Refuting The lies about Muhammad (PBUH)
An answer to the Robert Spencer book “The truth about Muhammad”
Preface
Whoever you are, I am inviting you to tap into your common sense and to be just fair, as simple as that. Fairness is crucial, because the task in hand is if Robert Spencer is truthful, objective, unbiased or totally the opposite.
If I have 100 dollars in cash and 40 in debts, and someone asked about my financial position, and he answers “He owes 40 dollars” then he certainly mislead you even though he has stated a fact.
However, if I owe not one penny and someone claims repeatedly that I have nothing but debts, then our subject case gets totally in the absurdity mode. I don’t want to ruin your conclusions, but to sum up Robert Spencer claims in one simple analogy.
It would be like “Shaquille O'Neal is such a poor, short, white guy!”
In a religion where the prophet (PBUH) made the condition for believers to enter paradise is to “Spread peace amongst your selves”, our author with laughable logic, statements conjured up out of thin air, and weird, questionable sources, can see nothing but hatred and violence.
Let’s first agree to how we would evaluate things.
If the author would accuse any one of a crime or claim that any entity or ideology at fault, then we would request that if others do the same thing, it would be considered a crime or something wrong, to say the least, just the same. Simply have the same rule applied fairly to all.
Throughout his book, the author relentlessly divides humanity into an east and west. And while any bit of logic dictates that there is no monopoly on human decency and advancement by any race, religion, or nation on earth, yet, you will constantly get the notion that the east – represented by Islam and Muslims - in the eye of the author – is guilty till never proven innocent, to the limit that sometimes he makes the east guilty of incidents that were historically mainly committed in what he collectively calls “the west”. So be aware and beware.
Throughout the book Mr. Spencer uses an old technique that is very effective sometimes with simple minded, half ignorant people. It is simply stating few undeniable or agreed upon facts, then out of nowhere he slips you an absurd assumption that has no relation to fact, logic or even what he was talking about earlier, then quickly he moves to the next paragraph!
This is the street, this is a building, this is a car, and this is a blue flying elephant!
You will be surprised to read in Mr. Spencer’s book some baffling terminologies. Two examples; the first is whenever it is about Islamic, Arabic, or middle eastern documented and authentic history, the author will never call it history, rather he calls it “tradition”! So the history of Islam can only be what the Europeans or non Muslims accept, who then may know more about Islam through time machines, telepathy or outright Vodo than Muslims know about their own selves! Muslims who lived the events by the minute and quoted Prophet Muhammad’s quotations with astounding accuracy, in the eyes of the author, could never been trusted with their own history, for it has to be the account of somebody else who agrees with what the author wants it to be, or it is all old Myths that over time became “tradition”!
The second example is certain categorizations of Muslims with expressions manufactured buy some in the western media that has no translation or even comparison in the Arabic language or in Islam! A glaring example is “Jihadist”, which should be the translation of an Arabic word pronounced “ Jihady”, only there is no such a word, or even a meaning in either Arabic or Islam. A word you would read over a hundred times in his book. Jihadist! A made up word ? How?
What is Jihad in Islam then?
Jihad in Islam is almost equivalent to military draft in America. When the Muslim nation is under attack, or the Muslim population is oppressed, in danger, or people are prohibited from receiving the message of God so they don’t have the freedom to decide for themselves, it becomes a religious obligation to all able to fight men in the nation to join the Army to defend the nation or defeat oppression. What did I just say? Is there is such a thing that an American man be called “Drafty”, describing his ability to be drafted to the army? No. Guess what? The same applies in Arabic and Islam.
Historical facts:
1- Muhammad (PBUH) never ordered, allowed or even persuaded any of his companions or any Muslim to commit an individual act of assassination or uncalled for violence against any one or any group. In all the battles that the prophet fought, an offering of peace was giving, ample time before battle, and when it is rejected, the prophet and his army would fight men to men- ahead of anyone else, the Prophet being in the front line of battle sacrificing himself for God and the righteous cause of stopping oppression - face to face and in broad daylight.
In the Quran – Al Nissa 4-[84] “Then fight (Muhammad) in the Cause of Allah, you are not tasked except for yourself, and incite the believers to fight along with you, so it may be that Allah will stop the evil might of the infidels. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing”
2- No call for Jihad or fighting was ever declared by any individual or Muslim subgroup at the time of the prophet or even under his approval. Jihad as per the prophet of Islam and per God doctrine in the Quran is a call to the entire nation by the leader of the Muslim nation to a one army.
In the Quran Al- Baqara 2-[190] “And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits. Truly, Allah does not like the transgressors”
3- Islamic law is the collective orders of the prophet (PBUH) and God’s orders in the Quran. In matters that are not clearly covered by both sources, knowledgeable Muslim scholars are urged to make “Ijtihad” or exerting efforts to make comparisons to the original rulings on clear matters and drive a ruling that is as close as possible to the main objectives of Islamic laws, which are; Protecting life, properties, religion, lineage (inheritance rights) and knowledge.
Did anyone or any Muslim group ever violate the rule of Jihad and use it as an excuse to commit violence? Of course. Why? Because, people will always break the rules and commit crimes. Don’t humans do that anywhere anyhow mostly for made up excuses? Is it a crime in Islam? Yes. Why? Please refer back to No 1, 2, and 3.
In the same example you will constantly see that the author clearly supports real fascism propaganda doctrines, like “watch out they live amongst us”, pre emptive strikes, oppressing people for an ideology or identity that an authority may not like, or racial, ethnic, religious profiling and so on, at the same time he is accusing Muslims, or an Islamic faction of his imagination of potentially wanting to do the same when they take over the west!
