Apostates (Muslim Osama Abdallah)

And

Do Not Be Fooled By Propaganda (Charley Reese)

And

Sword (Muslim)

Hope you will find the 2 articles useful and answer your question

See you in the next post!

Download the debate (Size: 1.33GB)

It’s very a fascinating debate, the arguments launched by the two participants, which is Osama Abdallah and David Wood are worth hearing and you will gain many knowledge by listening the “Does The Quran contain Scientific Miracles in It” debate so I recommend you to download by clicking the download link above

Hope you find the post useful

See you in the next post

For answers all of the problems www.bismikaallahuma.org has written a good solution for you, you can visit, their page here:

What Should Be the Muslim Reaction to Christmas?

I hope the above article can give you a solution to face Christmas, Insha Allah, please read it

Allah Knows Best!

Infidels like Ibn Kamunna is every where, they feel that they’re the only people deserve insulting others but not prepared to receive insult from others. It’s becoming their mentality and as muslim I only can pity on them.

Ok now let’s deal with Ibn Kamunna article in: Muhammad The Wise Assassin.

First of you must realize that the time Ka’b Al Ashraf insulted prophet was at warring time, while Islam still growing disparately and just experienced the decisive battle with Meccan. It’s normal for a leader to make sure the safety of his community.

And Ka’ab Al Ashraf was a dangerous thread, he launched a derogatory poem against prophet and Muslims and incite Meccan to take revenge for their killed people.

Back in time when Arabia was into jihaalat, poem was so powerful that it was used to start wars. So you will find in the History of wars, before any battle, the poets were throwing verses of poems before throwing arrows.

And this is one of the reason why Qur’aan had a challenge that nobody could create such a word as the Qur’aan.

This poet already lighted the fire of war against my beloved Prophet and Islam, and if left alone was going to poor petrol in that fire. And the entire barbaric Arabs were going to stand against Him and Islam. The only way to put off that fire was to finish him.

Don’t let yourself get influenced by opposition, accept the reality, that if he did it He has good reasons otherwise he would not have done it. He was the most compassionate among the human race.
Ask help from Allah to make you understand the truth.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ordered to kill him because his life would have costed many lives of companions as he was inciting Meccan to attack Madina.

And the following is a response of brother Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi:

Furthermore, Ka’ab had composed several amatory verses in defamation of the honour of a Muslim woman by the name of Ummu’l-Fadl bint al-Harith:

Are you off without stopping in the valley
And leaving Ummu’l-Fadl in Mecca?
Out would come what she bought from the pedlar of bottles,
Henna and hair dye.
What lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow in motion
When she tries to stand and does not.

The significance of “what lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow in motion” is explained in the footnote by the translator of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah as:

Presumably her buttocks are meant; they would be between her ankle and her elbow as she reclined. Large and heavy buttocks were marks of female beauty among the old Arabs.

A poet of pre-Islamic days expresses the Arab sentiment of chastity and virtuousness in a couplet, which depicts a lovely picture of Arab womanhood: “If my glance meets the looks of a neighbouring maiden, I cast my eyes low until her abode takes her in”. Hence it was within the context of the above incitements made by Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf which was why the Muslims were agitated when their women were being dishonoured and public sentiment called for his punishment.

Punishable Treason

As we have stated before, Ka’ab’s actions were against a clause in the Madinah Covenant signed between the Muslims and the Jews of Madinah. The relevant stipulation of this covenant is as follows:

Loyalty is a protection against treachery.The freedmen of Thalaba are as themselves. The close friends are as themselves. None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his whole household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that. The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime. A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document. Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

His acts were openly directed against the Commonwealth, of which he was a member. It is therefore clear that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf’s antagonism towards the Muslim community was his own undoing, and was no longer protected by the covenant that he himself had violated. Akram Diya’ al-Umari remarks:

The killing of Ibn al Ashraf might be seen as an act of treachery, but on further reflection one realizes that Ibn al Ashraf was party to the treaty according to the Document by which the Jews of Banu al Nadir and others were committed. By slandering the Prophet, who was the head of state, and by showing his sympathy for the enemies of the Muslims (lamenting their dead and inciting them against the Muslims), Ibn al Ashraf had broken the treaty and declared war on the Muslims, and his blood could be shed with impunity. As for his being deceived and killed by those he had trusted, such action is legally permissible (ja’iz) in the case of those who have declared war on the Muslims, and it was carried out by order of the Messenger (See al Tahawi, Mushkil al-Athar). The Messenger, however, did not blame Banu al Nadir for Ibn al Ashraf’s crime; it was sufficient to have him killed for his treachery. The Prophet, in fact, renewed his treaty with them (Banu al Nadir).

