In name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful,
“Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of God, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He that giveth both life and death. So believe in God and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believeth in God and His Words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided.” (Holy Qur’an 7:158)

Exposing Fallacies
Of
“Muhammad’s False Prophecies”
By Hesham Azmy
Last updated on March, 25th.





  The best adjective to describe Sam Shamoun’s article “Muhammad’s False Prophecies” is ‘desperate’. His argument is as follows;
Muhammad prophesied Roman victory over Persians and they indeed were victorious but …… but not exactly as Muhammad said.
Muhammad prophesied entering Mecca and Muslims indeed entered it but ….. but not exactly as Muhammad said.
Muhammad prophesied conquest of Constantinople and Muslims indeed conquered it but ……. but not exactly as Muhammad said.
  He gives each prophecy his own interpretation and complains that it is not fulfilled. This rebuttal has an arrangement different from the article of Sam Shamoun because Mr. Shamoun used to evade the meat of the prophecy and distract the reader with irrelevant details. These details are dealt with separately, wa Allah-ul-Must’an.
  Also, read a response (straw man theory) by Sam Shamoun to this article by clicking here.

Contents …

According to Sam Shamoun, Jesus is a false prophet.
Roman victory over Persians.
On entering Mecca.
Concerning the Dajjal.
End of the world.
Fulfilled prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Conclusion.
Appendix: Treaty of Hudaibiyyah.
Related links.
Footnotes.


According to Sam Shamoun, Jesus is a false prophet

  According to Mr. Sam, true prophet is known by the following Biblical verse …
“And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

  So, the false prophet is the one who gives false prophecies and this is how we can recognize him. Well, our question is; did Jesus pass this test? Did he give prophecies that came true? This is the topic of this section.

Second Coming of Jesus and End of the World:

  Jesus was asked ...
"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3)

  He gave them a very detailed answer about signs of his second coming and end of the world, then he added ...
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34). See also Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:31.

  So, according to Jesus, his second coming was supposed to be before the death of his contemporary generation. He even confirmed it saying ...
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28). See also Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27.
  Unfortunately, this prophecy never materialized. All contemporaries of Jesus died and their bones turned into dust 2000 years ago, but he never came back!

  He sent his disciples to preach the Israelites in their cities and added ...
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Matthew 10:23).
  The disciples reached outside Israel and their descendants even reached America, but still Jesus never came back!

  Even Paul was waiting the second coming of Jesus during his life ...
"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)
  Certainly, we now know better.

Twelve Disciples:

  Jesus said that his 12 disciples will be saved in the next life ...
"Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:27-28). See also Luke 22:29-30.
  Judas the Iscariot was among the 12 disciples who received this prophecy, but we know now that he cannot sit on any throne of glory or judge anyone. This prophecy is glaringly false.

  In his response to this article, Mr. Shamoun accused me of being unable to read carefully, so I beg him to forgive my inability to understand how 11 disciples will sit on 12 thrones to judge the 12 tribes! He also quoted this verse to show that the number became 12 at last.
"In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, ‘Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus- he was one of our number and shared in this ministry. (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) For,’ said Peter, ‘it is written in the book of Psalms, "May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it," and, "May another take his place of leadership." Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.’ So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, ‘Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.’ Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles." (Acts 1:15-26)

  This shows that the disciples knew that the prophecy would be unfulfilled if the number of disciples was 11 only. So, they did not adopt Mr. Shamoun's view. They had theological need to make the number 12 instead of 11 (or perhaps it is my inability to read carefully!) Praying and casting lots are done even in Pagan Temples and do not indicate any divine guidance per se.

Three Days and Three Nights:

  This is the ultimate prophecy of Jesus with whom he challenged the entire world ...
"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:38-40). See also Matthew 16:21, 20:19, Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, Luke 11:29-30 and John 2:19.

  However, we read that Jesus was buried in Friday night (Mark 15:42-46) and the grave was discovered to be empty in Sunday dawn (Matthew 28:1-6 and John 20:1). So, he simply spent one day and two nights, not as he said! This is a third false prophecy.

