Is the Prophet Muhammad Islam's second God?



Sami Zaatari




Not happy with the fact that he got spanked not once, but twice, Shamoun has returned to get spanked for the trinitieth time. Shamoun has released what he calls a rebuttal to my two articles which refuted his assertions that we as Muslims are commanded to pray to the prophet Muhammad and give him the same obedience as we do to God. His rebuttal can be found on this link:


With that said let us see what this unclean pagan has to say, his comments will be in green:


The amateur apologist claims that obeying Muhammad is to obey Allah since it is Allah who commanded Muslims to obey his messenger. And this is supposed to be the response which will help enlighten me concerning the elementary aspects of Islamic theology!


Indeed this unclean pagan shows how he lacks an understanding. He acknlowdges the answer, but instead of realizing that what he says refutes him, he persists in playing stupid, although if I am honest I don't believe Shamoun plays stupid.

As I said in my other articles, obeying the prophet Muhammad is obeying Allah for the precise reason that Allah has commanded us to. Hence if you disobey the prophet you essentially disobey God, since you are directly refusing God's order in obeying his last and final prophet.

You see for us Muslims, the chosen and best of peoples, this is very easy. But for an unclean pagan as Shamoun the easy is never easy to understand as he has been cursed and God has sealed his heart for his stubbornness.

The missionary continues:

it is the Muslim scholars, not Islamophobes or missionaries, who claim that the use of the Arabic conjunction wa ("and") in relation to the Quran's orders to obey Allah and Muhammad implies that the latter is Allah's equal.

The fact that mention of the Prophet is directly connected to mention of Allah also shows that obedience to the Prophet is connected to obedience to Allah AND HIS NAME TO ALLAH'S NAME. Allah says, "Obey Allah and His Messenger" (2:32) and "Believe in Allah and His Messenger." (4:136) Allah joins them together using the conjunction wa WHICH IS THE CONJUNCTION OF PARTNERSHIP. IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THIS CONJUNCTION IN CONNECTION WITH ALLAH IN THE CASE OF ANYONE EXCEPT THE PROPHET.

Hudhayfa said that the Prophet said, "None of you should say, 'What Allah wills and (wa) so-and-so wills.' Rather say, 'What Allah wills.' Then stop and say, 'So-and-so wills.'"

Al-Khattabi said, "The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the will of Allah before the will of others. He chose 'then' (thumma) which implies sequence and deference as opposed to 'and' (wa) WHICH IMPLIES PARTNERSHIP."

Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the presence of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Whoever obeys Allah AND His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever rebels against them both (joining them together by using the dual form)." The Prophet said to him, "What a bad speaker you are! Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]"

Abu Sulayman said, "He disliked the two names being joined together in that way BECAUSE IT IMPLIES EQUALITY." (Qadi Iyad, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K., third reprint 1991, paperback], pp. 7-8; capital emphasis ours)

This accounts for the reaction of the people around Muhammad who claimed that this kind of obedience bordered on worship and likened him to Jesus in Christian devotion:

It is related that 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said to the Prophet, "Part of your excellence with Allah is that He has made obedience to you obedience to Him. Allah says, 'Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah' (4:80) and 'If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you.'" (3:31) it is related that when this ayat was sent down, people said, "Muhammad wants us to take him as a mercy IN THE WAY CHRISTIANS DID WITH 'ISA, so Allah revealed, 'Say: Obey Allah, and the Messenger.'" (3:32) (Qadi Iyad, p. 9; capital emphasis ours)


(And he commanded you) O people of the Quraysh, Jews and Christians (not that ye should take the angels) as daughters of Allah (and the Prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve) how could Abraham command you to follow disbelief (after ye had surrendered (to Allah) after he commanded you to follow Islam (completely Surrendering to Allah), saying to you: (Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) Religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered [2:132]). Allah says here: Allah has not sent a Messenger except that He commanded him to follow Islam and not Judaism, Christianity or the worship of idols, as these unbelievers claim. It is also said that this verse was revealed about the claims of the Jews that Muhammad commanded them to love him and worship him as the Christians worshipped Jesus. The Christians and idolaters also made the same claim. (Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ?Abbās; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

If all of this doesn't convince Muslims like Zaatari that Muhammad placed himself on the same level as God, or even above him, and that one must completely submit to him as they submit to Allah then nothing will.


It is amazing that this unclean pagan will quote sources and not see the sources he quotes are refuting him! The reason why the unclean pagan can't see this is because as I said, he doesn't understand anything about Islam! So I will have to teach him the basics yet again, and open his mind to what the texts are saying.

Let us firstly refute the last quotations Shamoun brought, which is the Jewish accusation that the Muslims were turning the prophet Muhammad into another Jesus. This is very easy to refute, the prophet Muhammad himself directly refuted these Jews, as well as this unclean pagan Shamoun:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654:


Narrated 'Umar:


I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."


So the prophet specifically said DON'T MAKE ME LIKE JESUS! And this silly missionary is arguing the Jewish case that Islam turns the prophet Muhammad into Jesus when the prophet specifically taught the Muslims to do no such thing! Sometimes you have to think how stupid can this missionary get?


So what about the first issue, which is the use of wa in Arabic which basically means and. Such as obey Allah AND the prophet. Does this entail equality between Allah and the prophet Muhammad?