However, some may object that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf was merely composing “poetries” as a form of “freedom of expression”, and therefore was not causing any “harm” to anyone around him. Those who say this certainly do not understand the significance of the blasphemous poetry by Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf. Arabic poetry can be very influential and cannot be thought of in the terms of English poetry or any other forms of poetry in other languages. As Philip K. Hitti himself notes,

No people in the world, perhaps, manifest such enthusiastic admiration for literary expression and are so moved by the word, spoken or written, as the Arabs. Hardly any language seems capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence as Arabic.

After noting Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf’s acts of incitement and false accusations towards Muslim women, Haykal says that

The reader is perhaps aware of Arab custom and ethic in this regard, and can appreciate the Muslims’ anxiety over such false accusations directed against their women’s honour.

Certainly, the reader would agree with us that “freedom of expression” certainly does not include the right to defame the honour of another, or to incite aggression against a legitimate Government. Hence it is clear that by modern terms today, Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf will be duly charged with sedition against the State and for outraging the modesty of a Muslim woman. (Source: What About The Killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf?)

Certainly you won’t cause you’re not going to win and there’s a chance that the case will go back against you. This is happening with charge imposed at Prophet Muhammad to be responsible of killing two poets that launched satirical poetry, Abu Afak and Asma.

And here’s the explanation of Hesham Azmy concerning the killing of Abu Afak and Asma, that I originally taken from: Noor Allah website, feel free to read.

The Killing of Abu ‘Afak

Where is The Isnad?

According to Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ishaq, Abu ‘Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who abused the Prophet (peace be upon him) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salem Ibn ‘Umair to kill him. Well, we know that Ibn Ishaq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra, as well as Al-Waqidi from whom Ibn Sa’d (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu ‘Afak.

As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishaq or Al-Waqidi must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnad (i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of Seera do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnad at all; neither Ibn Ishaq (or his disciple Ibn Hesham) nor Al-Waqidi (or his disciple Ibn Sa’d) provide such thing!!

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.We are obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu ‘Afak by Salem Ibn ‘Umair at the Prophet’s command.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story – according to scientific criteria of reeports’ criticism – which strangely appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra.

The Killing of ‘Asma’

True Story? or Forgery?The charge is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had ordered the killing of ‘Asma’ when she insulted him with her poetry, and the implications are that he (peace be upon him) “stiffles” criticism by murdering his opponents. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.

The story of the killing of ‘Asma’ bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa’d in “Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir”[1] and by the author of “Kinz-ul-’Ummal” under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa’d, Ibn ‘Adiyy and Ibn ‘Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn ‘Adiyy 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.[2]

It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in “Al-’Ilal”[3] and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnad, the report is forged – because one of its reporters is accused of fabricating hadith. Hence, such a story is better put in trash can.

Well, in brief, authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibits the killing of women in war.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, “Shall we kill her?” He said, “No.” I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of God’s Apostle.
(Sahih al-Bukhârî, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him, but the Christian missionaries, using a fabricated story, wants us to believe that he ordered the killing of a woman who only abused him verbally.

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.
(Sahih-ul-Bukhârî, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 257 & 258. Also see Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 9)

Due to this prohibition, scholars of Abu Hanifah’s School of Thought state that apostate women are not to be killed because the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade killing women and since the prohibition is general, then it includes apostate women.[4]

Even after the Prophet’s demise, his Sunnah was preserved by the Muslims  …

Abu Bakr advised Yazid: “I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camel except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”
(Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 10)

Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mabarakfuri sums it up in “Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtoum”,

The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had issued honourable strict rules about war and bade his soldiers and leaders to comply with them. They were forbidden to break those rules under any circumstances. In reference to Sulaiman bin Buraidah’s version, who said that his father had told him that whenever the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] appointed a leader on an army or on a battalion, he used to recommend him to fear Allâh, the Great and All-Mighty, when dealing with those who were closest to him and to be good with all Muslims. Then the Prophet [pbuh] would say to him:

“Let your invasion be in the Name of Allâh and for His sake. Fight those who disbelieve in Allâh. Invade but do not exaggerate nor commit treachery. Never deform the corpse of a dead person or kill an infant child.”

The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] asked people to facilitate but he forbade them to bear down hard on others or constrain. “Pacify”, he said, “and do not disincline”. [Sahih Muslim 2/82,83] When it happened that he arrived at the battlefield by night, he would never invade the enemy till it was morning. He utterly forbade burning (i.e. torturing people) in fire, killing children and women or even beating them. He also forbade theft and robbery and proceeded so far as to say gains acquired through plundering are not less forbidden than the flesh of a corpse. Corruption of tillage and race and cutting down of trees were all forbidden unless they were badly needed and there was no other substitute:

“Do not kill a wounded person nor run after a fleeing one or kill a captive.”