So is it that a brand of fascism is better than the other, or is it that the author and the ideology that he represents are desperately trying to terrify us with a scare crow that can only be seen in their own mirrors.
ACCORDING TO ISLAM:
Islam means to surrender all matters to the one and only mighty God (Allah).
Islam is the religion of Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus and all the prophets and messenger of the one mighty God.
You are not a Muslim if you don’t believe in all God’s prophets.
Muhammad (PBUH)., who is a descendant of Ismail son of Abraham, is the last prophet of God (Allah) who brought the religion completed and the word of God unaltered, as the last prophet of God to mankind and the world.
The Quran is the book of God that contains the text and word of God that was “truly” given – to the letter - to all prophets of God since Adam, Abraham and all the way to Muhammad(PBU all of them).
Quran is the prophet-hood miracle of Muhammad (PBUH).
In the Quran the word Muhammad (PBUH) is mentioned 4 times.
The word Eiessa (Jesus) (PBUH) is mentioned 25 times
The word Moses (PBUH) is mentioned 131 times.
Pictures or illustrations of Muhammad and his first followers are forbidden, only following the message of God to be praised.
There are no holy men or high priests in Islam, only scholars respected for their knowledge of the book of God, tradition of prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and Islamic law. Such knowledge is available to any Muslim.
There are no middlemen between Muslims and God.
Jesus is a prophet of God created by a word of God and from
his soul. Virgin Mary is the greatest woman ever.
The biggest sin of Islam is associating a partner with God.
The five pillars of Islam are:
*To certify that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad(PBUH) is his worshipper and messenger.
*Praying five times a day.
*Paying charity (zakah) to the poor, which is 2.5% annually
of unspent assets.
*Fasting daily for the holy month of Ramadan.
*Pilgrimage to Mecca once in your life if you are physically and financially sound.
People were created to worship God, in everything they do.
Life is a test where following the word of God and Islamic law provides dignifying, safe, prosperous life, while preparing for the eternal after life, where on Judgment day if one’s virtuous deeds outweigh his sins he enters Heaven, and if vice versa, he will enter Hell fire.
Before Judgment day Jesus will descend from Heaven,
Kill the anti Christ, spread peace till God inherits the earth and what’s on it.
Chapter One
In answer to “Why a biography of Muhammad is relevant today”
On Page One:
The author wrote “Islamic law, (which includes death penalty for Christian converts)”
First of all Christians were an absolute minority in Arabia at the time of the Prophet (PBUH). All notions that Islam was there to appease Christians, attack Christians or mainly in any law specifically target Christians, is just not true, for, tolerance is the overriding principal of Islamic law in dealing with non- Muslims, and again, Christians were an absolute minority in Arabia. Islamic Law states for anyone who accepts Islam that after becoming a Muslim converting back to atheism is punishable by death, and before jumping to conclusions, this should have been a great deterrent for any non- Muslim to even consider entering Islam. Simply why gamble? Yet as it always was and – God willing - will always be; the fastest and exponentially growing religion in history is Islam.
The author tries to constantly make it a Muslim VS. Christian case to imply falsely that anything Muslim is automatically and violently anti Christianity, which is not only wrong but absolutely opposite to the truth.
Historical facts:
1) The first scholar of any religion to identify Prophet Muhammad as a Prophet of God ( Allah), was the Christian scholar Warqa Ibn Nawfal who was a member of khadija’s (the prophet (PBUH)’s wife) family.
2) Under the author’s own Chronology on page (XI) and on the year 615, he wrote “Friction with the Quraysh causes Muslims to leave Arabia for Abyssinia”. The author fails to mention that of all places to flee to from the oppression of the Meccans, Muhammad (PBUH) had ordered his followers to go there for it was ruled by “A righteous Christian king “.
3) For those who do not know that Islamic law never mandated killing Christian converts or even any other converts for their religion, specific race, gender or ethnic background, let us examine the following:
If being a Muslim means automatically that you are anti Christian, how is it then that Islam is the only Non- Christian faith that believes in the immaculate birth of Jesus (PBUH) and Virgin Mary, and glorifies and testifies for both of them (PBU both of them)? How is it that the only Holy Scripture in the world including any bible you may have, that has an entire Chapter named after Virgin Mary, glorifying and describing her as the greatest woman that ever and will ever live, is the Muslim’s Quran?
How is it that if for example, according to Islamic law, if you do not believe in Jesus (PBUH) or in the original bible, you cannot be a Muslim?
On Page Four:
After the author quoted two modern Muslim scholars about the merciful and forgiving nature of the prophet (PBUH), one of them is “Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so” Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.
Yet the author says “But the international riots and murders committed over these cartoons – universally explained by the perpetrators as revenge for the alleged insult on Muhammad- suggested that Hooper’s view was by no means universally accepted by Muslims.
Is it logical for a nation of 1.5 billion people and growing, that isolated incidents which can be counted by the tens, in any logic, be called a universally accepted tendency for the 1.5 billion Muslims? Hundreds of thousands of drivers drive through red lights, endangering themselves and the public every year. Does that mean that Americans universally do not accept or adhere to traffic laws? And even if all Muslims are hypothetically outraged about a dirty attack against humanity’s prophet of God, what is the relation between that and “The truth about Muhammad” himself?
On pages 4, 5, and 6:
The author quotes individuals representing outlawed organizations that some characterize as terrorist and the other as freedom fighters organizations. Such organizations or individuals we characterize as having no scholarly status of any respectable weight in Islamic, history, or law comprehension (Fiqh). You want to learn about the American constitution, then read it or quote it for us.