This is the part where Shamoun exposes his complete ignorance in the basics of Islam, and what it means to accept Muhammad as a prophet, and basically what the Shahada is.


So I have to teach this unclean pagan the very basics.


The reason why Allah specifically says obey Him and the prophet is very simple, because both are connected to each other. The prophet Muhammad was given the revelations of Islam, he taught the people what Islam is, and who God is. How can you worship and believe in Allah if you reject the prophet who taught you about this truthful message? The very same prophet whom God has chosen? It is completely futile to do such a thing, and has no place in Islam.


When a Muslim says the Shahada, he can't take one and reject the other, they are both connected with each other, that we believe in the one true God, and that Muhammad is his last and final messenger. Believing in Allah means you believe in Muhammad's prophethood, and believing in the prophet Muhammad means you believe in Allah.


This is EXACTLY what these very same scholars believe, they don't believe the prophet is equal with Allah; rather they are trying to convey this point which I am telling you right now. This is the basics my friends, anyone who studies Islam, this will be taught in the BEGGINNERS course!


Secondly, the prophet Muhammad was given the Sunnah, the Sunnah is from Allah:

Narrated Al-Miqdam ibn Ma'dikarib:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Beware! I have been given the Qur'an and something like it, yet the time is coming when a man replete on his couch will say: Keep to the Qur'an; what you find in it to be permissible treat as permissible, and what you find in it to be prohibited treat as prohibited. Beware! The domestic ass, beasts of prey with fangs, a find belonging to confederate, unless its owner does not want it, are not permissible to you If anyone comes to some people, they must entertain him, but if they do not, he has a right to mulct them to an amount equivalent to his entertainment. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 40, Number 4587)

This is exactly why you have to obey the prophet Muhammad, because his Sunnah is from Allah! Hence disobeying the Sunnah is disobeying God since the Sunnah is from God.


All of this went over Shamoun's head it seems.


The unclean missionary continues:


First, Zaatari fails to inform his audience that the Arabic word for worship comes from the Arabic term ibaadah, and is more literally translated as service.




This missionary yet AGAIN shows how stupid he is in Islam. Since the missionary knows how bad this statement refutes him, which is in the Tashahhud:

The Messenger of Allah used to teach us tashahhud just as he used to teach us a Sura of the Qur'an, and he would say: ALL services rendered by words, ACTS OF WORSHIP, and all good things are due to Allah

So notice all worship belongs to Allah, and the prophet Muhammad taught us this! Which refutes this pagan's assertion that we worship the prophet.


So what does he do to refute me? He argues on the word of Ibaadah! Yet he doesn't know the word Ibaadah when used in reference to Allah is an indication that all WORSHIP belongs to Allah. We also call it Tawhid al Ibaadah, which means that all acts of worship belong to God alone!


Here is one nice scholarly article by Sheikh Salih bin Fawzaan, the entire article is written about Tawhid of worship to


Allah, Tawhid of Ibaadah to Allah, which is the SAME THING, that all worship belongs to Allah:


The unclean pagan continues:

Note, once again, what the hadith says:

Peace be upon YOU, O Prophet, and Allah's mercy and blessings.

Now contrast this with the following:

Peace be upon us and upon Allah's upright servants.

Do the readers see the clear difference between the two statements? One is a prayer where the worshiper directs his words to Muhammad whereas the other is an invocation for peace upon the worshipers without addressing them directly.


Do the readers see how desperate Shamoun is? And do you see just how BAD his arguments are?!

I already refuted this in my last rebuttal, so I will repeat my point again because this missionary thinks by him repeating his rubbish argument that it will somehow erase the responses.


To start off, how does sending our peace upon the prophet mean we are worshiping him?! This is the first point we have to deal with, because Shamoun is just playing with words and doctrines and acting like he has shown something when he hasn't. When we Muslims send our peace upon the prophet it is NOT AN ACT OF WORSHIP! It is not praying to the prophet at all. Shamoun is making all of this up.


Secondly, the earlier part of the Tashahhud completely refutes him, which is why he wanted to play word games with Ibaadah, and this is what it says:

The Messenger of Allah used to teach us tashahhud just as he used to teach us a Sura of the Qur'an, and he would say: ALL services rendered by words, ACTS OF WORSHIP, and all good things are due to Allah

So all acts of worship belong to Allah. This conclusively refutes Shamoun's wild claim that sending our peace to the prophet is some sort of worship!


Thirdly, there is no difference between these two statements:

Peace be upon YOU, O Prophet, and Allah's mercy and blessings.

Peace be upon us and upon Allah's upright servants.

Shamoun claims one is direct, and the other isn't. I guess he doesn't know how to read properly , the second part of the Tashahhud is also a DIRECT statement. The only difference is that in the first part, we specifically mention the prophet alone, and this is due to his honor and his esteemed position. After this we directly mention the entire Muslim nation, so when I invoke Allah to send peace upon the Muslim nation including myself, I am sending this peace DIRECTLY to every single Muslim, including myself. 


This shows how absurd Shamoun's claim is, because using his twisted logic this then means that we Muslims all worship each other, including ourselves, since we invoke Allah's blessings directly to each other!