He decreed that envoys cannot be killed. He also stressed on not killing those who made covenants. He even said:

“He whoever kills one who is under pledge to a covenant shall not smell Paradise, though its smell could be experienced at a forty-year distance from it.”

There were some other noble rules which purified wars from their Al-Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic) filthiness and turned them into sacred wars. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/64-68; and for details Jihad in Islam p.216-262]

I believe this should clarify any acquired misconception readers hold toward our beloved Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). And to God is the judgement in all affairs.

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition.
(Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105)

We have utilized their scientific methodology to expose the false narratives attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the alleged killing of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma’ bint Marwan. Examination of isnad (i.e., chain of reporters) has revealed the unreliability of both stories. Also, examination of matn (i.e., text) has revealed their inevitable contradiction with vigorously authentic traditions and established Islamic principles. ‘Abdûr-Rahmân I. Doi had stated that

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:
(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur’an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.[5]

But critics may have an objection; if these stories are untrue, then why they are mentioned in Islamic references in the first place? In response, we have shown the position of learned Muslim scholars toward references of biographies whose authors used to copy masses of reports without check or criticism. These particular stories even prove their unscientific methodology because they are reported without isnad at all. This is extremely unusual of any respectable scholar. Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (224-310 A.H.) in his encyclopedic book of history “Tarik Al-Umam wa Al-Mulouk” did not give mention of these stories at all despite the fact that he mentions far less significant reports in his book.

Hence, based on the empirical evidence, we can therefore conclude that the so-called “killing” of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma’ bint Marwan is inherently false and had never happened. This certainly throws the spanner into the works of the missionary’s “only” conclusion, which is based upon nothing but hatred, paranoia and xenophobia towards the elect Apostle of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

My main article to post this article to refute Ibn Kamunna in:

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2110

Wafa Sultan, just one of may be many ex-Muslims who experienced bitter tragedies while they were Muslims. They saw and experienced situation that scared them and they blame Islam for it. Afterward they left Islam to criticize or insult Islam.

People like Wafa Sultan are growing in numbers, they generally came from poor families, oppressed community form corrupt countries with full of violence. They saw the west, admired, adored and chose that countries and way of life I currently stay with is backwards, primitive and uncivilized yet they didn’t try to think fair that what’s happening to them were not Islam’s fault, but political and greediness.

Now people like Wafa are welcomed in the West, and they know exactly to get sympathy and compliment from West is criticising or spreading lies against Islam. Yes lie!, like Ali Sina, Masab (the so-called son of Hamas Chief, who now become Christian and become the active liar) and others.

And Wafa Sultan didn’t want her self left behind to get into the same lies, so she launched falsehood and fortunately brother Bassam Zawadi responded her see the following wonderful response to Wafa Sultan’s deceitfulness:

• Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted
• Wafa Sultan’s Lies Refuted
  (This one is Bassam Zawadi Official Site)

Now question comes and infiltrates my head, why on earth a secular site such FFI.com who is run by Atheists accommodates a Christian apologetic by giving him a space to post apologetic arguments to benefit his faith?

Isn’t FFI.com supposed to be filled with arguments (mostly to attack Islam) by those who decided to stop believing in any religion at any form? But FFI.com will be refusing to be associated with Christian nor Christianity, they are to say that THIS IS NOT CHRISTIAN SITE.

Or perhaps FFI.com feels that Christians need assistance to defending their faith from Muslim’s debator therefore they give spaces for Christians to publish for defending their faith.

Or may be FFI.com thinks that Christians sites on the net have not given good job in providing answers for Muslims?

I don’t know what’s purpose but one thing worth noting from now that: FFI.com is becoming Christian Site. See the similarities between the 2 apologetic articles in FFI.com with the same articles published in Answering-Islam.org, you will be amazed that the 2 like twin. So it’s not baseless if Muslims claim that FFI.com is Christian site…because it’s.

Now it’s time to deal with Ibn Kammuna’s article, personally I don’t really care whether prophet Muhammad by name or by acts to be prophesied in Bible or not, since as for me Bible is not Divine Words of God. But I catch something interesting from Ibn Kammuna article and I think it will be good to reveal it and respond it.