You want to learn about who Thomas Jefferson really was then read an authentic biography of his or at least read what the man historically had said or written himself. But then why would you go and quote someone who potentially is a Charles Manson, to tell us who Jefferson “truly” was?
I can only perceive, if you do so, that demonizing or at least, altering the truth about Jefferson is your ulterior motive.
On pages 6,7,8,9 and 10:
The author makes several Illogical and historically untruthful assumptions.
1- Quranic texts since it is in Arabic, many Muslims do not understand it even if it was translated to their native language from Arabic, and asserts that it is similar to a King James Bible translation difficulty!
2- That there is a raging intellectual battle between peaceful Muslims and what he calls Jihadist terrorists about a somewhat mystical historical Muhammad who is yet to be clearly fully discovered, and that the outcome of such an imaginary battle will be determined by discovering who he really was!
Answer:
Historical facts:
1- Prophet Muhammad is not only the most quoted man in history, but also the most accurately quoted and biographed man in history. Is the author looking for where the sun historically located, as well?
2- Except for few letters in the beginning of some chapters in the Quran, which their meaning was not revealed yet, there is not one verse in the Quran not understood or interpreted by the companions of the prophet (PBUH) and later Muslim scholars.
3- Some verses which have multiple meanings, are mainly the ones that describes a pure scientific phenomena of God creations. For example, the verses about the creation phases of the human embryo were not fully understood till the invention of electronic microscopes then it became one of the most glaring miracles of the Quran, as how accurately God had described its early stages of creation 1400 years ago. Read Quran- Al Mouminoun (23) 12 to 14.
So if the author is trying to discover a mystical historical Muhammad 1400 years after his prophecy has begun and to contradict the ocean of certain knowledge about him (PBUH), then he could only be looking for another Muhammad other than Muhammad the prophet of Islam (PBUH), Or just apparently altering the “truth” of the prophet, and the religion of 1.5 billion Muslims all together.
On page 13:
The author states “Criticism of Muhammad or even Islam is not and should not be considered equivalent to anti- Semitism. Islam is not a race”
First of all, technically an Anti- Semite is one who hates Arabs, for they are the largest Semite race on earth- pushing 400 million- Vs. their genetic cousins, the other group of Semites, the Jews - between 20 to 30 million. For the matter of fact the number of Muslim men who carry the names of Jewish prophets (in Islam they are prophets of God, Islam and are respected as Muhammad himself (PBU all of them)) are more than four times the entire Jewish population in the world!
As we explained in the preface, while the author apparently is against anti- Semitism, he runs to affirm that attacking Islam or the prophet of 1.5 billion Muslims cannot be compared to attacking Judaism or a highly revered figure of the Jews. So our champion of civil rights here indicates that religious profiling and discrimination is OK, in the matter fact desired if you just have an excuse of a different ideology of hating Islam and Muslims.
So if you can justify your hate, it is OK? What is the stark difference then, if there is any, between Mr. Spencer and his self proclaimed “Jihadist" fascists?
The author then asserts that the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) must be ones that persuade his followers to commit violence, because – he throws the names of his Jihad terrorist – these people or organization use the name and the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) as their excuses for their actions.
So if the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) are “truly” as such, why not show it to us, translate it correctly and within the correct historical context, so we can see for ourselves?
If Mr. Spencer is a hate mongering, oppressive fascist- hypothetically speaking – and he misuse the tenets of the American constitution of civil rights and freedom of speech to further his evil cause, would that be the fault of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or the entire American constitution?
On the same page 13 about the Danish cartoons controversy, the author wrote ”The Danish cartoons controversy indicated the gulf between the Islamic world and the post -Christian west on matters of freedom of speech and expression”
I believe what really alarmed the author and his likes are the unity in the outcry of the Muslim world against ridiculing the last prophet of God (PBUH). The author definitely has the right to wonder why the Muslims reaction wasn’t like that in the west when Jesus (PBUH) is depicted some times in the most offensive of ways. But he is absolutely wrong when he indirectly expect that Muslims should blindly adapt western habits in respect to their Prophet as a beacon of light or a reference and guidance as to how to evaluate right from wrong specially when it comes to their prophet. If the author himself would slander or libel any one of 300 million Americans, he would be subjecting himself to be sued for hefty damages. But when you know that the ultimate symbol of righteousness and perfect manners for 1.5 billion people is prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and still go ahead and offend them all by offending him, then why would you be surprised of the reaction? Personally I don’t know which nation or group that can come to England for example and dictate to the English how to react as a nation to an unacceptable insult to the entire English nation? Why then offend the Muslims, the prophet of God, and then criticize their worldwide Islamic pride wanting to adjust it to some other country or cultural behavior?
Had the cartoonist published similar offensive cartoons in any Muslim countries but attacking Jesus this time, they would have been jailed and prosecuted as well. And while we are at the subject, you will never find one book, article or word about Jesus (PBUH) in any Muslim country, but a word of praise and reverence, for he is a mighty prophet of God and of Islam. You will never find one book like that of Mr. Spencer, attacking Jesus (PBUH) or any prophet of God for that matter in any Muslim country, but what you will also find is Mr. Spencer never mentioning this glaring absolutely relevant fact anywhere in his “truth” finding campaign of “ Let the Christian west hate anything Muslim” crusade .