Fourthly, Shamoun has missed the main point that completely crushes everything he says. Although we have already crushed his points, this OTHER point will do further damage to his claims. When we make the Tashahhud, we are invoking and calling UPON ALLAH, we are invoking Allah to send his peace and blessings! The fact that we are calling and invoking upon God to send his peace and blessings seals the argument.


Also back to the main point, invoking Allah to send his peace and blessings upon the prophet is not an act of worship to the prophet, I repeat, Shamoun is making this up.


The missionary continues:

To put this in another way so that Zaatari gets it, the Muslim is speaking to Muhammad directly as he prays for him, even though he is dead, whereas the latter part does not directly address the recipients of Allah's peace or blessings.


I had to actually laugh when I read this statement, Shamoun completely refuted himself, notice what he says:

To put this in another way so that Zaatari gets it, the Muslim is speaking to Muhammad directly AS HE PRAYS FOR HIM

Exactly! We are not praying TO THE PROPHET, rather we pray for him, just as we also pray for all Muslims when we invoke God to send his peace and blessings upon all the Muslims. Also many times you have friends come up to you and they ask you to pray for them etc.

So notice, this liar admits we pray for the prophet, not to the prophet, yet he is still arguing we pray to the prophet Muhammad! Are you his Christians fans blind at the stupidity of your representative?

Back to his other point, I already addressed it, the reason why we specifically mention the prophet, is because of his esteemed position, and because of his honor. There are more than 1 billion Muslims now, it would be impossible for me to sit there and mention each one, the same for the companions in the prophet's time. So instead of addressing each Muslim one by one, I directly address ALL OF THEM together. The prophet gets the honor of being addressed specifically alone, and this is not because we worship him or because he is God, rather this is as I repeat again a sign of his honor and high position.

Shamoun continues, this time trying to reprieve himself of lying upon some other Muslims, such as Bilal Phillips:

Here is a quote from Philip's lecture concerning the tashahhud which will help the readers see clearly through Zaatari's red herring and smokescreen:

"If you call on anyone who cannot answer your call, you are worshiping him.if we call on somebody who isn't here, right - they're living, right - you have groups that promote this. You can call on the shaykh, right, you have a problem, you need his help, just call on him. He's a living shaykh. The fact that you call on him - he's not present, he's not available to help you - that's worship. If he is dead it's also worship. And when you call on rasulullah. The point is that rasulullah is dead. So the point is that to call on anyone who cannot answer your prayers is worship. And the prophet said, ad-dua huwa-l-ibaadah. Calling - ad-dua, to make dua, to call on, from da'a, dawa, means to call- it is worship in its essence. That is the essence of worship. We say, Ya Allah. If you say, Ya rasulullah, you are involved in worshiping the prophet Muhammad. Now some people say, ?well, don't we say in our tashahhud, assalam alayka ayyuha rasul?' Don't we say this? ?Peace be on you, O messenger?' Don't we say this, this is not in our tashahhud?' Yes it is in the one that our prophet taught us. But Abdullah ibn Masud, in Sahih al-Bukhari, he informed that, when the prophet was living among them, they use to say that. But when he died, instead they said, assalam alā nabi wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakatu - ?peace be on the messenger and Allah's mercy and blessings.' They didn't say alayka anymore, ayyuha rasul, or ayyuha nabi. They said, assalam alā nabi. Now scholars have differed as to whether you should follow what Abdullah ibn Masud said or whether we should just go with what the prophet initially taught. The proper methodology is to go with what Abdullah ibn Masud said. Why? Because he said, ?we use to,' not just ?I, I use to' - that maybe a personal thing on his part. But he said, ?we,' the companions of the prophet, and there are a number of other narrations of other companions saying the same thing. So if we now are going to understand what prophet Muhammad taught us, do we understand it as our own minds tells us? Or do we understand it the way that the companions of the prophet understood it? This is the crux of the matter. Our understanding of Islam should depend on how the companions of the prophet understood Islam. Otherwise you will end up with all kinds of interpretations." (Bilal Philips, Foundations of Islamic Studies, Part 2: source 1, source 2)

The reason why Philips was arguing for this form of the tashahhud is because he was aware that addressing Muhammad directly in prayer now that he is dead is an act of shirk, or the sin of associating partners with Allah, since all communication in one's prayers and worship must be directed to Allah alone. Yet the problem for Philips' position is that Muhammad's companions continued to pray to him directly in tashahhud by saying "peace be upon YOU, O Prophet," and they did not adopt Ibn Masud's version. For the details see my articles.

Philips comments also refute Zaatari's assertion that if these men believed that the tashahhud was idolatrous then they would have spoken against its use even though this was the way it was performed during Muhammad's lifetime. As Philips explains, speaking to Muhammad directly in prayer while he was alive is different than communicating to him in one's daily worship now that he is dead.


It is amazing how this missionary will lie and change his positions. Especially his last line where he writes:

As Philips explains, speaking to Muhammad directly in prayer while he was alive is different than communicating to him in one's daily worship now that he is dead.

What this missionary forgets to say is that THIS IS NOT SAM SHAMOUN'S POSITION! This is BILAL PHILLIPS POSITION! And I say EXACTLY, Bilal Phillips NEVER believed saying the Tashahhud during the prophet's life time as idolatry or worshipping. Yet this missionary clown believes otherwise, this missionary clown believes that uttering the tasshahhud BOTH during the life time of the prophet and after he died is idolatry, not just after he died!