Please read the following quotation from Ibn Kammuna to answer Prof. Jamal Badawi from this article:

•4. It was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who was the Paraclete, Comforter, helper, admonisher sent by God after Jesus. He testified of Jesus, taught new things which could not be borne at Jesus’ time, he spoke what he heard (revelation), he dwells with the believers (through his well-preserved teachings). Such teachings will remain forever because he was the last messenger of God, the only Universal Messenger to unite the whole of humanity under God and on the path of PRESERVED truth. He told of many things to come which “came to pass” in the minutest detail meeting, the criterion given by Moses to distinguish between the true prophet and the false prophets (Deuteronomy 18:22). He did reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgement (John 16:8-11)

Let us analyze what Dr. Badawi is saying

Paragraph number 1 uses a verse from the old testament (Deuternomy 18:18) to establish an indirect claim about Muhammad. Well, let us see what that verse says:

King James Version – I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

One does not need to be a theologian to see that there is nothing in that verse telling about Muhammad. In fact, if one reads FFI challenge, it will become apparent that if anything, the above verse will never apply to Muhammad. How can such a verse apply to a leader of a gang of robbers who massacred about seven hundred adult men of Bani Qurayze in one day? How can such a verse apply to a looter and an assassin? How can such a verse apply to a man who prayed his Fajr prayer then attacked the peaceful farmers of Khayber? The second verse that Dr. Badawi mentions is (John 1: 19-21).

Read again from Ibn Kamunna lines:

it will become apparent that if anything, the above verse will never apply to Muhammad. How can such a verse apply to a leader of a gang of robbers who massacred about seven hundred adult men of Bani Qurayze in one day? How can such a verse apply to a looter and an assassin? How can such a verse apply to a man who prayed his Fajr prayer then attacked the peaceful farmers of Khayber?

So according Ibn Kamunna prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is no way to be the awaited prophet in Deuternomy 18:18, because prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is an assassin, a robber, a looter and a butcher and these kind of evil personalities don’t fit with Biblical teaching, therefore prophet Muhammad is not the one and not qualified to fulfill the prophecy.

Do you really think so Ibn Kamunna? Or you’re trying to fool yourself and all FFI.com readers who read your article. Let’s supposed that prophet Muhammad had evil personalities, that become the aspects you use to disprove prophet Muhammad as awaited savior in Deut 18:18. I think this is going to be fun because your own Bible against your baseless argument while instead Bible supports for Muhammad to be the awaited savior. Don’t believe me? Let’s read on.

Remember according Ibn Kamunna Prophet Muhammad can’t be a prophet because he was a looter, murderer, butcher and robber, well let follow the following verses of Bible:

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2: 32-37
And we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

So here we have Moses and his army killing both women and children merciless. And see this:

Deuteronomy Chapter 3: 6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves

So according BIBLE, Moses and his army not just killed the entire people in every city, they also loot their victims properties.

Deuteronomy
Chapter 7: 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:

This one really beat all of the most cruel man ever exist on earth….I am speechless. If you call Muhammad a looter, a murder and a butcher so what’s the fittest title for your God?

Deuteronomy
Chapter 7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

No peace treaty…just kill..burn…butcher…loot!

Frankly I could go on with more terrifying Bible verses to prove my point, but I hate to make my readers get scared. So, Ibn Kamunna how could you forgot the above verses? Or you’re too internet dumb to use Google to search scariest verses within your Bible?

Well, if there’s a reason for rejecting prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the promised prophet or awaited savior in Deut 18:18 IS BECAUSE PROPHET MUHAMMAD FAILED TO BE AS CRUEL AS BIBLE TEACHING! OR YOUR GOD COMMANDS. That’s the only aspect to disprove prophet Muhammad.

Ibn Kamunna, If you reject Muhammad (pbuh) because he was a sinful Prophet. You better do the same toward Moses the sinful prophet (according OT) because he was a murderer of uncounted innocent people and you should already blamed God as the one behind the tragic incidents.

And there’s another hilarious argument of Ibn Kamunna that needs a response:

This paragraph has grand claims also. Badawi just claims that Muhammad is the Paraclete. Muhammad is the only Universal Messenger to unite the whole of humanity under God and on the path of PRESERVED truth. I do not know how Dr. Badawi knows that. He did not supply much evidence to such grand claims. How is Muhammad “the only Universal Messenger”? How is Muhammad to unite all humanity?

How is Muhammad to unite all humanity? Then read this:

Muhammad’s teaching (Revelation of Allah SWT) so universal, it teaches about people are mankind, are equal the whole human race, and preaches the natural brotherhood of man without distinction of tribe, status, clan, gender, race or color. And the most honorable among ye is the one who is most pious among ye! It says:

“O you men! We have created you of a male and a female, and then We made you (into different) races and tribes so that you may know[/b] (and “recognise) each other. Surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is most pious among you; surely Allah is All-Knowing and “Aware.” The Qur’an 49:1

So how about your Bible? OT only concerns about Jews and Israel, put them as chosen people and the rest of mankind that around Israel were nothing but enemies that must be cleansed ethnically.

Ibn Kamunna goes on saying:

All Muhammad did is loot, kill rape, steal, and divide people into two camps the Muslims and the Kafirs

Yes I agree Muhammad didn’t fit the test to be the most cruelest, barbarous and ruthless man that your Bible has set.

Good day!