In the “real” decency of Islamic law, there are limits to some things, because not everything is unlimited. Structural pillars of societies are not to be tampered or joked with. You can live in the building of society, do whatever you want in your privacy, walk on your hands in the lobby to your apartment if you want, but when you are seen sledge hammering one of the pillars that support the entire building, then it is everyone’s duty to stop you. Even from a pure secular stand point, the universally collective moral opinion of the Muslim world is that such cartoons were an outrage, what more freedom of speech or expression you could want if that is really what you are after?
Marching in the streets, however, causing material damage to others who didn’t draw any cartoons or personally offended the prophet, and certainly the horrible crime of causing death to the innocent, are against all fundamental laws and manners of Islam. And while these incidents are not acceptable by Islam or the prophet himself had he been alive at the time, humans of any race anywhere will always take things to extremes at moments of anger. The most Islamic reaction to the cartoons in my opinions was that Muslims should have boycotted every company whose products are advertised on any media that published the cartoons, which what I call the third civil freedom that all people should be aware of which is the freedom of voting with your dollar.
Some Muslims used it and it most effectively. Finally to whoever describes the dirty cartoons as a part of the civility of freedom of speech, I remind them with the fact that only animals leave their droppings openly and anywhere.
On Page 14 “Death to blasphemy”:
The author mentions the murders of multiple individuals who by the author’s own admission offended and intended insults to Islam and Muslims in Holland. I am sure that the reader has guessed by now that a main theme of the author demonizing Muslims is drawing back any crime committed for whatever reason to the one only fact that the criminal has a Muslim name or a Muslim. And it is really baffling.
People everywhere with any ethnic, religious, economical background commit the most horrible crimes every second and for the most stupid and bizarre of reasons sometimes, yet when the killer is a Muslim committing the crime of taking a soul without justice, which the author knows is punishable in Islamic law by death, the author would run and cry, “see, he is a Muslim”. Yes he is. And if it is a crime, then he is a Muslim criminal, like there is a Jewish criminal, a Hindu criminal, an Argentinean criminal and a hate mongering criminal!
What fascinates me is the only group in the world that believes blindly in the laughable notion that “the criminals and killers always tell the truth” are Muslim haters. The author and his likes will not stop day or night from quoting the committers of the most horrible of crimes, impose their insanity sometimes as a unique ideology, then paint the entire religion of Islam and its billion and a half followers with the same brush. Should I count how many serial killers all over the world who killed thousands of innocent souls for no reason whatsoever, and then claimed that God ordered them to do so? Did you hear Muslims call them Christian, Jew or even atheist fascists or even called it a crime of religion?
On page 15 and 16 “Defending freedom of speech”:
It was hard to contain myself from grinning when the author wrote “…And it is not my intention- to insult Muhammad, to deride him, to lampoon or mock him, or to write anything except a scrupulously accurate account of what he said and did about some key issues”
Such a quest has been a personal endeavor all my life, the only difficulty I faced personally is the shear greatness of the material about the life of the great prophet of God (PBUH ) for as we mentioned earlier, he is not only the most quoted man in history but also the most accurately quoted and biographed. So if that is the same task the author makes, the readers and one of us is in for a major surprise, for one of us is seriously WRONG, and my contention is that he already knows it.
On page 16 “General notes”:
The author tells the most laughable untruthful statement I heard in a long time, and I have heard a lot. “Quranic verse numeration is not standard”!!! What? For 1400 years not one verse number of any verse of the Quran has ever changed from the exact way that it was revealed to prophet Muhammad by arch angel Gabriel (PBUH), and the author is quoting us now from a Quran translation that he has, that has “ different numbers”?
“Excuse me while I intentionally confuse you and alter the truth going forward” is all I understood from what the author wrote.
Chapter Two
On page 20:
The author wrote “The Quran is, according to Islamic tradition, a perfect copy of an eternal book- the umm al-kitab, or mother of the book – that has existed forever with Allah”
An untrue statement, for “Umm al –kitab” was never the name of the Quran but another name of the first chapter of the Quran known for “Al- fatiha” or “The opening”. The name the author needed to know for the eternal copy of the Quran is “Al-lauh al mahfooz” which means “The protected tablet”.
Later on page 20:
The author indicates that in chapter 48: verse 27 ( Al-Fateh ) he has made a discovery that while it is an undeniable fact of Islam that every word in the holy Quran is a word of God to all Muslims, that how is it that God then says “In shaa Allah” which means God willing? The answer is obviously that Mr. Spencer didn’t read the entire Quran, or think his readers never do, because what he thinks is a discovery is all over the Quran in many ways, where God speaks about himself as, "Allah", "your God", and "he is the most merciful", "powerful" , "able", "all knower", and more. It is a feature of God’s style of referring to himself as an infinite entity, in plural for praise in many cases, and repeated throughout the Quran of “ he who created for you…”
I urge Mr. Spencer to read more than just one verse or chapter of the holy Quran, or at least assume that we do!
On the pages corresponding to the same topic of Quran from page 20 to 24
The author criticizes the narrative of the Quran for not self explaining some of the verses, and having to depend on the historical tradition of the quotations of the Prophet (PBUH) and historical statements of his companions.
Answer:
If the Quran was the current Bible for example where most of its chapters were written sometimes a hundred years after the incidents covered, and mainly is in the form of stories about Jesus (PBUH) then some verses of the Quran may need some self explanation to fit into such format. But the Quran was memorized verbatim as it was revealed by arch angel Gabriel and as it was revealed to the prophet (PBUH), then kept to date the same exact way. For example when someone today says “The damage that Katrina caused” we would all know today what exactly he is talking about. The most important thing for humanity - 1400 years from now - that what that person had said would stay exactly the same to the letter if that speaker was God himself, but people then would just go to authentic historical sources to learn the historical context of what happened when Katrina hit. The word of God that is Quran, was never altered, changed, and still in its original language, but most importantly, this is how God said it and how he forever want it kept and given to mankind.