So thank you Sam, you proved you lied upon Bilal Phillips, and as I said in my first rebuttal, Bilal Phillips only argues now on how the Tashahhud should be pronounced, he doesn't deny the Tashahhud, nor does he deny the pronunciation of saying YOU while the prophet was alive.

The missionary then proves how he ignorant of Islam he is when he writes:

To make matters worse, Zaatari mentions that the tashahhud or Islamic prayer ends by testifying that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, which provides further evidence that Muhammad is Allah's coequal partner and Islam's second god


What did I tell you? Didn't I tell you at the start of this article that this unclean pagan has no understanding in Islamic basics, starting with the Shahada? This missionary believes that saying the Shahada, that Muhammad is the messenger of God makes Muhammad a god as well! What can I say to such stupidity? I will let you the Muslim readers simply laugh at this stupidity.

And indeed Shamoun, I pronounce the Tashahhud everyday, making it known that there is only one God, and that Muhammad is his MESSENGER. You must be stupid as you believe being a messenger of God makes you God, oh well at the end of the day you believe that three separate distinct persons= one person, so yes you are quite stupid.

The missionary ends his article by going back to Sufis again:

Zaatari continues to expose more of his ignorance of Islam, this time of Islamic history, since he claims that most Muslims do not hold to Sufi beliefs. The fact is that the majority of Muslim scholars, both of the past and present, were/are Sufis or those who perform(ed) tasawwuf. It is Zaatari's Salafi cult, itself a minority in relation to the vast majority of Muslim scholars, who deny Sufism. For the details and historical evidence that proves that the majority of scholars have been Sufis we suggest that the readers peruse the website of Shaykh Gibril Foaud Haddad


Correction, most Islamic scholars of the past were not Sufis and did not practice many of the Sufi practices that we see today. Secondly, Shamoun is in for a very rude awakening if he believes that Muslims who follow a Salafi school of thought are in a minority, a very rude awakening indeed. Thirdly I am not a Salafi per se, nor did I ever claim to be, it seems Shamoun is very stupid he believes any Muslim who shares many similar beliefs to Muslims who call themselves Salafis must be Salafis also! Which is why I repeat, Shamoun is in for a very rude awakening if he believes that Muslims who hold to the Salafi school of thought to be in the minority.

I will repeat what I said in my last article, although I don't agree with my Sufi brothers and sisters, I none the less consider them to be my fellow Muslims, and we all agree hell is waiting for Shamoun and Paul.

Also I agree with Shamoun, people should pursue what sheikh Haddad has to say, what he has to say on Christianity, which is that it is a false cross worshiping pagan cult. Very nice Sam, I am glad you agree and recommend such a scholar.

So in conclusion, Shamoun has refuted nothing, he has simply showed he is literally stupid when it comes to Islam, and I do mean LITERALLY.

And Allah Knows Best



The desperate and unclean Trinitarian pagan has come out with a quick reply to my latest rebuttal against him. My rebuttal can be found here:


And his can be found here:


The unclean pagan writes:


It is obvious that I hit a nerve with this young lad since all throughout his "rebuttal" he refers to me as an unclean pagan, and in this he is simply following the example of his false messenger




You can never hit one of my nerves, but I always hit your nerves, and both you and I know this as you always have to resort to insults and name callings which we have saved to expose you for what you are. Off course you then cry foul play when you get the same treatment.


I call you an unclean pagan not because you made me angry, rather I call you an unclean pagan because this is precisely what you are! You are spiritually dirty, and on the path of dirty and lies, hence you are unclean.


As for being physically unclean, then I don't know, that is for you to know, but judging by the way you none Muslims clean yourselves after you use the bathroom, I am not very confident you are clean in physical terms neither, but that is a topic for another day.


Secondly, I am also following the example of your false god Jesus, who insulted and cursed his opponents, and even said that they should be brought before him and killed.


The unclean pagan continues:


The lad keeps harping on the part where Muhammad is reported to have stated that all acts of worship should be rendered to Allah:

The Messenger of Allah used to teach us tashahhud just as he used to teach us a Sura of the Qur'an, and he would say: ALL services rendered by words, ACTS OF WORSHIP, and all good things are due to Allah

He completely misunderstood my point concerning the word for worship in Arabic being derived from ibaadah. This term literally translates as service and, as we shall now see, neither the Quran nor the Sunna restricts all acts of service to Allah alone.

For instance, what do Muslims mean that all acts of ibaadah are to be rendered unto Allah alone? Does it mean that all prostration (i.e. sujud/sajda) is only to be given to Allah?



Once again the pagan missionary shows his lack of understanding on Islamic basics. Ibaadah to God is the act of worship belonging to him alone. There is no need to re play the wheel, I already posted a link for Shamoun to teach him on this subject, which I repeat is BEGGINER courses!


So to answer his Q again, what does it mean that all acts of Ibaadah are for Allah? It means that all worship belongs to him.


