Questions by non-Muslims

Questions & Answers


Frequently Asked Questions by non-Muslims, particularly haters of Islam. Click to read the answer to each question:


Do Muslims worship Mohammad? Do Muslims view Mohammad as God/ Allah?

According to Islam, Mohammad (s.a.a.w.s.) was simply a human prophet, similar to all the biblical prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus, etc. Islam emphasizes that Mohammad (s.a.a.w.s.) is not God, in any way.
In Islam, God is referred to as Allah. God ( or Allah) is not perceived to be a human being. God is not married and does not have sons or daughters. God neither begets nor was He begotten (meaning God neither gives birth to children nor was God born).
Prophet Mohammad (s.a.a.w.s.) never claimed to be God. Prophet Mohammad (s.a.a.w.s.) clearly stated that he was not God and should not be worshipped. Worshipping anything (human or anything else) other than God is a major blasphemy in Islam.

Allah
Allah is God, the one and only Creator & Sustainer of the universe. Allah creates human beings, animals, plants, mountains, rivers, oceans, etc. Allah judges the deeds (actions) of human beings, punishes individuals for their bad deeds and rewards them for their good deeds, both in their life on Earth and on the Day of Judgement.
Allah (God) sent prophets (such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad, peace be upon them) to call people to follow God's religion. The Quran prescribes for Muslims to regard all prophets of God as equally worthy of respect.
Some Christians think that Mohammad is Allah or that Muslims worship Mohammad (p). This is 100% false. This erroneous belief of Christians stems from the fact that Christians worship Jesus, so they falsely presume that Muslims worship Mohammad (p).
Mohammad (p) was simply a human prophet. He never claimed to be God. Muslims do not worship prophet Mohammad, directly or indirectly. Islam is a strictly Monotheistic religion. Islam highly emphasizes that there is only one God. No human being has divine attributes. God's prophets are not divine, but they are assigned a mission by God to call people to follow God's religion.
Muslims refer to God as Allah, Ellah, or Allahom (meaning "the God" in Arabic). The word "Allah" in Arabic means "the god" or "God". In Arabic, the word Allah is derived from of a contraction/ abbreviation of two words: (1) "Al" (also can be pronounced as El) which mean "The", and (2) "Elah" which means "god".
Islam did not invent or introduce the word Allah to the World:
- The Arabic Bible that has been used by Arab Christians, for the past 2000 years since the time Jesus, refers to God as Allah.
- The Hebrew Bible refers to God as Elohim which is similar to Allah/ Ellah/ Allahom used by Muslims.
- The word that corresponds to Allah in Aramaic language (the mother tongue of Jesus), and used in the Aramaic Bible, is “Elaha”.
- The word that corresponds to Allah in Syriac language, and used in the Syriac Bible, is “Alaha”.
Father Dr. Labib Kobti, an Arab Christian priest, in one his articles titled The Christian Arab Heritage (available through this link http://www.al-bushra.org/arbhrtg/arbxtn04.htm ) says: "Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archaeologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Fourth Century, we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :"Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim" that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam."
What this Christian priest is revealing is extremely important for the following reasons:
(1) This Arabic phrase "Bism El-Lah al-Rahman al-Rahim" ( بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ) that the priest says has been discovered in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century is the same phrase that most Suras (Chapters) of the Quran start with. This phrase can be translated as "In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful".
(2) The fact that this phrase was found in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century, meaning three centuries before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad. This indicates that the beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims. In other words, early Christians did not believe in the Trinity: "In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit", instead they used the Quranic phrase "In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful". This is proof that Jesus was a Muslim and he preached Islam, and early followers of Jesus were Muslims.
A Jewish man defends the use of Allah to refer to God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ATrDPGypJHw

A nice Jewish young man explains the meaning of Allah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=65zyICBKBPI

"Allah" in Aramaic & Arabic Bibles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Tc_hdfxQA8g

Allah is indeed in the Bible by Ahmad Deedat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=IHhyu61f-wo

Is Allah a special God for Muslims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rtTzm3W1Ws0
Is Allah a loving, forgiving, merciful God?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=W98F0_XjZek

Yahweh in Quran & Islam


The number 11 is very significant in Islam.
163. وَإِلَـهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لاَّ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ
163. And your God is One God. There is no God but He, the Most Compassionate, the Ever-Merciful. (Quran 2:163)
The declaration of the oneness of God in the above verse of the Quran, 2:163, is comparable to the following verse from the Old Testament (Torah) of the Bible:
" Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
In some versions of the Bible: " Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God; the Lord is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Notice that the Quranic verse number cited above, verse 163, is equal to the numerical value of the Arabic word الإسلام (Islam ) is: 1 + 30 + 1 + 60 + 30 + 1 40 = 163 .
In the Torah (Jewish Bible), one of the names of God, is YHWH (YaHoWaH), commonly pronounced as Yahweh, Yahowah, or Jahovah.
We, at discoveringislam.org , believe that Yahowah is mentioned in the Quran many times, such as in the above verse. Yahowah appears in the Quran as هُوَ . It is made up of two Arabic letters, the first letter of هُوَ can be pronounced as He or Ho (it is the 5th letter in the Arabic alphabet) and the second letter can be pronounced as Waw or Wa (it is the 6th letter in the Arabic alphabet). As a word, it is pronounced as HoWa. Most Muslims perceive it as a word which means He. This interpretation is fine, but it makes a lot of sense to additionally perceive it as two letters that refer to God. Thus, this word هُوَ (HoWa) in the Quran is the equivalent of Yahowah, or Jahovah in the Bible. The Hebrew letter "Ya" at the beginning of Yahowah functions exactly like the letter "O" that appears before the word "Israel" in the biblical verse displayed above: " O Israel: the Lord is our God" , so the letter "Ya" is not actually part of God's name.
The fact that هُوَ refers to God and its first letter is the 5th letter in the Arabic alphabet and its second letter is the 6th letter in the Arabic alphabet means that 11 (= 5 + 6) is a number that represents God's name.
Furthermore, the numerical value of the word الله (Allah or God) is: 1 + 30 + 30 + 5= 66 (66 is equal to 11 x 6, so it a multiple of 11)
This explains why the number 11 is a very important number in the affairs of the universe. For example:
- The solar cycle (or solar magnetic activity cycle) is around 11 years.
- There is a difference of 11 days between the Hijri (lunar) calendar and the Gregorian (solar) calendar.
- The number 11 represents God's punishment. The numerical value of each of the two words in the Quran used to refer to destruction or perishing is 11 :
600+200 +1+2=803 =8+0+3=11 خراب Destruction/ Devastation
5+30+1+20=56 =6+5= 11 هلاك Perishing

In this video, Christian Preachers explain the mystery of the letters W and H of Yahweh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Q-J2auNpbeI

Yahweh in the Quran

By Ebrahim Saifuddin

There are Christians who tend to make a point that the Bible mentions in Exodus 3:14 that the name of God is “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” (depends on where one puts the vowels) but this name does not appear in the Quran. Hence they claim that the Quran cannot be the Word of God and Prophet Muhammad (saw) cannot be a Messenger of God, because there is no reference to the personal name of God which appears in the Old Testament 6823 times.