Then, the author takes an examples with Sura ( Chapter) 66 Al- Tahreem. Which covers an incident between the prophet and his wives.
Here is what really happened. The prophet (PBUH) was the kindest to his wives, and it was he (PBUH) who said “your best are your best to their women” i.e. their mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. The prophet’s wife Hafsa once got so jealous that he brought another wife into her house in a day that he specified earlier for her. In caring for Hafsa’s feelings, the prophet swore not to come near the other wife (Mariyah the Copt) and in caring for the effect of that oath on Mariyah, the prophet (PBUH) asked Hafsa not to tell anyone about his oath, but she went ahead and told another wife (Ayisha). Before we get into the verses of the Quran revealed for this specific incident, we need to know that Allah made it so that the prophet in certain situations be corrected and advised about certain matters, to give us a human practical example of matters we need to pay attention to, be affirmed about or be made specifically clear to mankind. One of these instances is when Allah revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) that to care for the feeling of one wife cannot on the expense of the “Halal” or the lawful right that Allah had given another wife upon the prophet (PBUH). Allah revealed to the prophet that Hafsa didn’t keep her promise to the prophet and told Aiysha. In addition, Allah showed in the following verse to the prophet and all of us that when you take an oath, then you discover that that oath would entail disobeying God or oppressing someone’s right- breaking an oath is a major sin in Islam- then for the sake of Allah you can break that oath, but pay for feeding 10 needy persons as compensation. The following Verse promised the wives of the prophet that if they make more materialistic demands on the prophet and burden him, that Allah can exchange them for better wives in everything.
Here is what Mr. Spencer wrote about the event; “In this scenario the revelation of Sura 66 concerns only his wives jealousy (or perhaps Muhammad’s bad breath) and his oath to stop drinking honey”
I have no further comment.
On page 24:
In the section titled “Hadith” the author defines Hadith – pronounced correctly as “hadeeth” – as “traditions of the prophet “(PBUH), which is not true. Hadeeth is the collected sayings or quotations of the prophet (PBUH). Traditions of the prophet (PBUH) is “Sunnah” or the behavioral example of his biography of which the majority of Muslims are described as (Sunni) or followers of the traditions of the prophet (PBUH).
On page 25:
The author quotes the Muslim scholar Ahmed Von Denffer – a German Muslim – that “there is an agreement between Muslim scholars that the contents of Sunnah are also from Allah” which also is not true.
In the Quran, Allah (SWT) says in sura ( Al hasher) Chapter 59 verse 7 "and whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it”. So Islamic law is derived from both sources, only when it comes to the Sunnah, it is only the sections where the prophet ordered or asked us to do or not to do things, and for that matter if the hadeeth is correct and authenticated, then Allah (SWT) tells us in the Quran in surat (Al Najm) chapter 53 verse 3 “And he doesn’t utter of self desire”. Having said that, there are many parts of the Sira and the tradition of the prophet that are not parts of the Sunnah of the (Halal and Haram) an example is the personal preferences of the Prophet (PBUH) in certain foods, clothes, travelling routes to take Vs. other etc. which the Prophet (PBUH) himself did, but never ordered us to do or not to do, for that the prophet also added in the famous incident of inseminating the palm trees of Madina” you are more knowledgeable of the matters of your life”, and “ but follow what I tell you to do or not to do”.
The author then continues to absurd fabrication, when he claims in the next paragraph that in the huge amount of information about the Prophet (PBUH), there is no way to know what is correct and what is not!!
Really!! Imam Al Bukhari the author of the legendary reference of the correct Hadeeth “Saheeh al Bukhari” had memorized over 300,000 hadeeth of the prophet with the chain of who said the hadeeth last till who heard it from the prophet himself first. He identified 60,000 correct hadeeth that he certified were correct, then used the most ingenious and rigorous way of authenticating a historical quote by researching and memorizing the detailed Biographies of 2500 companions and followers of the prophet, even travelled to their towns, so when someone says that a person heard the quotation from another, he would filter it to their credibility, the possibility of the two individuals meeting each other chronically, all the way to how many other credible sources confirming the same text to the letter.
The same rigorous authentication founded for the first time in history by Imam al Buckhary, was followed to another level by the great five, Muslim, al Turmazy, Ibn Majah, al Nasaey, and Ibn Daoud, covering hundreds of thousands of hadeeths. The science of Hadeeth actually had came to the level that almost every hadeeth of hundreds of thousands of hadeeths are already rated by their trusted level of authenticity the ratings are: 1) correct, 2) Good, (3 weak – may be correct but we have weak verification of it, and (4 fabricated – probably by the Spencers of its time!
Now comes our “truth” seeker Mr. Spencer to tell us that it is impossible to tell what is authentic and what is not! The author comments later about the six references that they are not authentic but that the “Muslims generally regard as trust worthy” as if the Muslims regard things never objectively or for what they truly are, but strictly according to delusions and mental disturbance only, so it is a Muslim thing! And all what we mentioned about founding the science of authenticity for all humanity, in the prior paragraph, has nothing to do with factual certainty!