The missionary begins to lie now:

Allah commanded and/or permitted that such acts of worship be shown to creatures such as Adam and the prophet Joseph:

And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down [in worship] to Adam" and they bowed down [in worship] (osjudoo li-adama fasajadoo). Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. S. 2:34

And when We said to the angels, 'Bow yourselves [in worship] to Adam'; so they bowed themselves [in worship] (osjudoo li-adama fasajadoo), save Iblis; he was one of the jinn, and committed ungodliness against his Lord's command. S. 18:50

Behold! Joseph said to his father: "O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate [in worship] (sajideena) themselves to me!" S. 12:4

And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell down in prostration (sujjadan) before him, and he said: O my father! this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true. S. 12:100


The missionary is now making things up as usual. Allah did not command the angels to bow in worship to Adam; rather it was a sign of respect, and man's higher position amongst the angels.

The same with Yousef, the prostration to Yousef was not an act of worship, but an act of respect and honor to Yousef's high esteemed ranking.

The missionary continues:

It surely can't mean that Muslims can only to pray to their deity since there are sound narrations where Muslims prayed to Muhammad as well:

Tirmidhi relates, through his chain of narrators from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said, "I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me." The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak'as of prayer, and then say:

"Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O MUHAMMAD (YA MUHAMMAD), I SEEK YOUR INTERCESSION with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: "for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me"]."

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) added, "And if there is some need, do the same." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Umdat Al-Salik) in Arabic with facing English text, Commentary and Appendices, edited and translated by Nuh Hah Mim Keller [Amana Corporation; Revised edition, July 1, 1997], w40.3, p. 935; bold and capital emphasis ours)


The blind man was not worshipping the prophet at all, Shamoun yet again shows he has a reading problem.

It is amazing that Shamoun reads and doesn't read! Notice what the hadith specifically says:

a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said, "I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me.

The blind man asks the prophet to pray for him, the blind man doesn't pray to the prophet! Did Shamoun go blind at this point? I don't know.

Secondly, as the narration continues the blind man NEVER prays to the prophet Muhammad! Anyone who knows how to read properly will see that no where in this narration does the blind man pray to the prophet, I will quote the hadith again, and let's see:

Tirmidhi relates, through his chain of narrators from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said, "I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me." The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak'as of prayer, and then say:

"Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; o Muhammad, I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: "for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me"]."

Do any of you see any act of worship being given to the prophet Muhammad? Please Shamoun, I would love to see it.

Or is Shamoun so silly and ignorant he believes that intercession is an act of worship?! Asking the prophet to intercede on your behalf is not an act of worship. All Muslims believe in intercession, and we believe the prophet Muhammad will intercede for Muslims on the Day of Judgment:

Book 001, Number 0381:

Anas b. Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I would be the first among people to intercede in the Paradise and amongst the apostles I would have the largest following (on the Day of Resurrection). (Muslim)

Book 001, Number 0373:


Anas b Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Allah would gather people on the Day of Resurrection and they would be concerned about it, and Ibn Ubaid said. They would get a Divine inspiration about it, and would say: If we could seek intercession with our Lord, we may be relieved from this predicament of ours. He (the Holy Prophet) said: They would come to Adam andsay, Thou art Adam, the father of mankind. Allah created thee with His own hand and breathed unto thee of His Spirit and commanded the angels and they prostrated before thee. So intercede for us with thy Lords, that He may relieve us from this position of ours. He would say: I am not in a position to do this, and would recall his error, and would fight shy of his Lord on account of that; go to Noah the first messenger (after me) sent by Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: So they would come to Noah (peace be upon him). He would say: I am not in a position to do that for you, and recall his fault which he had committed, and would fight shy of his Lord on account of that, (and would say): You better go to Ibrahim (peace be upon him) whom Allah took for a friend. They would come to Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and he would say: I am not in a position to do that for you, and would recall his fault that he had committed and would, therefore, fight shy of his Lord on that account (and would say): You better go to Moses (peace be upon him) with whom Allah conversed and con- ferred Torah upon him. He (the Holy Prophet) said: So they would come to Moses (peace be upon him) He would say: I am not in a position to do that for you, and would recall his fault that he had committed and would fight shy of his Lord on account of that (and would say): You better go to Jesus, the Spirit of Allah and His word He would say: I am not in a position to do that for you; you better go to Muhammad (may peace be upon him), a servant whose former and later sins have been forgiven. He (the narrator) said: The Messenger or Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: So they would come to me and I would ask the permission of my Lord and it would be granted to me, and when I would see Him, I would fall down in prostration, and He (Allah) would leave me thus as long as He would wish, and then it would be said: O Muhammad, raise your head, say and you would be heard; ask and it would be granted; intercede and intercession would be accepted. Then I would raise my head and extrol my Lord with the praise which my Lord would teach me. I shall then inter- cede, but a limit would be set for me I would bring them out from the Fire and make them enter Paradise (according to the limit). I shall return then ard fall down in pros- tration and Allah would leave me (in that position) as long as He would wish to leave me it would be said: Rise, O Muhammad, say and you would be heard; ask and it would be conferred; intercede and intercession would be granted. I would raise my head and extrol my Lord with praise that He would teach me. I would theft intercede and a limit would be set for me. I would bring them out of the Fire (of Hell) and make them enter Paradise. He (the narrator) said: I do not remember whether he (the Holy Prophet) said at tLe third time or at the fourth time: O my Lord, none has been left in the Fire, but thise restrained by the Holy Qur'an, i e. those who were eternally doomed. Ibn Ubaid said in a narration: Qatada observed: whose everlasting stay was imperative". (Muslim)

Intercession is not an act of worship. Intercession only takes place with the will of Allah, with his permission, and only for the believers. In other words, all intercession really belongs to Allah, as he says:

YUSUFALI: Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth?