YHWH (Yahweh) in the Bible

Let’s first read the concerned verse in the Bible in context:

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation. – [Exodus 3:13-15]

The Hebrew word that is translated as “I AM” in English, is YHWH (known as the Tetragrammaton) which commonly the Christians read as Yahweh or Jehovah but inserting vowels. The Hebrew form of YHWH is as below:

יהוה

The objection which Christians raise is that as we see in Exodus 3:15, God says that this is his name forever thus they say if Prophet Muhammad (saw) was a Messenger of Allah(swt) then he should have made some reference to this personal name of God, Yahweh/Jehovah, to prove that he is really a Messenger of God.

Yahweh/Jehovah, to prove that he is really a Messenger of God.

“Yahweh” and “Jehovah” are two pronunciations formed by humans much later. Although the Jewish Encyclopedia labels the word “Jehovah” to be a philological impossibility, the Christian world tends to use this pronunciation till this day. Coming back to the pronunciation of this word YHWH, the Catholic Encyclopedia brings it to our attention:

“According to a Rabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according to Maimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction of the Temple.”

Moreover we are also informed by the same encyclopedia that “the modern Jews are as uncertain of the real pronunciation of the Sacred name as their Christian contemporaries” [emphasis added].

Hence one thing has been made apparent that neither the Jews nor the Christians know the true pronunciation of this word. This word was considered to be ineffable by the Jews and thus with time people lost the knowledge of its true pronunciation.

Meaning of YHWH (Yahweh)

As it was made apparent that we do not know how to pronounce the word “YHWH”, we must now look and understand what this word means so as to get an understanding of the word itself. The Jewish Encyclopedia informs us that the meaning of the name “YHWH” is “‘He who is self-existing, self-sufficient’, or, more concretely, ‘He who lives’” [emphasis added]. Hence in simplest of terms “YHWH” means The Living and Self-Subsisting.

Did Jesus use the name YHWH?

Up till now two things have been made clear; the real pronunciation of the word is not available and that the meaning of this word is “self-existing and self sufficient”, in short “He who lives”. So now it must be established whether Jesus did use this name Yahweh in any place. The only verse which Christendom can quote to prove that Jesus used this word is in the Gospel of John which is as below:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” – [John 8:58]

As we see that the verse consists of the phrase “I am”, the Christians say that Jesus has used the word YHWH. So let us take a look at the Greek version of the verse as we all know that the biblical manuscripts with the Christian world are in the language Greek although there is no concrete evidence that Jesus knew this language.

The words translated as “I am” are: ἐγώ εἰμί
Transliterated as: egō eimi
Pronounced as: eg-o' i-mee'

So the words used here are “ego eimi” which simply means “I am” – a means of designating oneself. Not only “ego eimi” simply “I am” as one would use “I am” in their everyday talk in the English language, “ego eimi” is no where near to the meaning of YHWH which is seen above to mean The Living, Self Subsisting. So not only does this not sound anything like the proposed pronunciation of the word YHWH, it does not even carry the meaning of the word.

Was “ego eimi” used Exclusively by Jesus?

The term “ego eimi” which simply means “I am” is used in numerous places in the Bible and there are instances when this term is used by people other than Jesus. Just to give a quick example, the blind man whom Jesus cured uses the same words as well in the Gospel of John:

Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. – [John 9:9]

Do note the deception which the Christian world uses. In the Greek manuscripts there is no “he” in the text. The verse ends at “I am”. The same phrase “ego eimi” is used in the Greek texts. Due to the absence of “he” in the biblical manuscripts, “Young’s Literal Translation” provides the following translation for the same verse:

Others said -- `This is he;' and others -- `He is like to him;' he himself said, -- ‘I am [he].' – [Young’s Literal Translation of John 9:9]

Notice that the term “he” is placed in parenthesis because this word is not present in the biblical manuscripts. Any form of term that is not in the text being translated should be written in parenthesis to convey the meaning and not cause deception such that people would believe that it is part of the original text.

So by using the phrase “ego eimi” was the blind man suggesting that he was YHWH? Obviously not and no Christian would dare to claim that he was. So they why did he use the term “ego eimi”? Simply because this word means nothing but the same as “I am” is used in the English language.

Similarly there are other examples in the Bible which prove that this phrase “ego eimi” was not used only by Jesus and it certainly does not hold the meaning of YHWH as seen earlier.

If, however Christendom wants to claim that “ego eimi” refers to “YHWH”, the personal name of God, they have to accept that when traveling from Hebrew to Greek, the word was not used as “YHWH” (Yahweh) but an alternate word(s) was used “ego eimi” which was a reference to the actual name YHWH.

Does Quran Make Any Reference to YHWH?

So far we have learnt 4 points which I will list so as to refresh all that we have learnt so far:
Actual pronunciation of YHWH is lost
YHWH means “Self-Subsisting”, “The Living”
Jesus did not use the term “YHWH”
Christians cannot deny that traveling from Hebrew to Greek another term was used to refer to YHWH.

Thus we see that the Quran should have a reference to the term YHWH rather than having the term “YHWH” as the Quran was revealed in the Arabic and not the Hebrew. The golden question thus would be was any such reference made to the term “YHWH” in the Quran or by Prophet Muhammad (saw)?

The answer is a definite “YES”.

We have learnt so far that the meaning of the term “YHWH” is The Living, Self Subsisting and although the term “Allah” is used in the Quran, this word simply means “The God”.

However, we know that Islamic teachings inform us of 99 names (attributes) of Allah (swt) and the Quran informs us that to Allah (swt) belongs the most beautiful names and we can call him by any of these beautiful names:

He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most beautiful names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. – [Quran 59:24]

Say: “Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most beautiful names. Neither speak thy Prayer aloud, nor speak it in a low tone, but seek a middle course between.” – [Quran 17:110]

Thus we see that there are many different names of Allah (swt), some of which I have listed below:

Al-‘Adl - The Just, The Equitable
Al-‘Afuw - The Pardoner
Al-‘Asim - The Protector
Ad-Dafi` - The Remover of Tribulations
Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem - The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Just like these above-mentioned beautiful names of Allah (swt) we also learn of two other names which are:

Hayyul-Qayyum – The Living, Self-Subsisting

YHWH – The Living, Self-Subsisting


Here it has been proven that there is clear reference to the name YHWH in Islam which crumbles the Christian stand that Islam has no reference to the name YHWH and thus Prophet Muhammad (saw) is not the Messenger of Allah (swt).

Stressed Importance of Hayyul-Qayyum

One of the verses which has Allah (swt) referred to by the name Hayyul-Qayyum is in Ayat-ul-Qursi (The Verse of the Throne). Ayat-ul-Qursi has multitude benefits but apart from Ayat-ul-Qursi having its benefits, the verse with “Hayyul-Qayyum” mentioned was referred to by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as the “greatest”:

Ubayy b. Ka'b said: Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) said: O Abu' al-Mundhir, do you know the verse from the Book of Allah which, according to you, is the greatest? I said: Allah and His Apostle (May peace be upon him) know best. He again said: Abu'l-Mundhir, do you know the verse from the Book of Allah which, according to you, is the greatest? I said: "Allahu La ilaha illa Huwal Hayyul Qayyum." Thereupon he struck me on my breast and said: May knowledge be pleasant for you, O Abu'l-Mundhir! – [Sahih Muslim, Book 4, #1768]

In another narration, Prophet Muhammad (saw) heard the man use “Hayyul-Qayyum” in his supplication and the Prophet (saw) said that he has supplicated using Allah’s Greatest Name:

Narrated by Anas Ibn Malik: I was sitting with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and a man was offering prayer. He then made supplication: O Allah, I ask Thee by virtue of the fact that praise is due to Thee, there is no deity but Thou, Who showest favour and beneficence, the Originator of the Heavens and the earth, O Lord of Majesty and Splendour, O Living One, O Eternal One.
The Prophet (pbuh) then said: He has supplicated Allah using His Greatest Name, when supplicated by this name, He answers, and when asked by this name He gives. – [Abu Dawood, Book 2, #1490]

Yet another hadith to show the importance stressed by Prophet Muhammad (saw) on the Hayyul-Qayyum:

Narrated by Asma' daughter of Yazid: The Prophet (pbuh) said: Allah's Greatest Name is in these two verses: "And your deity is one deity; there is no deity but He, the Compassionate the Merciful," and the beginning of Surah Al 'Imran, A.L.M. "Allahu La ilaha illa Huwal Hayyul Qayyum." – [Abu Dawood, Book 2, #1491]

Conclusion

With the grace of Allah (swt) it can be seen that is a clear reference to YHWH in the Quran. This reference is much stronger than what the Christians claim to be a reference to YHWH in the New Testament. The word “ego eimi” is in no way the Greek word for YHWH nor does it hold the meaning of YHWH. However as seen, there is a clear reference to the term YHWH in the Quran as well as the Hadith.

The Quran gives us many beautiful names of Allah (swt), some of which have been mentioned above, and a Muslim can call upon Allah (swt) with any of his beautiful names unlike the followers of the Bible who do not even know how to pronounce the ‘personal name’ revealed to them. Indeed much of the truth in those books is lost just like the pronunciation of YHWH is lost and the Quran is sent to restore that which is lost – The Criterion.

The following video present an alternative view regarding Yahweh in the Quran. It does not reflect our view, but provides an interesting analysis.

Hayyul-Qayyum as the equivalent of Yahweh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=94bksJOS21U

Pilgrimage & Ka'ba


We, as Muslims, pray in the direction of the Ka'ba (Black Box in Mecca), but we do not worship the Ka'ba. We respect the Ka'ba as a location which was the first place on Earth built for worshipping God. It was initially established by Adam, and later on, it was re-built by Abraham and his son Ishmael.
Unfortunately, a certain period of time after Abraham & Ishmael, people in Mecca started worshipping more than one God. K'aba became a centre of idolatry until Prophet Mohammad came and called people to worship only Allah, the Creator & Sustainer, the God who sent his great prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus to ask people to worship him alone.
What is important for us is not the black box, but the location as a historical place of worship. The Ka'ba marks the center of a holy location.



Muslim Scientist saying that Neil Armstrong proved Mecca is the centre of the world & an endless radiation is emitted from Mecca connecting Mecca to Heaven
Muslim Scientist: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca - World Center - YouTube[/url]

Mysteries of Mecca (Makka): Golden Ratio

Mysteries of Mecca : Golden Ratio 1.618 (Full Version) - YouTube[/url]
Michael Wolf (his father is Jewish & mother is Christian) an American journalist & a convert to Islam: His pilgrimage journey to Mecca (part 1 /3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ewtp9fiVJfg[/url]
Michael Wolf (his father is Jewish & mother is Christian) an American journalist & a convert to Islam: His pilgrimage journey to Mecca (part 2 /3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=PNK9Vk7tMUo

Michael Wolf (his father is Jewish & mother is Christian) an American journalist & a convert to Islam: His pilgrimage journey to Mecca (part 3 /3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Ewtp9fiVJfg
Do Muslims worship Kaaba (the black cube in Mecca) ? 1/ 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=POB-Evsudvc
Do Muslims worship Kaaba (the black cube in Mecca) ? 2/ 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=gxZPKkhXz70
Dr. Zakir Naik explaining the significance of the Kaaba to Muslims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=-FdUQ7BYDkU
What is the The Black Stone (Hajar Al-Aswad) of the Kaaba

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fmqPNj3FHX8
Dr. Zaghloul Najjar (Naggar): The Black Stone in the Kaaba
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6IpAgI7VWgs

Inside the Kaaba picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=FuT-0Zh8oKg

The journey of an American Woman (ex Catholic, convert to Islam) who goes to Mecca to perform Hajj

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Fem3fL5zPHk
The Pilgrimage (Hajj) to Makkah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=a-9UT8Frx_k
Hajj to the Holy City of Mecca (National Geographic) pt.1-5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6HMKTjAnMus
Hajj to the Holy City of Mecca (National Geographic) pt.2-5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6HMKTjAnMus

Hajj to the Holy City of Mecca (National Geographic) pt.3-5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=E2hIbJZHJc8
Hajj to the Holy City of Mecca (National Geographic) pt.4-5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zCRkwTCQYV0

Hajj to the Holy City of Mecca (National Geographic) pt.5-5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=x8kgn3L8LwI

American Little Hajjis: 1 of 4: Pilgrimage to Makkah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=XuIomRqf0Pc
American Little Hajjis: 2 of 4: Pilgrimage to Makkah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KCdz0poz2vc

American Little Hajjis: 3 of 4: Pilgrimage to Makkah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=QQCG7PYnH74

American Little Hajjis: 4 of 4: Pilgrimage to Makkah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=2xwyjs8HA0c

The water of Zam Zam well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Fwyo5QSNkaw

The Story Of ZamZam well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=AzHX8SlJkoM

Heaven or Earth ? Which was created first ?

Response by Randy Desmond

The reader has to understand two things:
First, the word translated "then" is the Arabic word "thumma". It can be rendered "Moreover/Furthermore". Jochen shows this in his web page disputing the number of days of creation. I mention it again in my response to that page. It is also true that "thumma" can be rendered "then" (as in a subsequent "and").
Second, the Arabic word for "he turned" can be rendered as "he turned", " he has turned", or "he had turned". The implication being a past action has occured. See "Written Arabic - An Approach to the Basic Structures" by A.F.L. Beeston (cost about $25.00), Chapter 3, note 22.
So what does this mean with respect to the verses quoted by Jochen?
It means that Surah 2:29 may be read as follows:
He it is Who created for you all that is on the Earth. Furthermore, he had turned to the heaven and had made them into seven heavens.
That is an acceptable translation of the Arabic and it does not conflict with Surah 79:27-30. In fact if we assume it "thumma" means "then", the sentance could potentially be awkward. (i.e. "...then he had turned...")
So which is the most accurate rendering? I assume there is no contradiction in the Qur'an and so if I can find a legitimate context that renders all the data coherent, I accept that as a proof that contradiction has not been proven. I don't think anyone can claim "contradiction" on anything unless there is no alternative explanation which legitimately explains why a proposed contradiction is not a contradiction.
Continuing, if you look at Jochen's page on the number of days of creation you will see that my response to that supports my argument here. Then look at my response to Jochens page on the heavens and earth ripping apart (if my respoonse has been posted - as I write this I'm not sure if it has), you will further see that the whole creation story is cohesive when we take all the data into account. I will grant the reader that this exchange between Jochen and I may be disjointed and a bit confusing, but please, take all the information into account. To say it is contradictory or confusing is not taking into consideration that translations may be the point of confusion and not the Qur'an.
If these are the kinds of things Jochen has encountered from Muslims attacking a the Bible, his feelings reflected in his purpose statement are understandable. Although I do question his intent and methods for venting these feelings. It seems questions about these "contradictions" should be asked before accusations ensue (or appending "...more to come..." on the webpage - that is a bit presumptuous).
Now, having said all that, I came up with some guide lines we can apply to any book to prove/disprove contradictions. Let me know if you think it is fair.
Is there ever a context for which the proposed contradictory statements are not contradictory?
If it seems that the statements are still contradictory, ask the following:
Have I made any unverified assumptions?
Have I considered all possible definitions of the words?
Have I considered all possible translations of the words?
Have I considered all grammatical syntactic definitions/renderings?