On page 28:
The author claims that “many incidents in the Prophet’s life, including ones that became influential in Islamic history, have no other sources”
Answer: What are these mystic incidents that were never heard by the hundreds of companions who narrated hundreds of thousands of the quotations of the Prophet (PBUH) as eye witnesses? More importantly what many incidents that are so influential in Islamic history about the Prophet (PBUH) himself, that he never wanted to mention to any of his companions? Are they many and so influential that the Prophet (PBUH) or his companions never cared to mention to any source? Is this logical to even a five year old, in seeking the “truth” about Muhammad (PBUH)?
On page 30:
After the author had earlier mentioned quickly the actually most used book of Sira (Biography) of the Prophet (PBUH) which is Sirat Ibn Hisham, he goes back and forth about how the other Sira stories of Ibn Ishaq were criticized by early Muslim scholars, and then desperately quote us people like a current Pakistani army general! To validate it for us. The author then decides to rely first on the - spotty – Ibn Ishaq account, then relies last upon the most trusted sources of the Sira and tradition of the Prophet (PBUH) which are the two Hadeeth books of Al Buchary and Muslim, but also decides to rely upon Martin ling’s biography of the Prophet (PBUH) which in many ways a good translation, but as true Muslim scholars know, has also many disastrous errors about other incidents, or maybe that is why Mr. Spencer has chosen it?
On page 30:
Under Historical fact and Muslim belief
The author, and on his own, jumps without any reasoning or historical fact to the little irrelevant conclusion that “Historical certainty is not easy to ascertain with a text as sketchy as the Quran, as overwhelmed with false information as the Hadeeth”!!
Answer: Quran is the only word of God that is still in its original language, not altered and not changed for over 1400 years with one copy in the hands of 1.5 billion people. The Memorization of the correct hadeeth of the prophet was never interrupted for one day or skipped generations like other scriptures, and to date, are all categorized in accuracy of what is fabricated, what is accepted, what is good, and what is absolutely authentic. Yet the “truth” seeker author can see nothing but sketchiness and false information!
In the matter fact I challenge Mr. Spencer to find me one man in history that is accurately quoted and Biographed word for word in over 40 volumes just between Al Buchary and Muslim, who even him himself, admits are absolutely authentic.
The real truth is that the man Mr. Spencer claims of portraying the truth about, is already the most quoted and accurately Biographed in History, and I mean second to none.
On page 31:
The author claims that there are some indications in Islamic History that the Quran was altered.
Answer: Remember the author claims that they are many, and in such a crucially important topic, that if true would crumple the foundation of Islam, he comes up with one laughable account with a comment of an early Muslim scholar that the Quran – which contains many amazingly accurate predictions of future scientific discovery – had a verse that spoke of the statement of Muslim Martyrs who were satisfied by their reward in paradise for God was pleased with their righteous deeds! Again Mr. Spencer does nothing but tell us that whether he never read the Quran, or he just hoping that he writes to people who never read it either! The Quran has even dialogues between Believers and infidels on Judgment day that God only knows when it will happen, about the joy and disappointment between the two parties, accurate description of Paradise and hell fire in the day that never happened yet. Do I need to remind that Allah who has no limitations of time distance or anything for his will, is the one who’s word is the Quran, so when he describes to us his promise in the future, through the words of his satisfied believers in paradise, in the author’s words, that will be an indication that his word is altered? And you call that historically?!!
The author later names anti Islam orientalists, then he states that their opinions differ sharply from “the received wisdom” of Muslim scholars of hadeeth. Are Muslim scholars who are most knowledgeable about their history and strict rules of its subject religion, wrong, because non-Muslim known haters of Islam and their laughable theories are sharply different than them?
Watch how the author describes absolute Islamic Knowledge by “received wisdom” as if it some mystical inherited cultural rituals that people utter without comprehension. So if the scholars who are unparalleled in history for their genius and integrity are Muslims then it is a fallible “received wisdom” and if the fabricator is an orientalist then they are trustworthy historians?
Welcome to the roller coaster ride of Spencer land!
On pages 31 and 32:
If you thought that the author started to totally lose before, you thought wrong! In the last pages the author goes to the assumption - are you ready? - that Muhammad (PBUH) may not have even existed!!
Because some people thought, supposed and may have scratched their heads in wonder?!
In his head scratching, star gazing pretend, Mr. Spencer wonders if that “ Mythical “ figure Muhammad was conjured up, then why did the Muslims keep some embarrassing stories – in the authors imagination - and not just omit it? And the answer begs to jump out of his own question, saying because these stories are twists of a real event that Muslims carried, memorized of the life of the prophet for 1400 years, without “Spencering”
The fabricators of their times are all known to Muslim scholars as such. I honestly feel I am commenting on a farce comedy of “truth” seeking. We will see.
Chapter Three
On page 34:
The author wrote” One of these Gods, “Allah", not yet identified with the lone God of Islam, may have been the tribal God of the Quraysh".
Answer:
In the Holy Quran Allah reveals what the idolaters of Mecca have said about the Idols they were worshipping.
In Surat (Al Zomor) chapter 39 verse 3 “And we didn’t worship them for anything but so they would get us closer to Allah”. So the Arabs before Islam have known Allah, only like many nations in the middle east before them they modified the straight path to their creator according to their desires or to the benefit of their powerful elite, in our case they used the excuse of trying to get closer to the one might God, by worshipping idols, which destroys the monotheistic base of worshipping God to begin with. One of the glaring truths about all the biblical prophets is that they all worshipped Allah. The average western reader would automatically say I never heard of that, and he is mostly correct, only because no one had vested interest in telling him the truth. If we go through out the old testament- Not the Quran- and ask the Torah scholars what was the name of God in the old scriptures they will tell you it is pronounced “Allah-aim”. “Aim” here is plural for praise; note that it is also the last part of the father of Prophets’s name “Ibrah- aim” – Abraham – (PBUH) as pronounced in Hebrew. So what is the name of God in the Old Testament? Allah. Note the remark of “ Lone God of Islam” as if Allah of Islam has nothing to do with Allah of the Bible.