  In his response to this article Mr. Shamoun says that "three days and three nights" is not explanation of what was briefly said in other verses like "after three days" and "on the third day"; and we should believe the brief text and not take the explanation literally. So, the term "three days and three nights" emphasized twice by Jesus in Matthew 12:38-40 (also see Jonah 1:17) -according to Mr. Shamoun- means nothing. Even if we adopted Mr. Shamoun's view that Jesus was supposed to be raised *on the third day*, the inconsistency still exists because Jesus -according to the New Testament- was raised on the next or the second day at max.

Conclusion:

  We have examined the New Testament and found that it contains false predictions. In light of prophetic criteria given in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Jesus failed the test. This means that Jesus is not a true prophet, let alone a god.


Roman victory over Persians
Mr. Shamoun wrote
On the Roman Conquest of Persia
S. 30:2-4:
"The Roman Empire has been defeated - in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious - within a few years."
As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this alleged prophecy:
 ? According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to some scholars the victory did not come until nearly twelve years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 625, making it a period between ten to eleven years, not "a few years" alluded to in the Quran.
  I first quote the passage under discussion
"The Roman Empire has been defeated in a land close by; but they, (even) after (This) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious within a few years. With God is the Decision, in the Past and in the Future: On that day shall the Believers rejoice with the victory of God. He helps whom He will, and He is Exalted in Might, Most Merciful. (It is) the promise of God. Never does God depart From His promise: But most men understand not." (Holy Qur'an 30:2-6)

  This passage was revealed after the defeat of Romans before the Persians, this took place in 614-15 A.D. For the next seven years, Romans were losing their cities to the Persians and there were no way to predict the Romans would stand up again. In 622, Emperor Heraclius transported his army through the Egean Sea and unexpectedly defeated the Persian army in the decisive battle of Issus. So, the prophecy indeed came true and Romans became victorious after 7 years. This victory was not transient, Romans moved forward and restored all what they had lost and launched their campaign toward the heart of Persia.

  The title of "On the Roman Conquest of Persia" is deceptive, the prophecy talked about Romans being permanently victorious after their defeat within 3-9 years and this did take place as the Qur'an said. The extension of this victory is irrelevant to the prophecy, yet it proved that the victory was permanent as the Qur'an said.

  Mr. Shamoun quoted Yusuf Ali saying, "According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for “a few years,” Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years". According to Yusuf Ali, the prophecy was perfectly fulfilled. He wrote ...
"Bidh'un in the text means a short period -a period of from three to nine years. The period between the loss of Jerusalem (614-15) by the Romans and their victory at Issus (622) was seven years, and that to the penetration of Persia by Heraclius was nine years."

Abdullah Yusuf Ali used Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, A. J. Butler’s “Arab conquest of Egypt” (Oxford, 1902) and others as references.

  It is noteworthy that the progressive Roman victory in 624 was synchronous with Muslims' victory over Pagans in Badr battle and this is the fulfillment of the second part of the prophecy that reads "On that day shall the Believers rejoice with the victory of God. He helps whom He wills."

  Amazingly, Mr. Shamoun was very brief in this aspect. Though, he elaborated on an eccentric interpretation that glaringly opposes authentic Islamic traditions.

 Mr. Shamoun wrote
The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna, "they shall defeat," could easily have been rendered, with the change of two vowels, Sayughlabuna, "they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated." Since vowel points were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.
This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. Pfander mentions Baidawi's comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage:
"But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum. He tells us that some read (Arabic text appears here) instead of the usual (Arabic text appears here) and (Arabic text appears here) instead of (Arabic text appears here). The rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years'. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became conquerors of 'the well-watered land of Syria' (Arabic text appears here) and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the 'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic office." (C. G. Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq - The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria], 279-280) [emphasis ours]
This being the case, a Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians. Yet either rendering leaves us with a false prophecy within the Quran.
  So, when they cannot refute the prophecy, they claim that Muslims fabricated it. Very convenient!