Do you agree that if we answer NO to the first two questions and YES to the last three questions, then we would seem to have a contradiction?
So if, after considering all of the above information, we still have a contradiction, then we can conclude that there is a problem. (Note: this is addressing internal contradictions of a document, I have not thought whether this is also a relevant guideline for external contradictions). Not being scholars in the matters, we could then even consult scholars in the matters and see what they have to say. If after all this there is still a problem. So be it.
Let me also point out that proving contradictions is much harder than disproving them. So, working with the assumption that there is none and conclusively proving a contradiction is a much more credible approach than vice-versa. Now I hope that we can apply these ideas to both the Qur'an and Bible.
Well, that is my opinion. Is it agreeable? God knows best.

What did Allah create first Heaven or Earth?

By
Frank
(source: http://www.answering-christianity.com[/url])

ALLEGED CONTRADICTION: Surah 41:9-12. States that Allah created the earth first and finished the earth and second: created the heaven, which was vapor from the big bang theory and finished the heavens and third made the stars. Science tells us that first: the vapor in the big bang theory came, second: stars and third: the earth.
ANSWER: The skeptics will argue that because verse nine begins with a general description of the earth followed by verse ten which elaborates the creation of the earth in verse nine that a sequential series of events is being established and thus verses eleven and twelve follow the sequence. We shall see how this statement falls flat on its face in light of all the evidence!
First, The Quran does not lay down a definitive sequence of events in 41:9-12 or any other place in the Quran. For example, it does not say First he did this, Second he did this, Third he did this, Fourth he did this, Fifth he did this, and Sixth he did this, giving us the total of the 6 periods of creation mentioned in many places in the Quran (7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4, 57:4, 50:38). Incidentally, each time we are told that creation is completed in six periods the word heaven always precedes the word earth.
Second it is interesting to note that Surah 41:9-12 is probably the most descriptive Surah with regard to the creation of the Universe. However, the statement that creation was completed in 6 periods is never reiterated at the beginning of 41:9-12 or any other place in this chapter. Consequently, the statement appears seven times in the Quran, thus suggesting that these verses were not intended to be viewed as A COMPLETE SEQUENTIAL ACCOUNT (see below) of creation. If it were, one would expect the statement to appear again at the beginning of verse nine or at the very least somewhere in the chapter, but it doesn’t; I wonder why.
Wait it gets better, the Quran did not intend for these verses to be interpreted sequentially because if one does the math the periods add up to eight and not six (2+4+2), thus, rendering these verses a mere description of non-sequential overlapping events. Surely, Allah could count to six. Hence, because we have overlapping events we must take this into account when we try to put together an account (see below) of the creation process.
Fourth, the earth could not possibly be the first thing created in the sequence because 79:27-30 states that in no uncertain terms beyond a shadow of a doubt that Allah created the heavens before the earth. Hence, these verses are not a sequential account of the 6 periods of creation and thus must be viewed both jointly and severally in relation to the whole Quranic account of creation. The word "then" in verses 2:29 and 41:11 is "Tumma"; it can mean "and also or moreover." Many translators of the Quran incorrectly use the word "then." The sentence structure clearly breaks and the facts are separate accounts.
Critics also state that since the six periods of creation is identical to the number described in the biblical version of creation that it must be wrong. However, the Arabic word for periods is Yaum, and it can mean a series of time that varies (See 32:5, 70:4). Moreover, Muslims never claim that the bible has no truth to it. What probably happened was a prophet of thousands of years ago was told about the 6 periods of creation and the story was subsequently changed to what we presently see to be clearly incorrect; this is nothing new from the Muslim position, since we see these insertions and deletions in the Bible over and over again!
The following are some key verses that deal with creation in the Quran. It must be remembered that many of these verses would be occurring non-sequential and concurrent just as 41:9-12 implies.
POSSIBLE DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS


PERIODS 1
THE BIG BANG CAME FIRST -The big bang occurred as a result of massive energy. Plasma eventually was formed.
21:30 "Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, but we have opened them."- Translation M.H. SHAKIR, YUSAF ALI
(THE HEAVEN AND EARTH WERE IN A FORM (PLASMA) AND DEFINITELY NOT IN THE FORM WE PRESENTLY SEE THEM OTHERWISE HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN JOINED? HOWEVER ALLAH INSISTS ON ADDRESSING THEM AS EARTH AND HEAVEN. THUS, IT FOLLOWS WHEN ALLAH SPEAKS OF EARTH AND HEAVEN THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY TO BE CONSTRUED AS FULLY DEVELOPED ENTITIES AS WE KNOW THEM, FOR THEY WERE IN AN "OPENED" STATE.)

PERIOD 2

THEN CAME A VAPOR/GAS THAT WAS DESTINED TO BE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH DURING THIS "OPEN" STATE -Plasma later cooled to gases (helium and hydrogen).

41:11 Moreover, he directed himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so he said to it and to the earth Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly." – Translation M.H. SHAKIR, YUSAF ALI
(THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH ALL BEING PART OF THE SAME GAS/VAPOR (OR "OPENED" ENTITY) AS DESCRIBED ABOVE WERE DESTINED TO "COME WILLINGLY" INTO EXISTENCE. MOREOVER, SINCE WE ARE TOLD IN 79:27 THAT THE CREATION OF THE HEAVEN CLEARLY PREDATED THAT OF THE EARTH, THE EARTH MUST HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS PRIMORDIAL MATTER AND DEFINITELY NOT DEVELOPED. NO SKEPTIC CAN RATIONALLY DENY THIS, OTHERWISE THE SENTENCE WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE: SHALL WE SAY THAT WHEN ALLAH SAID, "DO YOU COME WILLINGLY" HE INTENDED TO RE-IMPLODE THE BIG BANG!)


PERIODS 3 AND 4

THE CREATION OF THE HEAVENS -Eventually, the gasses condensed into the stars.

41:12 "So he ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and made it to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the knowing." -Translation M.H. SHAKIR
67:3 "God is the one who created seven heavens one above another." - Translation M.H. SHAKIR
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
51:47 "With power and skill did we construct the heaven: For it is we who expand the vastness of Space." -Translation YUSAF ALI, MAURICE BUCAILLE.


PERIODS 5 AND 6

EARTH IS COMPLETED AFTER THE HEAVENS -Stars eventually exploded and recondensed over numerous cycles, forming the heavy elements that later condensed into planets.