So one can only intercede if Allah approves of it. Hence seeking the correct intercession is not worshiping the intercessor, rather it acknowledging the intercessor can only intercede on your behalf if Allah allows him to.

Shamoun continues:


Moreover, Tabarani, in his "al-Mu'jam al saghir," reports a hadith from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf that a man repeatedly visited Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him) concerning something he needed, but Uthman paid no attention to him or his need. The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about the matter - this being after the death (wisal) of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar - so Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collected hadiths and was learned in the religion of Allah, said: "Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform two rak'as of prayer therein, and say:

'O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O MUHAMMAD (YA MUHAMMAD), I TURN THROUGH YOU to my Lord, that He may fulfill my need,' and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph Uthman]." So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to Uthman ibn Affan, and seated him next to him on a cushion. 'Uthman asked, "What do you need?" and the man mentioned what he wanted, and Uthman accomplished it for him, then he said, "I hadn't remembered your need until just now," adding, "Whenever you need something, just mention it." Then, the man departed, met Uthman ibn Hunayf, and said to him, "May Allah reward you! He didn't see to my need or pay any attention to me until you spoke with him." Uthman ibn Hunayf replied, "By Allah, I didn't speak to him, but I have seen a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and complain to him of the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "Can you not bear it?' and the man replied, 'O Messenger of Allah, I do not have anyone to lead me around, and it is a great hardship for me.' The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told him, 'Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then pray two rak'as of prayer and make the supplications.'" Ibn Hunayf went on, "By Allah, we didn't part company or speak long before the man returned to us as if nothing had ever been wrong with him."

This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the legal validity of tawassul through the dead. The account has been classified AS RIGOROUSLY AUTHENTICATED (SAHIH) by Baihaqi, Mundhiri, and Haythami. (Ibid., w40.4, pp. 936-937; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)


Sheikh Albani has already responded to this:

There is no doubt about the authenticity of the hadeeth, but rather what needs to be checked here is this story which is reported only by Shabeeb ibn Sa'eed as pointed out by at-Tabaraanee. Indeed this narrator Shabeeb has been criticised, particularly with regard to what Ibn Wahb narrates from him. Then we find here that there are also others who narrate from him: Ismaa'eel and Ahmad, the two sons of the aforementioned Shabeeb ibn Sa'eed. As for Ismaa'eel, then I do not know him and I do not find anyone who mentions him. Indeed they neglect him to the point that they do not even mention him amongst those who narrate from his father, as opposed to his brother Ahmad since he is sadooq (generally acceptable). As for his father Shabeeb then what they say about him is, in conclusion, that he was reliable, yet having weakness in his memory, except for those narrations reported from him by his son Ahmad which he himself reports from Yoonus in particular in which case he is a proof. Adh-Dhahabee said in al-Meezaan: "Sadooq (generally acceptable)

who makes errors, Ibn ?Adiyy mentions him in his Kaamil and said: "He has a written manuscript copy of hadeeth from Yoonus ibn Yazeed which is fine. Ibn Wahb reports some weak and reprehensible things from him. Ibnul-Madeenee said: He used to go to Egypt for trade and his written narrations are reliable and are written down from him by his son Ahmad." Ibn ?Adiyy said: "Shabeeb

sometimes made slips and errors when he narrated from memory. I hope that he did not do this intentionally. Then when his son Ahmad narrates from him with the ahaadeeth of Yoonus, then it is as if it is a different Yoonus, meaning: he makes them good." So this speech means that the ahaadeeth of this narrator Shabeeb are all right with two conditions:

(i) That they are narrated from him by his son Ahmad, and (ii) That Shabeeb is narrating from Yoonus. The reason bei ng that he possessed the written manuscript of Yoonus ibn Yazeed, as Ibn Abee Haatim says in al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, from his father (2/1/359), so when he narrates from his books then he narrates well, but when he narrates from his memory he makes mistakes as Ibn ?Adiyy says.

Therefore the saying of al-Haafidh in his biography in at-Taqreeb: "His ahaadeeth are all right when they are narrated from him by his son Ahmad, but not when narrated from him by Ibn Wahb," is deficient, since it gives the impression that all the narrations of his son Ahmad from him are acceptable.  This is however not the case. Rather this is conditional on the fact that they are ahaadeeth which he himself narrates from Yoonus, as has preceded. This is further evidenced by the fact that al-Haafidh himself has elsewhere indicated this condition. Indeed he mentions Shabeeb amongst those narrators used by al-Bukhaaree who have been criticised, found in the introduction otFatbul-Baaree (p. 133), then he rejects this criticism, after having quoted those who declare him reliable and mentioning the saying of Ibn ?Adiyy about him, saying:

"I say: al-Bukhaaree brings his ahaadeeth which were reported from him by his

son, which he himself reports from Yoonus, but he does not bring anything which he himself reports from other than Yoonus, and he does not quote anything which Ibn Wahb reports from him." So here he, rahimahullaah, gives an indication that criticism is valid about Shabeeb when he is reporting from other than Yoonus, even if they are things which his son Ahmad reports from him. This is what is correct as we have just explained, and in light of it we should understand what he says in at-Taqreeb in order to harmonise between his words and to avoid creating contradictions.