In addition to the fact of how many prophets and messengers of God passed through the Arabic peninsula and Palestine, the author with the whiff of a pen, decided on his own that the Arabs never heard of the name of God identified by all the Old Testament prophets of their own land, which is Allah or” Allah-aim” and when they said that we worship these idols to get us closer to “Allah”, the author decides for them and Us, that Allah is not Allah!
To be fair here this is a common biased orientalist trick, so when the Muslims tell people that the fundamental of their religion is that it is the same religion of Biblical prophets and it is worshipping the same one mighty God Allah, God of Abraham (PBUH), they turn and say, that “Allah” is a new name that belongs only to the Arabs!
On page 34:
The author writes that Qurayish had a major influence on the tribes of Arabia so when they rejected Muhammad’s religion all tribes did the same, and when Qurayish accepted Islam they all followed”
Answer:
Another untruthful statement. If that’s the case, then which other tribe had another major influence of Quraysh itself to become Muslim? One of the major astounding achievements of the prophet of God (PBUH) is his ability to bring people to worship their creator and fear him in dealing with their brothers in humanity. A glaring example is the case of the two major tribes of Aous and Khazraj in Medina, who were ever battling each other to the most unthinkable of extents- in the next paragraph the author adds “Blood feuds were frequent “-, but when The prophet (PBUH) guided them to Islam, they not only stopped fighting each other to date, but united and became as one tribe of one family of Islam, a story that repeated all over the world with Islam.The author implies here that the entire Arabic peninsula conversion to Islam was just a matter up to Qurayish’s rejection or approval, and not because of the Prophet’s (PBUH)’s message or because of the revelation of Islam to them.
On page 36:
The author brings a translation of the verse of Surat (Al Saff ) Chapter 61 verse 6, Where Jesus (PBUH) says “ I am the Messenger of Allah(sent) to you, confirming the law ( which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad”
Answer:
The translation is flawed and I might add intentionally so, for how is it that the translator would omit that what Jesus (PBUH) had actually said in the Quran is “confirming what is between my hands of the Torah”? Some would say that Mr. Spencer doesn’t speak Arabic and it is the translator’s fault, I would then ask how is it that these horrible translators keep popping up in Mr. Spencer’s book? Does he like them for some reason? Or is it because in our case here, it is in the bible that Jesus (PBUH) said:
Mathew 15-24
“I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, and it may be that the author doesn’t like the same truth to resonate between parts of the Bible and the Holy Quran?
On page 37:
The author writes about two separate incidents. The first is a warning from the Christian monk Buhaira to Muhammad (PBUH)’s Uncle Abu Talib, to protect him from the Jews and not tell them about his nephew, because they will do him harm. The second is a story about a Jew who seen the seal of prophet-hood between Muhammad (PBUH)’s shoulders- when he was a child - and cried that the last prophet is not a Jew and the new holy scripture will be taken from the Israelites. Then oddly enough the author adds that the Jew stated that Muhammad (PBH) will fight the Jews and kill their scholars! Then the author adds from his history manufacturing facility that the Jewish man statement is “Rather a revealing statement as an early Muslim view of the Mission of Muhammad”!
Answer:
Was Buhaira wrong, or A Jew – hater, of warning Abu Talib against the Jews knowing about Muhammad (PBUH) the Prophet of God? So let’s inspect that, what happened to the last prophet before Muhammad (PBUH)? A faction of the Jews believed in him and another faction rejected him. Then what happened later? Was he killed by Muslims? No, some of the Jews who rejected him – and Jesus (PBUH) was A Jew himself –conspired to kill him, and according to the over whelming Majority of the Bibles of today, he was killed by these Jews! – According to the Holy Quran he was (PBUH) raised to heaven and was never killed - So what do you think some other similar faction of the Jews, might do to an Arab who comes with the same message from God? Send him flowers and candy?
In the second incident the author summarizes the Mission of Muhammad by a statement of a Jewish man who cried for the coming of Muhammad (PBUH) because he was an Arab not a Jew, so now, is the Mission of Islam should be identified by a statement of a crying fanatic of another religion? You tell me.
On the end of page 37 and beginning of page 38:
The author makes the old false claim that a Muslim or Islam is automatically Anti Jewish. And while the same claim was made for centuries against some writings in the Bible itself , “Truth” seekers like Mr. Spencer most of the times won’t mention the obvious same fact in Biblical writings and in the Holy Quran. The fact is that all Jewish prophets were only sent to the Jewish people. What does that mean? The meaning is that the believers of these Prophets were Jews who worshipped God and Jews who obeyed his messengers, but guess what else? The enemies of these prophets, who fought them, killed them and angered God, were also Jews. So I ask any of the “truth” seekers to put themselves in the position of the scriptures and tell us how to describe the later kind of Jews? Are they Prophet Supporters, Chinese, Aliens from outer space, or still also Jews? It is simply like going to a maximum security prison in France and when asked what is the nationality of all the criminals inside, and you answer, they are all French. A “truth” seeker would come after that and state that you must be a French hater, anti French and racist all together, as if the subject matter or the context in which the statement was made, which are the things that matter the most in any objective evaluation of a statement, should never be mentioned or even considered by the likes of Mr. Spencer.