79:27-30 "Are you the harder to create or the heaven? He made it. He raised high its height, then put it into a right good state. And he made dark its night and brought out its light. And the earth, he expanded it after that." -Translation M.H. SHAKIR

41:9 "Say: What! Do you indeed disbelieve in him who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds." – Translation M.H. SHAKIR
41:10 "He set on (the earth). Mountains standing firm, High above it, And bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four periods, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (sustenance)." -Translation YUSAF ALI
(THE FOUR PERIODS DESCRIBED IN THIS VERSE COULD BE SUB-PERIODS OF THE PRIMARY TWO PERIODS DESCRIBED IN 41:9)

A DESCRIPTION OF HOW GOD CREATED THE EARTH AND A SEPARATE DESCRIPTION OF HOW HE CREATED THE HEAVEN. NO SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IS ESTABLISHED FROM THIS VERSE.
2:29 "He it is who created for you all that is in the earth (I.E 41:10); and also he directed himself to the heaven, so he made them complete seven heavens (I.E 41:12)" – Translation M.H. SHAKIR

Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30]

by Mishal ibn Abdullah
The earth was created first, as mentioned in the first verse of Al-Baqarah(2):29. The first verse uses the word "Khalaqa" (created). The second set of verses only say that God "Daha" (spread out and gave features) the earth after the creation of the heavens, not that he "Khalaqa" (created) it. Please verify my claims by referring to any convenient dictionary, such as "Lisan Al-Arab." In other words, God created the earth, created the heavens, and then gave the earth its features and spread them out. This is explained in sufficient detail by the Companion of the Prophet Ibn Abbas who's words in this regard have been recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari. The very verses themselves even explain it for those who would like to read the very next verse. The verses say "And the earth He "daha" after that; He extracted from its water and its fodder, and the mountains He planted firmly..." Thus, it is quite clear from the verses themselves what is meant by this word. It simply means "to spread out and give features, such as streams, mountains, plants, etc."
It is very possible that what is meant by "spreading out and giving features" in this verse is the well known "continental drift" theory. In the early 20th century a German meteorologist by the name of A. L. Wegener, after studying numerous scientific indications suggested that the continents had started out as a single unified continent millions of years ago when the earth was first formed. These continents then split apart, and like a giant jigsaw puzzle they moved apart to form the continents we know today as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Americas, etc. This splitting of the continents is postulated to have begun in the Mesozoic Era and is continuing in the present era.
Originally, a huge primeval supercontinent that Wegener called Pangea (Greek, "all land") had rifted and the pieces had separated to form the present continents. According to Wegener, South America and Africa began to separate about 100 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period, as did North America and Europe, thereby creating the Atlantic Ocean. The Indian Ocean began to open up during the Jurassic Period. The principal movement, however, occurred during the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, when the Indian subcontinent moved north and collided with Asia, and Australia became separated from Antarctica, driving into the Indonesian Archipelago. The westward drift of the American continents generated the compressive forces that produced the western Cordilleran mountain ranges, and the northward drift of India crumpled a large area, thus forming the Himalaya mountain range. Similarly, the Alpine mountain ranges were the result of north-south compression between Africa and Europe.
Wegener supported his hypothesis by producing evidence from various fields. Wegener did not base his theory simply on the celebrated "jigsaw fit" of the Atlantic continents, rather, much more convincing were the numerous indications evident in the geographic distribution of distinctive types of fossils. The conventional "stabilist" interpretation rejected continental drift and favored transoceanic land bridges that had sunk, such as the fabled Atlantis. Wegener showed, however, that this interpretation was geo-physically implausible. Other evidence supporting Wegener's hypothesis came from a comparison of the rocks on both sides of the Atlantic, which seems to indicate that the continents had been closely connected in the past, as well as from a study of ancient climatic zones and a series of late Paleozoic sedimentary deposits known as tillites.
Although Wegener's hypothesis originally received a generally hostile reception, recently, new geophysical evidence tends to support the hypothesis of drifting continents. Convection cells, plate tectonics, and seafloor spreading are three new sciences which have recently combined to support the continental drift theory.
It is interesting to note that in the Qur'an God ties the "spreading out" (Daha) of the earth with the formation and "planting" of the mountains. An issue which Wegener has confirmed and considers to be an integral part of this theory as seen above. It is also interesting that this matter is only just beginning to receive wide-spread acceptance in the scientific community in this century. One wonders, if prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not receive his message from God, then where did he get the theory that the earth was "spread out" long after its creation and that this spreading out is related to the creation of the mountains among other issues?
Further, it is also strange that in spite of the fact that the Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the Marmaduke Pickthall, and the Hilali and Khan translations of the meanings of the Qur'an all translate the second verse as "spread out" or "extended," still, in order to generate a "contradiction" the author of this list managed to change this word to "create" in order that it might support his allegations. A strange way to 'prove' one's case.

Inaccurate, Twisted & Fabricated Stories about Prophet Mohammad


Because the principles of Islam are so great, haters of Islam find it difficult to attack Islam directly so they resort to attacking Prophet Mohammad by bringing up fabricated stories from unreliable history books such as Ibn IssHaaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (Biography of Allah's Messenger), Al-Waqidi's Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi, Ibn Sa'd's Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra, and Al-Tabari's Tarikh Al-Tabari.
Ibn IssHaaq wrote a history book, not a Hadith book. Such history books at his time did not pay attention to tracing the chain of transmitters for their stories.
Ibn IssHaaq's (also spelled as Ibn Ishaq) name means the Son of Isaac.
Ibn IssHaaq (born in 704 - died in 770) is unreliable for several reasons:
- Stories he narrated did not have proper chain of transmitters.

- He was Shiite. Shia lie a lot and justify it using Taqiya doctrine.
- He made favorable statements about Jewish tribes which were hostile to the Muslims.
- He accepted Jews as sources for transmitted stories.

Imam Malik, the founder of one of the 4 Sunni Mazhabs (Schools of Thought) called Ibn IssHaq a liar. Some Muslim scholars claim Ibn Ishaq included verses in his book that he knew were not authentic.

Western non-Muslim researchers also criticized Ibn IssHaaq:

"False ascription was rife among the 8th century scholars (versus Bukhari who lived in the 9th century) and that in any case Ibn Ishaq and contemporaries were drawing on oral traditions." ( Cook, M: Muhammad, Oxford 1983. pg. 65)
Even the famous Polemist and anti-Islam author Robert Spencer admits in his book The Truth about Muhammad , that "However, Ibn Ishaq's life of Muhammad is so unashamedly hagiographical that its accuracy is questionable." (Spencer, Robert: The Truth about Muhammad, Regnery Publishers, 2006 pg. 25) Despite his negative opinion regarding Ibn IssHaaq, out of the 400 footnotes of Robert Spencer's book, 120 footnote refer to fabricated stories from Ibn Ishaq's book. Because Robert Spencer hates Islam so much that he is willing to present these stories as if they are true, even though he knows that their source is unreliable.

Al-Waqidi is one of the least respected Historian. The following is the opinions of Muslim scholars about Al-Waqidi:
- Abd Allah Ibn Ali al-Madini and his father said: "Al-Waqidi has 20,000 Hadith I never heard of." And then he said: "His narration shouldn't be used." and considered it weak.
- Yahya Ibn Muaen said: "Al-Waqidi mentioned 20,000 false hadith about the prophet."
- Al-Shafi'i said, "Al-Waqidi is a liar."
- Ibn Hanbal said, "Al-Waqidi is a liar."
- Al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim al-Razi said: Al-Waqidi's work should be discarded. Al-Bukhari said he didn't write a single letter by transmitted by Al-Waqidi.
- Ibn al-Madini said: "He forges Hadiths".
- Al-Dhahabi said: "Consensus has settled on his weakness."

Al-Tabari who included Ibn IssHaaq's book in his multi-volume Tarikh Al-Tabari has the following disclaimer in the introduction to the book:
"...if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us."