  The Qur’an was first orally transmitted by hundreds of reciters, this means that no one could change the meaning while others are asleep because other reciters of the Qur’an would quickly recognize the flaw. This is not the case with written transmission that is more liable to corruption in absence of memorization. This oral transmission is still present until now and there are millions of Muslims who memorize the Qur’an as first recited by the Prophet (peace be upon him).
  This is a fatal objection against Shamoun’s argument because transmission of the Qur’an in both oral and written is identical, thus excludes any charge of tampering.

  Another noteworthy point is that Al-Baidawi affirmed the prophecy of Roman victory over Persians in his commentary, page 534, and said it is among signs of his truthfulness. So, how come he is quoted to say the opposite?! Is it a widespread practice among Christian missionaries?

  Concerning the last comment about Muslims unable to be confident about the accurate recitation, conditions were formulated by the scholars of the Qur'anic recitation to facilitate critical analysis of the recitations. For any given recitation to be accepted as authentic (Sahih), it had to fulfill three conditions and if any of the conditions were missing such a recitation was classified as Shâdhdh (unusual).


  This being the case, we can confidently say that the authentic recitation is the one universally accepted by all Muslim scholars and in perfect harmony with authentic Islamic traditions.

  Before moving on I’d like to make a little comment on Pfander, a 19th century leader of the Christian missionaries to India while it was under the occupation of the British, who is quoted by Mr. Shamoun not realizing that during his lifetime his book was refuted in detail by a number of Muslim scholars such as Al-Kairanvi Al-Hindi in his book "Izhar ul Haqq" which has been translated into English and is widely available today.
  Pfander was invited to a five day public debate in Agra India with Al-Kairanvi which has been preserved for posterity in the Indian archives. The debate was originally scheduled to continue for five days and to discuss five different topics (tampering, abrogation, the Trinity, the origins of the Qur'an, and the prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him). However, after only two days, the day the issue of the Trinity was to be discussed, Pfander withdrew from this public debate refusing to continue. Al-Kairanvi was subsequently so severely persecuted by the occupying British forces that he was forced to flee the country. This is how such men managed to 'prove' their case and these are the sorts of men whom people regard as champions of Islam bashing and quoted by many authors.

Mr. Shamoun wrote
It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory, seeing that God is all-knowing and all-wise, declaring the end from the beginning. When God specifies a time frame as an important part of a prophecy we would expect that it be precise, not a mere guess. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win at some time within "a few years" as opposed to specifying the exact year, is inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely that the true God would actually make such a prophecy.
  There is no single biblical prophecy that speaks of any time range, let alone a specific date. Does this mean that they are inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being?
  This desperate polemic does not even deserve an answer. But saying that the Roman victory was to come within 3-9 years is very effective against any unnecessary rhetoric because some people follow the lunar calendar and some follow the solar calendar. Also, people have different ways of calculation and approximation, e.g. 3 years and 6 months are considered as 3 years by some and as 4 years by some.
Mr. Shamoun wrote
Interestingly, the phrase "a few years" serves to further discredit this alleged prophecy. Abu Bakr believed the term "a few years" meant that the Byzantines were going to win in three years:
"This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the Hegira). However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon 'in a small number of years'. In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that the 'small number' is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact, however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable." (Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims [Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71)
  Al-Baidawi’s commentary states that the prophecy was fulfilled exactly as the Qur’an predicted (page 534) and added “This is one of sign of prophethood because it is a prophecy”. This flaw committed by Shamoun and his quoted authors is called ‘misquoting authorities’. Moreover, history records that Romans defeated the Persians in 622 A.D. and Islamic traditions confirm this historical fact. Imam Al-Baidawi never spoke of any different date, so how did Christian missionaries quote him?

  In the end of this section, we observe that Shamoun’s approach toward this particular prophecy is characterized with much wiggling, squirming and excessive misquoting of authorities. If Mr. Shamoun believed he had a good case, he would never resort to such techniques. Many charges were directed from Muslims fabricating prophecy to the event being easily predictable. This indicates that their argument is merely based on guesswork of “how this prophecy can be false”.