In the Holy Quran Surat ( Al Kahf ) Chapter 18 verse 29, God Says “ and whoever wishes to believe would believe, and whoever wishes to be an infidel should be an infidel” and in surat ( Al Ghashya ) Chapter 88 verse 21-22 “ So remind, you are not but a reminder. You are not to control them” The most fundamental aspect of inviting people to Islam is to inform them of the truth that their creator had revealed for them, in the politest and most lenient way possible. What they decide afterwards is their own decision, at least for it is their own responsibility and it would be only them to answer for it to God on judgment day, not me, you, or the prophets.
On page 38:
The author writes “it should be a matter of history that there is no record of Christians expecting a prophet in Arabia 540 years after the death of Jesus”
Answer:
What about the Arab own records for the incidents at the time? The author, as we explained in the previous chapters considers history, credibility and objectivity only to be attributed to people who agree with his own ideology, so if I hate or oppose the ideology of a math teacher then 1+1 cannot be accepted to equal 2, because it is stated by the teacher I don’t agree with, which is a laughable intellectual disease called “generic fallacy”. What he is so strongly implying here – not to my surprise any more – is that even that the historians of the middle east and Arabia declared and carried through the years the events that they experienced firsthand, events and stories that were never opposed at the time by even the biggest haters of Islam, our “truth” seeker will never consider them a matter of history! Then the author goes to the end of paragraph stating the pope at the time of the prophet(PBUH), as if the pope had control and telepathic knowledge of factual events in Arabia at the time, and added that the pope didn’t mention any thing that was expected to happen in Arabia. And since the Arabs are Mute, and not aware of what happens in their societies and history, then they had no history of Christianity and if they did, only the pope might have known about it. The author lastly, states that Christianity at the birth of the prophet “was well established and seeking neither new prophets nor new heresies”
I would like to say specifically to the last quote, that may be that, what happened all over Europe later, of saint worshipping, selling forgiveness documents, inquisitions and burning women on the stake by the millions, must have been done by the Muslims then, because the Vatican was innocently busy being well established.
As far as the claim that Christianity was not awaiting the coming of a new Prophet, I would say why ask the telepathic pope at the time, I would go and ask Jesus (PBUH) himself about what Christianity was awaiting at the time. In King James Bible:
Isaiah 29-12
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he says, I am not learned.
John 14-16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever ( i.e the last prophet -M.Z).
John 12 to 14
How be it, when He the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
I might add that the current translation of “the spirit of truth” is misleading, for when you go to the original Greek text, you will find that the corresponding word to the “spirit of truth”, the Greek word “ Paraclete” which actually has nothing to do with the word “spirit” or even the word “truth”, it means literally “the praised one” and if our truth seeker never have mentioned the meaning of the Arabic word “Muhammad” (PBUH) to you yet, let me give you its literal translation; It is “the praised one”. Talk about matters of history!
On page 38 and under “Khadija”:
The author says “Muhammad boyhood was relatively uneventful”.
Answer:
Let’s see here; till Muhammad (PBUH) had reached 40 years of age and received the first revelation from God, if you walked in Mecca and ask where is the “ truthful honest” any one in the entire town would point to Muhammad (PBUH). Even before he knew himself to become a prophet, he was never seeing fornicating, drinking, or doing any act of bad manners to even be mentioned later by his worst enemies. If that what the author means by “uneventful”, then we thank him for the due praise. The author then claims two major fabrications.
The first that “without Khadija Muhammad might never have become a prophet”!
Another flying blue elephant example. How could it be possible that the author would fabricate something like that and not even care to comment on the magic he used to conjure it up like he did? Was Khadija another prophet who granted Muhammad (PBUH) his Prophet-hood? Was she a super genius comparative religions professor who dedicated her Harvard career to cooking him up a religion? Did he receive God’s revelation through her? I am just trying to pull my eyebrows down at the moment.
The second claim, is that Warqa bin Nawfal had known about Muhammad (PBUH)’s Prophecy for 15 years before the first revelation to the prophet, which is not true. The authenticated correct history is that Muhammad (PBUH) was so shocked and trembling of fear seeing the greatness of arch angel Gabriel (PBUH) for the first time, so Khadija went to Warqa and told him what happened, and he immediately identified Muhammad as the awaited prophet of God. I might add that the reference that the author has in the index for his fabricated story is something we never heard of.
On page 40:
The author shows several descriptions of the prophet, but then shows that the prophet (PBUH) advised his companions of dying their beards with Al Henna, then the author tell us the shocking truth that “Al Mujahideen” dye their beards the same way like the prophet! Guilty your honor! It is all in the dye!! So if I wear a suit and a beard like you Mr. Spencer would that make you truthful? Or would that turn me into a “truth” Seeker?
On page 40 and 41:
The author is in total fabrication mode now, first he concocted a story narrated by Ayisha who was not even born at the time, about that what he (PBUH) seen were “dreams” and a truth ascended upon him!!! And the story not only contradicts khadija, the prophet, and all the early companions, but does contradict the story of the Quran itself! Muhammad (PBUH) and for years, used to go to the cave of Hira in seclusion of meditation, and was not worshipping or praying for Allah at the time, then one night in the holy month of Ramadan, Gabriel (PBUH) appeared to him and asked him to read, he answered ‘ I am not learned”, the angel asked him to read again and for three times Muhammad (PBUH) would repeat the same answer, then the first Sura revealed