All of the following stories appear in Ibn IssHaaq's book and some of them also appear in other history books:

1. The alleged murder of Abu Afak
Abu Afak was allegedly an old Jewish Poet who lived in Madina at the time of the Prophet Mohammad and wrote a poem making fun of Prophet Muhammad and the Early Muslims. The story alleges that Prophet heard of these verses and ordered killing of Abu Afak. A Muslim man named Salim Ibn Umayr went forward and killed Abu Afak with a sword (Ibn IssHaaq, page 675).
This story was mentioned in Ibn IssHaaq and Al-Waqidi’s history books. The chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn IssHaaq or Al-Waqidi must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the Isnad (chain of reporters)? There is no Isnad for this story. This story has no isnad at all; neither Ibn IssHaaq (or his disciple Ibn Hisham) nor Al-Waqidi (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) provided such Isnad! In this case, the story is rated by Hadith scholars as "...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its Isnad. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence or reliable chain of reporters.
In brief, we cannot accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of Hadith criticism. We are therefore obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak. So, again this story is 100% false and fictional. Furthermore, this story is not found in Hadith books .

2. The alleged torture of Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn Al-Huqaiq
The story as narrated in Ibn IssHaaq’s book: Kinana al-Rabi (a Jew), who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir (Jewish Tribe), was brought to the Messenger (Prophet Mohammad) who asked him about it. He denied knowing where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the Messenger and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every early morning. When the Messenger said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it, I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The Messenger gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest, he refused to produce it, so the Messenger ordered Al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he (Al-Zubayr) kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he (Kinana) was nearly dead. Then, the Messenger delivered him (Kinana) to Muhammad bin Maslama who struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn IssHaaq, page 515)
There is no Isnad (chain of transmitters) for this story. Islam prohibits torture so it is impossible that he was tortured. Most likely, this false story was circulated by the Jews to discredit Islam. Only Ibn IssHaq and Tabari (Historian) narrated it in their books.

3. The killing of Sallam Ibn Abul-Huqaiq
According to this story, Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.) allegedly wanted a man called Sallam ibn Abul-Huqaiq (who was a Jew) to be killed. So a group of Muslims broke into his house, pushed his wife away and killed Sallam. (Ibn IssHaaq, p. 482-483 )
The Isnad (chain of transmitters) of this story contains untrustworthy individuals so it cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, this story doesn't appear in Hadith collections.

4. The killing of Sarah, a freed slave
Another fake story claims that Prophet Muhammad allegedly commanded his men to kill a freed slave named Sara, who used to make fun of him, wherever they find her. She was eventually found and trampled to death by a mounted soldier. (Ibn IssHaaq p. 551)
It seems that this woman, Sarah, was probably Jewish, so this story was most likely fabricated by the Jews or Jews who pretended to be Muslims. This story is not found in Hadith books such as Bukhari, Muslim, etc.

5. The killing of the Ten Meccans
Another false story being circulated by haters of Islam is Prophet Muhammad's alleged killing of ten Meccans (six men and four women) just for making fun of him.
This story is also found in both Ibn IssHaaq's book as well as in Ibn S'ad's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir". Ibn Sa'd was known to be the scribe of Al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd's book is derived from Al-Waqidi's book. Al-Waqidi, as we have stated in the beginning of this article, is one of least respected historians at his time.
Neither Al-Waqidi nor Ibn Sa'd were eye-witnesses to the killing of the Meccan Ten; they were simply collectors of stories.
It is also worthwhile mentioning that: “ ... Al-Waqidi was attacked by strict practitioners of Hadith for his loose Isnad usage ...” (Tarif Khalidi, Arabic Historical Thought in the Classical Period, 1994, Cambridge University Press, p. 48)
According to Encyclopedia of Islam, Al Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who say that he is unreliable. Even Imam Shafi, founder of one of the 4 Sunni Mazhabs (Schools of Thought) says that "the books written by Al-Waqidi are nothing but heaps of lies".
This story about the killing of ten Meccans is not mentioned in any Hadith book.

6. The killing of al-Huwayrith
According to this story, Al-Huwayrith insults and makes fun of Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad allegedly orders that Huwayrith be killed and allegedly Ali kills Huwayrith. (Ibn IssHaaq, p. 551)
This story is found in Ibn IssHaaq and Al-Tabari's history book. Al-Tabari acknowledges that some of the stories in his book could be false or inaccurate. No chain of transmitters is listed for this story. It has not been mentioned in Hadith books.

7. The Killing of an anonymous One-Eyed Shepherd
The story alleges that a one-eyed Shepherd authored a poem making fun of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) and Islam. A Muslim man, called Amr, after hearing this poem, killed the one-eyed Shepherd while he was sleeping. Amr later told Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) who allegedly praised Amr for his deed. Like the rest of these stories from Ibn IssHaaq’s book, this story is most likely false. It doesn’t have a chain of transmitters (Isnad). This story is only narrated in Ibn IssHaaq’s book. It is not mentioned in Hadith books.

8. The Killing of Abdullah bin Khatal and His Two Singing Girls
The story goes like this. Abdullah bin Khatal was a convert to Islam. He later apostated and his two singing girls start singing songs making fun of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.). The Prophet did not like this and allegedly ordered all three of them to be killed. Abdullah was allegedly killed by two Muslims. One of his girls was also allegedly killed too. However, the other girl managed to get away and survive. (Ibn IssHaaq, p. 551)
This story is only found in Ibn IssHaaq and is not mentioned in any Hadith book. The Isnad (chain of transmissions) for this story is broken and very weak. Thus, we can safely say that this story like the rest is false. And we've already seen that Prophet Muhammad did not order the killing of women from the above quoted Hadith. This story was most likely made up by Jews of Madinah and Ibn IssHaaq probably got this fabricated tale from them.

9. The alleged killing of Asma bint Marwan
The first story that critics of Islam spread around is the killingof Asma bint Marwan, a woman from the tribe of Aus. She is said to have been a poetess who made fun of Prophet Muhammad saying that he killed many of their chiefs (not true). According to the story, when Prophet Muhammad heard this, he allegedly asked a Muslim named Umair to kill her. He brutally murdered her and Prophet Muhammad praised him for this deed.
The story of the killing of Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir[10] and by the author of Kinz-ul-'Ummal under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiy and Ibn 'Asaker.
What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiy mentions it in his book Al-Kamel on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that: “...this isnad (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.” (Ibn 'Adiy, Al-Kamel, Vol. 6, p. 145)
It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal (Vol. 1, p. 279) and is listed among other flawed reports.
So according to its Isnad (chain of transmitters), the report is forged - because one of its reporters is notorious for fabricating Hadith. Hence, such this story is rejected and 100% false. Moreover this story is not mentioned in reliable Hadith books like Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, etc.

10. Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) said: "Will you listen to me O Quraish? By him who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter." (Ibn IssHaaq, p. 130)

Prophet Mohammad made this statement to a group of pagan men from Quraish Tribe who were very hostile toward Muslims. They viciously abused and insulted the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) and Muslims for no reason. Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.) tried to be patient and did not respond for a while, but the pagans did not stop their attacks. Eventually, the prophet Muhammad broke his silence and rebuked these vile pagans.

Given the fact that this story appears only in Ibn IssHaaq, and as we have proved above, this book is very unreliable, it possible that the Prophet did not actually make that statement.

However, even if he did make that statement, it is a reasonable statement, in light of the fact that pagans were initiating and continuing their insults against Muslims, so his response was to frighten them a little so that they think twice before attacking Muslims.

It is well known that Prophet Mohammad & the Muslims, coming from his exile in Medina, eventually managed to conquer Mecca bloodlessly and he granted amnesty to Quraish Tribe and the pagan people of Mecca who had been very hostile to Muslims for many years.

Does the Qur'an have the story of Adam & Eve as told in the Bible?

