hajr explains;
“His words, ‘Give me yourself’ were to put her at ease and to sway her heart.”
It was neither a marriage proposal nor a request to get married without dower. Ibn Hajr continues;
"And this is supported by the narration of Ibn Sa'd that he had agreed with her father on the amount of her dower and her father had told him, 'She has liking for you and wants to marry you.'” (Fath al-Bari 9/360)
10- And coming to the words of the woman; "Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?"
This is well explained by Hafiz Ibn Hajr. He quotes Ibn al-Munir;
“This is what remained with her of ignorance and al-sauqa [the actual Arabic word translated above as ‘ordinary man’] to them refers to anyone other than a King and it appeared strange to her that a queen should marry someone who is not a King. The Prophet, may Allah bless him, could choose to become a King Prophet but he choose a slave Prophet to show his humility to his Lord. And the Prophet, may Allah bless him, did not take exception to her words and excused her as she just came from ignorance [and had not undergone Islamic culturing].” (Fath al-Bari 9/358)
She was the daughter of the chief of the tribe who had just entered Islam. Knowing that Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, was the leader of the Muslims she must have thought of him living as Kings. But once she arrived in Medina she learned how the Prophet, may Allah bless him, lived n a simple austere manner which was no way the practice of tribal chiefs let alone kings. This background helps understand her comment. The Prophet, may Allah bless him, overlooked it as she had no knowledge of Islamic ideals.
The above details certainly kill the arguments of slanderers.
Indeed Allah knows the best!

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Islamophobes and Taqiyya...

There is a constant stream of Islamophobes (haters) carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”)

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers)  and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”.

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.” [1]

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).” [2]

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal.

Sadly, Islamophobes and Christian missionaries – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonise Muslims – have misapplied this term in their exaggerated claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death” [1]

So, this make a mockery of the Islamophobes’ general suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.” [2]

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution!

For further clarity, we are not talking about general, everyday fibs here, thus the ethical question of dishonesty is bypassed:

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.” [1]

Sadly, our Islamophobic counterparts attempt to convince the gullible that takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) allows Muslims to lie (or conceal) about aspects of their faith (Islam) as well as lie in general.

Recently, Islamophobes were accusing Senator Keith Ellison of taqiyyah. Try learning what taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is before accusing folk of it, you may just look less silly if you take this advice on board!!!

Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)

A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar B. Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, p) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam. [1] [3]

The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire. [3]

“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities [3]

Ammar bin Yasir told Prophet Muhammad (p) of what he was forced to say.

“The Prophet (p) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.” [3]

So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

If Jesus (p) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!

Taqiyyah and the Shi’ites (Shia)

"It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims. "[2]

Obviously, if these Shi’ites felt they would have been persecuted for publicly announcing their shia beliefs, one can understand why they concealed (used taqiyya) their beliefs.

Is taqiyyah allowed in the Quran?

Our Islamophobic friends jump up and down in joy whilst proclaiming taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya) is allowed in the Quran. Let’s analyse (via scholarship) the two Verses they cite.

Quran 16:106 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

The reason for this verse is unanimously said to have been the case of Ammar b. Yasir, whose conscience was set at rest by this revelation when he was worried about his forced worshipping of idols and objurgation of the Prophet. [1]

The story of Ammar bin Yassir is relayed earlier in the article (see above).

Tabari says on Sura 16:106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323 sqq.24.122): If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls him on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe [1]

The Quran’s (16:106) allowance of uttering disbelief whilst under extreme force is hardly justification for the outrageous smears the Islamophobes propagate.

Quran 3:28 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 3:28]

This Verse instructs Muslims to not take the unbelievers as patrons over the believers but does allow for this in the case of fear. Tuqatan is used here (a verbal noun of taqiyyah). Tafsir Jalalayn explains:

“unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” [Tafsir Jalalayn – 3:28]

It is hardly something Islamophobes can latch onto as evidence for their demonization of Muslims as this Verse allows concealment (taqiyyah, taqiyya, takiya) in the case of fear (i.e. to avoid persecution). We are essentially back to where we started as initially stated on taqiyyah:

Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury. [1]

Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”). [2]

Taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgement

Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's companion, al-Hassan, who said, "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."

Islamophobes make a big deal out of Muslims believing taqiyya (taqiyyah, takiya) is acceptable to this very day and beyond. So what? There is NO issue here whatsoever.

Think about it, if, in the future, an extreme Christian/Hindu/Islamophobe put a gun to a Muslim’s head and asked him to denounce Islam in order to preserve his life would you really have qualms in the fact the Muslim would be allowed (according to Islam) to do so in order to protect his life?

Abraham (p) and taqiyyah

In the Biblical account of Abraham, Sarah and Pharaoh we notice Abraham (and Sarah) concealed the fact Sarah was his wife as he feared death:

When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live.
Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.” [Genesis 12:12-13 NIV]

Where are the Christian Islamophobes to demonise Abraham, Sarah and the Bible? Nowhere!

Why are people not exaggerating this to mean the Bible allows Jews and Christians to lie to non-believers just as they do against Muslims in the case of taqiyyah? The answer is hypocrisy as Islamophobes work an anti-Muslim agenda assiduously whilst refraining from using the same absurd modes of exaggeration/deception against Christians and Jews!