  In his response to this rebuttal Mr. Shamoun still insists that the Qur’anic expression “will be victorious” (in Arabic sayaghliboun) should mean restoration of the (alleged) Cross of Christ or signal of peace between Romans and Persians!!
  The Arabic verb used in the prophecy is “Ghalaba” (Gh-l-b) meaning to defeat. It was mentioned twice in passive and active forms.

"The Roman Empire (ghulibat) has been defeated in a land close by; but they, (even) after (This) defeat of theirs, (sayaghliboun) will soon be victorious” (Holy Qur’an 30:2-3)

  If we read the Arabic verb in the Qur’nic passage, we notice it is the same with Romans; first they were defeated and second they will defeat (i.e. will be victorious). Mr. Shamoun –due to his incompetence in Arabic- is far from realizing that since the verb first referred to military defeat of Romans at hands of Persians, then it should refer to an equivalent military defeat of Persians at hands of Romans in the second time. This indeed took place as the Qur’an foretold, but Mr. Shamoun -determining to make the prophecy false at any cost- was ready to claim that it referred to either restoration of the (alleged) Cross or signal of peace. So let him keep on chasing rainbows and refuting imaginary arguments. He could have saved his time and his readers’ time by proving (if he can) that the prophecy refers to restoration of the (alleged) Cross or signal of peace, but since he fails to achieve this purpose, he is still far from claiming that it is a false prophecy.

  Also, Mr. Shamoun failed to read my argument concerning Qira’at (i.e. variant readings) of the Qur’an; he wrote,

The author begs the question since he assumes what he has yet to prove. He first assumes that the method of authentication is sound and can therefore be trusted. Yet this entails the use of circular reasoning since the only way to verify the reliability of the chain of transmission [isnad] is to examine the text [matn] in which it is contained. Yet the only way to know whether the text is sound is by the very chain contained within it. Therefore, one proves the chain by the text and then proves the text by its chain! This is a classic textbook example of circular reasoning.
  This is simply an accusation of something I never said, nor did any Muslim scholar. However, reading my original quotation of how to recognize reliable isnad (i.e. chain of transmission) can easily refute Mr. Shamoun’s accusation
The first condition was that the recitation has an authentic chain of narration in which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to be righteous and they were all known to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer) of the Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'an. As for the narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and rejected totally.
  So the absurd statement of Mr. Shamoun that
….. since the only way to verify the reliability of the chain of transmission [isnad] is to examine the text [matn] in which it is contained.(emphasis is mine)
  is glaringly false since examination of the text is never a way to verify reliability of isnad. This is a self-refuted argument.

  Concerning the Qur’anic passage under discussion, all Muslim scholars accept the famous reading as the most authentic one. Imam At-Tabari and Imam Al-Qurtubi have mentioned both readings in their commentaries and proved the famous reading to be the most authentic and reliable according to the criteria mentioned before. Even Imam Al-Baidawi did not approve the eccentric reading; he just mentioned it after his detailed commentary on the authentic one.

  As for Mr. Shamoun’s argument concerning the word Bid’, it is pretty obvious that it is a mere polemic.

  For some reason Mr. Shamoun has a psychological need to accuse me of misquoting authorities. Well, I require him to show me where I misquoted authorities and to prove what. Also, he wrote in his conclusion on this section,

The author accused me of leveling charges such as the claim that Muslims fabricated this prophecy without refuting my evidence.
  Mr. Shamoun did not provide the evidence that the prophecy is fabricated in the first place. Presence of two variant reading does not disprove the prophecy unless you show that the famous reading is the unreliable one. He stopped at the stage of acknowledging the presence of two readings and ignored the efforts of Muslim scholars who studied the isnad and the manuscripts to recognize the reliable authentic reading from the eccentric one. So, in order to be brief I demand Mr. Shamoun to bring the proof -other than his conjecture and anti-Islamic zeal- that the famous reading is unreliable.