Are the stories similar or different?
(Source: www.imanway1.com)

They are similar in a basic outline, but different on a few important points. First, let us consider the basic outline. Adam and Eve were placed in a garden in a state of happiness. God instructed them to eat from any tree except one tree. Eventually, they were deceived into eating from the forbidden tree and their nakedness became apparent to them. God then expelled them from the garden.

Now, the disagreements:
1. Neither book names the fruit, but the Bible alone calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Qur'an does not call it such, but teaches that humans are already inspired with the knowledge of good and evil at creation in order to enable them to exercise choice between good and evil. This knowledge did not come as a result of eating from a forbidden tree.
2. The Bible says the deceiver was a serpent, but the Qur'an says it was Satan.
3. The Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but only Eve was deceived; it says that Eve then gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. On the other hand, more than one Qur'anic passages mention that they were both deceived. One passage (in the Quran) specifically says that Satan approached Adam and deceived him. The Qur'an does not single out Eve for blame in any passage.
4. The Bible says that when the couple heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from him among the trees. So God called out to Adam asking where he was, and asking if he ate from the forbidden tree. On the other hand the Qur'an does not depict God in limited human form. The Qur'an and the Bible both teach that God knows everything always.
5. According to the Bible, when the couple was confronted with their mistake, they blamed each other, and Adam even blamed God because God gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. According to the Qur'an they did not pass the blame. Instead, both repented.
6. According to the Bible, God cursed them. According to the Qur'an, God forgave them and guided them.
7. According to the Bible, they were driven out of the garden because God was afraid that they may eat from the tree of life and live forever. According to the Qur'an, God's plan was to educate our first parents in paradise, then send them into the world for a limited time to resist Satan, the enemy. They were sent to earth as part of God's plan for them; not as a way of preventing them access to the tree of life, but as a test to distinguish those deserving of everlasting enjoyment in God's paradise.
8. According to the Bible, God had said that when Adam eats from the tree he would surely die, and the serpent said they will not surely die. The serpent was right—they did not die. Contrary to this, in the Qur'an, God said that if Adam and Eve eat from the tree they will become wrongdoers, then they will have to leave the garden and come out to where they will have to labour. Satan, however, promised them that if they eat from the tree they will live forever. Satan was wrong—they did not live forever.
9. According to the Bible, because of God's curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. According to the Qur'an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise.

What happened to the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza ?


What happened to the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza ?
BANU QURAYZA was a Jewish tribe that fought against the Muslims and this is a story narrated by an unreliable source claiming that after this tribe surrendered, Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) ordered that they be killed. We are providing below excellent article & video that refute this story.

Did the Prophet Muhammad murder 800 Jews? (a video by Sami Zaatari)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KbgTgjK9yNg



NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA


By W. N. ARAFAT


From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,

(1976), pp. 100-107.


IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.
The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuqa.,1 and later Banu al-Nadir,2 provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. Later on Khaybar3 and Fadak4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira,5 the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qurashites and their allies, who made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck.6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.
On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy.
The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their Jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details will then be assessed, and the prototype in earlier Jewish history pin-pointed.
The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him.8 But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories.
It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza.
Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief:
"He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." There is no reference to numbers.
Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and "others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Attiyya13 by name, who had been spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b. Bata, a prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative.
The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms, they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy. The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their part in the whole operation.
The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection.
The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life.14 It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq.15
One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story. Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words, "Waqidi alleged (za'ama) that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug." Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of 'A'isha.16
Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry;17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza.
His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor"18 "who transmits his stories from the Jews".19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach. Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to Malik the jurist.
In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said,20 condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar21 then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this outright rejection.
Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."
Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner.
One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference.
So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story. The reasons for rejecting the story are the following:
(i) As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version.
(ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
(iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named.
(iv) It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed.23
(v) It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal24 that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
(vi) If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.25
(vii) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."
Indeed, Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates a very significant incident in his book Kifab al-amwal,26 which, it must be noted, is a book of jurisprudence, of law, not a sira or a biography. He tells us that in the time of the Imam al-Awza'i27 there was a case of trouble among a group of the People of the Book in the Lebanon when 'Abdullab b. 'All was regional governor. He put down the sedition and ordered the community in question to be moved elsewhere. Al-Awza'i in his capacity as the leading jurist immediately objected. His argument was that the incident was not the result of the cormmunity's unanimous agreement. "At far as I know (he argued) it is not a rule of God that God should punish the many for the fault of the few but punish the few for the fault of the many."
Now, had the Imam al-Awza'i accepted the story of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza, he would have treated it as a precedent, and would not have come out with an argument against Authority, represented in 'Abdullah b. 'Ali. Al-Awza'i, it should be remembered, was a younger contemporary of Ibn Ishaq.
(viii) In the story of Qurayza a few specific persons were named as having been put to death, some of whom were described as particularly active in their hostility. It is the reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.
(ix) The details given in the story clearly and of necessity imply inside knowledge, i.e. from among the Jews themselves. Such are the details of their consultation when they were besieged, the harangue of Ka'b b. Asad as their leader; and the suggestion that they should kill their women and children and then make a last desperate attack against the Muslims.
(x) Just as the descendants of Qurayza would want to glorify their ancestors, so did the descendants of the Madanese connected with the event. One notices that that part of the story which concerned the judgement of Sa'd b. Mu'adh against Qurayza, was transmitted from one of his direct descendants. According to this part the Prophet said to Mu'adh: "You have pronounced God's judgement upon them [as inspired] through Seven Veils."28
Now it is well known that for the purposes of glorifying their ancestors or white washing those who were inimical to Islam at the beginning, many stories were invented by later generations and a vast amount of verse was forged, much of which was transmitted by Ibn Ishaq. The story and the statement concerning Sa'd are one such detail.
(xi) Other details are difficult to accept. How could so many hundreds of persons he incarcerated in the house belonging to a woman of Banu al-Najjar?29
(xii) The history of the Jewish tribes after the establishment of Islam is not really clear at all. The idea that they all departed on the spot seems to be in need of revision, as can be seen on examining the sources. For example, in his Jamharat al-ansab,30 Ibn Hazm occasionally refers to Jews still living in Medina. In two places al-Waqidi31 mentions Jews who were still in Medina when the Prophet prepared to march against Khaybar - i.e. after the supposed liquidation of all three tribes, including Qurayza. In one case ten Madanese Jews actually joined the Prophet in an excursion to Khaybar, and in the other the Jews who had made their peace with him in Medina were extremely worried when he prepared to attack Khaybar. Al-Waqadi explains that they tried to prevent the departure of any Muslim who owed them money.
Indeed Ibn Kathir32 takes the trouble to point out that 'Umar expelled only those Jews of Khaybar who had not made a peace agreement with the Prophet. Ibn Kathir then proceeds to explain that at a much later date, i.e. after the year 300 A.H., the Jews of Khaybar claimed that they had in their possession a document allegedly given them by the Prophet which exempted them from poll-tax. He said that some scholars were taken in by this document so that they ruled that the Jews of Khaybar should be exempted. However, that was a forged letter and had been refuted in detail. It quoted persons who were already dead, it used technical terms which came into being at a later time, it claimed that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan witnessed it, when in fact he had not even been converted to Islam at that time, and so on.
So then the real source of this unacceptable story of slaughter was the descendants of the Jews of Medina, from whom Ibn Ishaq took these "odd tales". For doing so Ibn Ishaq was severely criticized by other scholars and historians and was called by Malik an impostor.
The sources of the story are, therefore, extremely doubtful and the details are diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules of the Qur'an to make the story credible. Credible authority is lacking, and circumstantial evidence does not support it. This means that the story is more than doubtful.
However, the story, in my view, has its origins in earlier events. Is can be shown that it reproduces similar stories which survived from the account of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, which ended in the destruction of the temple in the year AD. 73, the night of the Jewish zealots and sicarii to the rock fortress of Masada, and the final liquidation of the besieged. Stories of their experience were naturally transmitted by Jewish survivors who fled south. Indeed one of the more plausible theories of the origin of the Jews of Medina is that they came after the Jewish wars. This was the theory preferred by the late Professor Guillaume.33
As is well known, the source of the details of the Jewish wars is Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew and a contemporary witness who held office under the Romans, who disapproved of certain actions which some of the rebels committed, but who nevertheless never ceased to be a Jew at heart. It is in his writings that we read of details which are closely similar to those transmitted to us in the Sira about the actions and the resistance of the Jews, except that now we see the responsibility for the actions placed on the Muslims.
In considering details of the story of Banu Qurayza as told by the descendants of that tribe, we may note the following similar details in the account of Josephus:
(i) According to Josephus,34 Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives, and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes.
(ii) Similarly, large numbers were killed by others.
(iii) Important details of the two stories are remarkably similar, particularly the numbers of those killed. At Masada the number of those who died at the end was 960.35 The hot-headed sicarii who were eventually also killed numbered 600.36 We also read that when they reached the point of despair they were addressed by their leader Eleazar (precisely as Ka'b b. Asad addressed the Banu Qurayza),37 who suggested to them the killing of their women and children. At the ultimate point of complete despair the plan of killing each other to the last man was proposed.
Clearly the similarity of details is most striking. Not only are the suggestions of mass suicide similar but even the numbers are almost the same. Even the same names occur in both accounts. There is Phineas, and Azar b. Azar,38 just as Eleazar addressed the Jews besieged in Masada.
There is, indeed, more than a mere similarity. Here we have the prototype - indeed, I would suggest, the origin of the story of Banu Qurayza, preserved by descendants of the Jews who fled south to Arabia after the Jewish Wars, just as Josephus recorded the same story for the Classical world. A later generation of these descendants superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with one from their less remote history. The mixture provided Ibn Ishaq's story. When Muslim historians ignored it or transmitted it without comment or with cold lack of interest, they only expressed lack of enthusiasm for a strange tale, as Ibn Hajar called it.
One last point. Since the above was first written, I have seen reports39 of a paper given in August 1973 at the World Congress of Jewish Studies by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, in which she challenges Josephus' assertion that 960 besieged Jews committed suicide at Masada. This is highly interesting since in the story of Qurayza the 960 or so Jews refused to commit suicide. Who knows, perhaps the Story of Banu Qurayza is an even more accurate form of the original version.
Footnotes
1. Ibn Ishaq, Sira (ed. Wustenfeld, Gottingen, 1860), 545-7; (ed. Saqqa et al., Cairo, 1955), II, 47-9. See also al-Waqidi, Kitab al-maghazi (ed. M. Jones, London, 1966), II, 440 ff.; Suhayl, al-Rawd al-unuf (Cairo, 1914), I, 187 et passim; Ibn Kathir, al-Sira al-Nabawiya (ed. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid, Cairo, 1384-5/1964-6), II, 5, et passim.
2. Sira, 545-56, 652-61/II, 51-7, 190-202; Ibn Kathir, oop. cit., III, 145 ff.
3. Sira, 755-76, 779/II, 328-53, 356, etc. More on Khaybar follows below.
4. ibid., 776/II, 353-4.
5. ibid., 668-84/II, 214-33.
6. ibid., 684-700/II, 233-54.
7. ibid., 689/II, 240; `Uyun al-athar (Cairo, 1356 A.H.), II, 73; Ibn Kathir, II, 239.
8. In his introduction to `Uyun al-athar, I, 7, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (d. 734 A.H.), having explained his plan for his biography of the Prophet, expressly states that his main source was Ibn Ishaq, who indeed was the chief source for everyone.
9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied.
10. d. 179.
11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12.
12. ibid, I, 16.
13. Sira, 691-2/II, 242, 244; `Uyun al-athar, II, 74, 75.
14. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (op. cit., I, 121) makes precisely this point in relation to the story of the Banu Qaynuqa' and the spurious verse which was said to have appeared in Sura LIII of the Qur'an and at the time was taken by polytheist Meccans as a recognition of their deities. The author explains how various scholars disposed of the problem and then sums up by stating that in his view, this story is to be treated on the same level as tales of the maghazi and accounts of the Sira (i.e. not to be accorded unqualified acceptance). Most scholars, he asserts, usually treated more liberally questions of minor importance and any material which did not involve a point of law, such as stories of the maghazi and similar reports. In such cases data would be accepted which would not be acceptable as a basis of deciding what is lawful or unlawful.
15. See n. 18 below.
16. Tabari, Tarikh, I, 1499 (where the reference is to al-Waqidi, Maghazi, II, 513); Zad al-ma`ad (ed. T. A. Taha, Cairo, 1970), II, 82; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., IV, 118.
17. On this see W. Arafat, "Early critics of the poetry of the Sira", BSOAS, XXI, 3, 1958, 453-63.
18. Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila.
19. `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7. In his valuable introduction Ibn Sayyid al-Nas provides a wide-ranging survey of the controversial views on Ibn Ishaq. In his full introduction to the Gottingen edition of the Sira, Wustenfeld in turn draws extensively on Ibn Sayyid al-Nas.
20. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7.
21. ibid.
22. Qur'an, XXXV, 18.
23. Qur'an, XLI, 4.
24. ed. Khalil Muhammad Harras, Cairo, 1388/1968, 241.
25. Significantly, little or no information is to be found in general or special geographical dictionaries, such as al-Bakri's, Mu`jam ma'sta`jam; al-Fairuzabadi's al-Maghanim al-mutaba fi ma`alim taba (ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1389/1969); Six treatises (Rasa'il fi tarikh al-Madina ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1392/1972); al-Samhudi, Wafa' al-wafa' bi-akhbar dar al-Mustafa (Cairo, 1326), etc. Even al-Samhudi seems to regard a mention of the market-place in question as a mere historical reference, for in his extensive historical topography of Medina he identifies the market-place (p. 544) almost casually in the course of explaining the change in nomenclature which had overtaken adjacent landmarks. That market-place, he says, is the one referred to in the report (sic) that the Prophet brought out the prisoners of Banu Qurayza to the market-place of Medina, etc.
26. p. 247. I am indebted to my friend Professor Mahmud Ghul of the American University, Beirut, for bringing this reference to my attention.
27. d. 157/774. See EI2, sub nomine.
28. Sira, 689/II, 240; al-Waqidi, op. cit., 512.
29. Sira, 689/II, 240; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., III, 238.
30. e.g., Nasab Quraysh (ed. A. S. Harun, Cairo, 1962), 340.
31. op. cit., II, 634, 684.
32. op. cit., III, 415.
33. A. Guillaume, Islam (Harmondsworth, 1956), 10-11.
34. De bello Judaico, I, 4, 6.
35. ibid., VII, 9, 1.
36. ibid., VII, 10, 1.
37. Sira, 685-6/II, 235-6.
38. Sira, 352, 396/I, 514, 567.
39. The Times, 18 August 1973; and The Guardian, 20 August 1973.