The “Apostle” Paul and taqiyyah?

Paul, in Corinthians 19, was using a strange tactic to convert people. So strictly speaking, Paul did not practice taqiyya as he was not under threat of harm and his “concealment” was in the avenue of evangelism rather than that of self-protection. Paul was concealing himself as a Jew (to convert Jews), as a gentile (to convert gentiles) and as the weak (to convert the weak).

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. [Corinthians 9:19-22, NIV]

Of course, Christian apologists would extend explanation towards Paul’s strange actions in order to exonerate him of the allegation of deception but you can see why there is a potential cause for concern here – especially in the light of the numerous deceptive episodes involving Christian missionaries ever since Paul’s strange actions.

Why are our Christian Islamophobes not concluding Paul’s actions to mean all Christians can lie whilst evangelising folk?

I have caught Christian missionaries, on numerous occasions, lying to convert folk to Christianity. If you want to exegete this New Testament account to mean Christians are allowed to use deception whilst evangelising you will have a stronger case than that of the Islamophobes’ exaggerations on Muslim allowance of taqiyyah (concealment due to fear).

Lying about the Prophet Muhammad (p)

Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (p). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12) [4]

In fact, presenting misinformation about the Prophet (p) was considered an extreme offense amongst early Muslim communities:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his [Prophet Muhammad’s] description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. [5]

So much for the Islamophobes claims of “Muslims using taqiyyah” regarding Prophet Muhammad (p).


Taqiyyah (taqiya, takiya) is not something to be writing home about. To use this practice to brandish Muslims as untrustworthy (or to demonise them) is unscholarly and unjust.

If you do encounter an anti-Muslim bigot on the internet crying “taqiyya” (there are plenty about), please do send him/her away educated.

There are a number of Islamophobes who do make cash and political inroads out of demonising Muslims with all this exaggeration concerning taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) amongst other absurd claims concerning Muslims. These folk do influence other folk on the internet to propagate these misconceptions – thus it is our job to present the truth to counter the many anti-Muslims deceptions out there.

"During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell



[1] Article by R. Strothmann, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Fourth impression, 1995, E.J. Brill Leiden. New York. Koln p. 561 - 562

[2] The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, p450-451.

[3] Men and Women around the Messenger, Sa’d Yusuf Abu ‘Aziz, Translated by Suleman Fulani, Darussalam, 2009, p. 286-287

[4] Reliance of the Traveller, Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications, 2008, r8.0, p 747

[5] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004, p. 387

The Argument for Islam - Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Part of the debate: Islam or Atheism? With Hamza Andreas Tzortzis & the president of American Atheists.

Watch the full debate:

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a convert to Islam, is an international lecturer, public speaker & author. He is particularly interested in Islam, philosophy and politics. He has debated prominent academics & intellectuals.

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis is an international public speaker on Islam. He is a writer with articles, essays and commentaries on political philosophy, the philosophy of religion and society. Hamza is an intellectual activist actively engaging on issues pertaining to religion, social cohesion and politics. Hamza is also a researcher with a recent publication on non-Muslim perceptions on Islam and Muslims.

Hamza regularly participates in debates and symposiums with leading intellectuals, public speakers and academics on topics concerning western and Islamic philosophy, politics and current affairs. For example he participated in a debate with the president of American Atheists, Dr. Ed Buckner on Islam or Atheism?, he also debated the editor of the Philosophy Now magazine Rick Lewis, entitled God: Delusion or Truth? and he participated in a debate with the best selling author, philosophy lecturer and chair of the British Humanist Association's Philosophers Group Peter Cave on Can We Live Better Lives Without Religion? More recently Hamza debated the highly acclaimed professor, Simon Blackburn, who is one of the leading atheist and humanist academics in the world. The debate was held in the historic Cambridge University debating chambers.

Hamza regularly appears in the media explaining and demystifying Islam and providing unique perspectives on current affairs. He has appeared on the BBC, BBC Arabic, BBC Radio 4, BBC Asian Network, Press TV, Islam Channel, Nile TV, Ummah TV, Iqra TV, TV3 (Malaysia) and National Public Radio of America.

Hamza lectures all around the world on topics related to Islam, philosophy and politics. He is a regular speaker at universities across the UK and he is one of the main initiators of the contemporary emergence of Muslim public speakers using Islamic and Western philosophy to shed light on Islam and demystify its way of life.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

CNN Unwelcome: Muslims Next Door Soledad O'Brien

This is amazing. What can someone say other than Hypocrisy. These people claim to be loving, they claim to be followers of Jesus, they claim to love and love and love. They voted for their leaders, they have upheld their constitution, but when push comes to shove, hypocrisy comes out.

Monday, April 4, 2011

Islam In Brief - By Fadel Soliman

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Sam Shamoun's Lowly Character

I am only posting this video to show how low debates can get when people get such low as Sam does.
Do you understand why I am not very interested in debating him?

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Sam Shamoun getting lower and lower

Friday, April 1, 2011

From Hinduism to Islam (Urdu)

Click and Order Today

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