  Also, in his defense of Pfander, Mr. Shamoun wrote,

What is relevant is if Pfander was correct in his quotation of al-Baidaiwi. The evidence shows that he was.
  Pfander committed the same logical fallacy of equivocation and concealed the works of Muslim scholars concerning Qira’at (i.e. readings) to make a false allegation. Complete rendering of evidence successfully reveals the falsehood of his argument. You can edit as much ‘refutations’ as you like, but the real test is in debates where both sides present their cases before audience.

  Mr. Shamoun seems not to know the difference between Hadith and historical reports. He quoted portions of Ibn Kathir’s commentary and added

Several comments are in order. First, notice the contradiction in the reports. One says it took seven years, the other says nine. The hadiths are notorious for these kind of historical errors and embellishments as this article shows.
  He put them in the same basket ignoring that while Hadith reports are on authority of one person (Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him), historical reports are on authority of several historians and it is natural to find them conflicting in some points. The role of any honest commentator is to present all reports before his readers, so they can obtain a good image of all opinions. Most certainly, Mr. Shamoun has no right to object to Imam Ibn Kathir for quoting several historical reports regardless their reliability.

  Finally, Mr. Shamoun has embedded irrelevant material about textual authenticity of the Qur’an, this material has been refuted in details by other Muslim writers ...
Responses to the so called "Textual Errors" and "Historical Corruptions" in the Noble Quran


On entering Mecca

“Truly did Allah fulfil the vision for His Messenger: ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah wills, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory.” (Holy Qur’an 48:27)

  This is the prophecy given by God to Muslims that they would enter Mecca safely and peacefully to perform pilgrimage. This prophecy was given while there were no chance it could be fulfilled. Syed Abul-A’la Al-Mawdudi said in his commentary on Surat-ul-Fath,
"Apparently, there was no possible way of acting on this inspiration. The disbelieving Quraish had debarred the Muslims from proceeding to the Ka'bah for the past six years and no Muslim had been allowed during that period to approach the Kabah for the purpose of performing hajj and umrah. Therefore, it could not be expected that they would allow the Holy Prophet to enter Makkah along with a party of his Companions. If they had proceeded to Makkah in the pilgrim garments with the intention of performing umrah, along with their arms, this would have provoked the enemy to war, and if they had proceeded unarmed, this would have meant endangering his own as well as his Companions' lives. Under conditions such as these nobody could see and suggest how the Divine inspiration could be acted upon."

Mr. Shamoun wrote
As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. al-Khattab who rebuked Muhammad:
' Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, "Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said, "Yes, indeed." I said, "Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Then why should we be humble in our religion?" He said, "I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious"'" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)
The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)
In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27:
"In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)
This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year.
  Mr. Shamoun did not quote Imam Ibn Kathir (or even 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattab) in entirety. I provide here the complete text to expose Shamoun’s fallacy of misquoting authorities (not the first time in this article anyway).

"In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision would come true that year. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, some of the Companions disliked what happened. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about this, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?' Messenger of Allah said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it.' " `Umar further said, "I went to Abu Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Apostle and he does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah, he is on the right.' I said, 'Was he not telling us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did he tell you that you would go to the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, "You will go to Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it.”
This is why Allah the Most High said, "Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah wills,” to confirm the prophecy, not an exception, “with minds secure,” while you are entering, “heads shaved, hair cut short,” this is their condition during entering because in that time, they did not have their heads shaved and their hair cut “and without fear,” this is to confirm their state during entering that they will be safe without fear and this took place in ‘Umrat-ul-Qada’ (i.e. Compensatory ‘Umrah) in Zul-Qi’dah 7 A.H.

  According to Imam Ibn Kathir, the prophecy came true in the next year. ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab who was misquoted by Mr. Shamoun admitted that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not tell them that they would enter Mecca in the same year. So, where is the argument of Mr. Shamoun in the light of complete quotations?!