So when this is clear the weakness of this story will be manifest, and the lack of its suitability as a proof. Then a further weakness is apparent to me in it, and it is the presence of conflicting reports from Ahmad ibn Shabeeb. The hadeeth is also reported by Ibn as-Sunnee in ?Amalul-Yawm wal-Laylah (p.202) and by al-Haakim (1/526) byway of three chains from Ahmad ibn Shabeeb without any mention of the attached story. It is likewise reported by ?Awn ibn ?Umaarah al-Basree: Rawh ibn al -Qaasim narrated to us with it. This is reported by al-Haakim. Then even though this narrator ?Awn is weak, yet still his narration is to be given precedence over the narration of Shabeeb because he is agreed with in it by Shu'bah and Hammaad ibn Salamah, from Aboo Ja'far al - Khatamee.102 So in conclusion this story is weak and contrary to what is authentically reported due to three reasons:


(i)The weakness of the memory of the one who is alone in reporting it;


(ii)and the conflicting reports from him and;


(iii)his contradicting those reliable narrators who do not mention it in the



A single one of these reasons would be sufficient to negate this story, so how about when all three are found together?


One of the strange examples of blind bigotry and following of desires is that Shaikh al-Ghumaaree quotes the various narrations of this story in al-Misbah


(p.!2&17) byway of al-Bayhaqee in ad-Dalaa'il, and at-Tabaraanee, and then does not say anything at all about their authenticity or weakness. The reason for this is clear: As for a declaration of their authenticity, then it cannot be possible according to the science of hadeetb, and as for a declaration of their weakness, then that is the truth... The like is committed by one deprived of correctness in al-Isaabah (pp.21-22) who quotes the hadeeth along with this story and then they say: "And this hadeeth is declared authentic by at-Tabaraanee in as-Sagheer and al-Kabeef"?\ But this saying despite its brevity contains a number of points of ignorance:

(i) At-Tabaraanee does not declare this hadeeth to be authentic in al-Kabeer but rather in as-Sagheer only. I quoted the hadeeth for the readers directly from his book, not taking it from an intermediary source as these people who have only a very limited share of this noble knowledge do. "And whoever takes water from the ocean will fill the irrigation canals."

(ii) At-Tabaraanee only declared the hadeeth authentic, not the story as is shown by his saying, as has preceded: "And the hadeeth has been reported by Shu'bah .. and the hadeeth is authentic." So this is a clear statement that what he was talking about was the same hadeeth as that reported by Shu'bah, and Shu'bah did not narrate the story, so at-Tabaraanee did not declare that to be authentic, so there is no proof for them in his words.

iii)     Even if that story were authentic from ?Uthmaan ibn Haneef, then in it he did not teach the full supplication to the blind man. Rather he dropped the sentence: "0 Allaah accept his shafaa'ah for me, (i.e. accept him as a supplicant for me), and accept my shafaa'ah for him (i.e. accept my supplication for his to be accepted)." since he would have understood, with his pure Arabian disposition, that this saying would necessitate that the Prophet ( ) should supplicate for this man, just as he supplicated for the blind man. Then since this was not possible with regard for that man he did not mention that sen - tence. Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said (p. 104): "And as is known if a person after his ( ) death were to say: ?0 Allaah accept him as a supplicant for me, and accept my supplication for his to be answered,' despite the fact that the Prophet ( ) did not supplicate for him, then this saying of the person would be a futile saying. ?Uthmaan ibn Haneef did not order him to ask the Prophet ( ) for anything, nor did he tell him to say "Accept him as a supplicant for me," nor did he order him to make the full supplication, rather he ordered him with a part of it. There was to be no supplication on his behalf from the Prophet ( ) nor anything which could be imagined as such, so if one were to say after his death: "Then accept him as a supplicant for me" then it would be a meaningless saying. Therefore ?Uthmaan did not order it, nor did he order the supplication as it was ordered by the Prophet ( ). Further what he ordered was something not reported from the Prophet ( ), and the like of this cannot be used to establish something in the Sbaree'ab, just like everything else that is only as the view of a single Companion, whether with regard to excellence of certain acts of worship, permitted acts, obligatory acts, or forbidden acts, when their saying does not find the support of other Companions, and that which is reported from the Prophet ( ) is either contrary to it, or at least does not affirm it. Then in such a case his action does not become part of the Sunnah which must be followed by the Muslims. Rather the most that can be said about it is that it is a matter where personal deduction of the people of knowledge (ijtihaad) can be employed, and a matter about which the Ummah have disagreed, so it must be referred back to Allaah and His Messenger." (Tawassul, its type and rulings:

The missionary continues:

It surely doesn't mean that a Muslim is to love Allah above all else since Muhammad demanded that his followers love him just the same, and even had the audacity to claim that failing to love him in this manner was a clear sign of a severe lack of faith:

Say: 'If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your clan, your possessions that you have gained, commerce you fear may slacken, dwellings you love -- if these are dearer to you than God AND His Messenger, and to struggle in His way, then wait till God brings His command; God guides not the people of the ungodly.' S. 9:24 Arberry


Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Whoever possesses the following three qualities will have the sweetness (delight) of faith:
1. The one to whom Allah AND His Apostle becomes dearer than anything else.
2. Who loves a person and he loves him only for Allah's sake.
3. Who hates to revert to Atheism (disbelief) as he hates to be thrown into the fire." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2,
Number 15)

Narrated Anas:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever possesses the (following) three qualities will have the sweetness of faith (1): The one to whom Allah AND His Apostle becomes dearer than anything else; (2) Who loves a person and he loves him only for Allah's Sake; (3) who hates to revert to atheism (disbelief) as he hates to be thrown into the Fire." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 85, Number 74)


No where in these texts does the prophet say we should love him more than God or equal with God. Shamoun makes this up again! Rather the fact that it says love God AND his prophet is to show the connection, that to love one you must love the other, that you cant just love God, and not love his messenger. You must love them both, and this is what is trying to be conveyed, not an equal love of both. Secondly, the prophet makes sure to mention God first, by doing this we know that loving Allah is above loving the prophet.

The missionary continues:

It definitely doesn't suggest that Allah is the only one who has slaves since the Quran permits Muslims to enslave others, including fellow Muslims:

And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and certainly a believing maid is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly a believing servant (la?abdum-mu'minun) is better than an idolater, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be mindful. S. 2:221 Arberry

And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves (?ibadikum) and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing. S. 24:32 Arberry


What an idiot indeed. Taking slaves during war is something completely different than us humans being the slaves and servants of God! Any rational human being can see that, but off course to an unclean pagan this is also making yourself God, if you take a slave during war!

Slaves to Allah are in complete submission to his will and power, human slaves to other humans are not in complete submission to their master, the master is not allowed to beat the slave or hurt him (unlike the Bible), and the slave can become equal to his master (unlike the Bible).

Again, to any sane person who knows how to think, everyone can see the difference between us being the slaves of God, and humans taking slaves during battles and wars etc.

Nor can it be that Allah is to be feared more than any one or thing:

Mankind, fear your Lord, who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them scattered abroad many men and women; and fear God (wa ittaqoo Allaha) by whom you demand one of another, AND the wombs (wa al-arhama); surely God ever watches over you. S. 4:1 Arberry


Ibn kathir:

(through Whom you demand your mutual (rights)), is in reference to when some people say, "I ask you by Allah, and then by the relation of the Rahim (the womb, i.e. my relationship to you)'', according to Ibrahim, Mujahid and Al-Hasan. Ad-Dahhak said; "Fear Allah Whom you invoke when you conduct transactions and contracts.'' "And revere the womb by not cutting the relations of the womb, but keep and honor them, as Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi`, and others have stated.

The unclean pagan continues:

Then what does it mean to render all acts of ibaadah to Allah? Can Zaatari provide a coherent response this time instead of producing shoddy rebuttals, which only expose his gross ignorance and his serious lack of ability to both understand an argument and to reason logically? We highly doubt it.


Rendering all acts of Ibaadah to Allah means all worship belongs to him, very simple, it is you who is a stupid Trinitarian pagan who cannot understand what this means! I made it crystal clear, and I will say it again, IT MEANS ALL WORSHIP BELONGS TO ALLAH. Is that hard for you to understand?

You have tried and miserably failed in trying to show Allah commands us to do other acts of worship to others.

He continues:

The neophyte sources a hadith where Muhammad purportedly warned against over-praising him as Christians "over-praised" Jesus. His point in mentioning this narrative is to refute the assertion of Muhammad's contemporaries who accused him of demanding from his followers a devotion which Christians render unto the Lord Jesus by virtue of their belief that he is God the Son.

There are major problems with raising this argument, none of which Zaatari could see since he is incapable of reasoning through such issues, just as we have been stating over and over again. After all, quoting a hadith where Muhammad warns against over-praising him doesn't refute the fact that Zaatari's false prophet went on to demand a devotion and love from his followers which clearly placed him on the same level as his god. Nor does it explain away the fact that there are so-called sound narrations which Muslim scholars use to justify praying to Muhammad and asking for his assistance, a clear act of worship.


Please show us this proof that the prophet Muhammad went on to demand devotion that made him the same and equal to God. We have seen none of this, you tried to show it, but you miserably and completely FAILED!

You tried to show it from the Tashahhud, you failed.

You tried to show it from intercession, you failed.

You tried to show it from obeying, you failed.

You tried to show it from love, you failed.

I eagerly await what other pathetic attempts you will muster up. Don't worry though, I will refute them all as I have just done.

Yet the point remains, the prophet said do not over praise him as the Christians did with Jesus.

The missionary then simply refutes his stupidity, claiming that since Muhammad is mentioned in the shahada it makes him co-equal with God, which shows he has no understanding of Islam.

When we state the shahada we say Muhammad is the messenger of God, not that he is God or equal with God! That is enough to refute Shamoun's lie that the prophet is co-equal with God! How can he be co-equal with God if he is his messenger?!

Secondly, the reason why the prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the shahada is because he was the one who taught Islam to the people, one cannot be a Muslim if they reject the man who taught them the religion from God! It makes no sense! God COMMANDS you to honor his prophet, the one he has chosen to spread and teach his religion.

Hence Shamoun fails for the fourth time.

And Allah Knows Best!