  In the next year, the prophecy was fulfilled. Sheikh Saifur-Rahman Al-Mubarakfuri said in his book “Ar-Raheeq-ul-Makhtoom”, i.e. the Sealed Nector, in the chapter of The Compensatory ‘Umrah (Lesser Pilgrimage)

"When Dhul Qa‘da month approached towards the close of the seventh year A.H., the Prophet [pbuh] ordered his people, and the men who witnessed Al-Hudaibiyah Truce Treaty in particular, to make preparations to perform ‘Umrah (lesser pilgrimage). He proceeded with 2000 men besides some women and children [Fath Al-Bari 7/700], and 60 camels for sacrifice, to visit the Holy Sanctuary in Makkah. The Muslims took their weapons with them fearing the treachery of the Quraishites, but left them with a party of two hundred men at a place some eight miles from Makkah. They entered the city with the swords in their scabbards [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/151; Fath Al-Bari 7/700], with the Prophet [pbuh] at their head on his she-camel, Al-Qaswa’, while the surrounding Companions attentively focusing their look on him, all saying: "Here I am! at Your service O Allâh!" The Quraishites had left the place and retired to their tents on the adjoining hills. The Muslims performed the usual circumambulation vigorously and briskly; and on recommendation by the Prophet [pbuh] they did their best to appear strong and steadfast in their circumambulation as the polytheists had spread rumours that they were weak because the fever of Yathrib (Madinah) had sapped their strength. They were ordered to run in the first three rounds and then walk in the remaining ones. The Makkans meanwhile aligned on the top of Qu‘aiqa‘an Mount watching the Muslims, tongue-tied at witnessing their strength and devotion. When they entered the Holy Sanctuary."

  On reading the prophecy of entering Mecca again, one can easily notice that it promises the Muslims with a speedy victory before entering Mecca for ‘Umrah (i.e. lesser pilgrimage). This promise was fulfilled in conquest of Khaibar in Moharram, 7 A.H.
  This promise was confirmed after Muslims swore fealty to the Prophet (peace be upon him) …
“God's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy victory and many gains will they acquire (besides): and God is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.” (Holy Qur’an 48:18-19)

  In his response to this article Mr. Shamoun claims that my sources refutes my argument and affirms his point. In fact, his point has no basis at all in Islamic sources, because his entire argument depends upon the assumption that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) promised his followers with performing 'Umrah in the same year. This is something already refuted by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his followers (namely Abu Bakr and 'Umar); Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) clearly denied this and affirmed the prophecy saying, "You will visit it and perform Tawaf around it." As for anger of Muslims, it was basically due to the compromising terms of the treaty, not because the Prophet (peace be upon him) deceived them as Mr. Shamoun loves to think. This should refute his conjectures. Actually, I wonder what argument of mine he was trying to refute!! Did anyone mention straw man theory?!

  The entire argument of Mr. Shamoun is none but a polemic without factual basis. In order not to waste our time, Mr. Shamoun is required to provide a proof that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) promised his followers with performing 'Umrah and Tawaf in the same year. I'm sure he cannot provide this proof since the sources he quoted emphatically denied it.


Concerning the Dajjal

  Dajjal is an Arabic word that literally means ‘Quack’; he was called so because he will claim prophethood and perform many miracles despite his falsehood. He will deny Jesus (peace be upon him) to be the Christ and will claim the title for himself. That’s why this word is inaccurately translated to ‘Anti-Christ’.

Mr. Shamoun wrote
Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople.
  The only proof Mr. Shamoun provided was reports from Sunan Abi Dawood, these reports are not present in most authentic collections of Hadith. We do not accept them for granted. Prophecies should be carefully dealt with, because in collections of Sunan accuracy of reports is not always maintained, thus turning any true prophecy into a lie.

  Unfamiliarity of Mr. Shamoun with Arabic led him to so many assumptions; he did not know the difference between a dajjal (i.e. a quack, a false prophet) and the Dajjal (i.e. the Anti-Christ) who is to come. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) warned us of false prophets (i.e. dajjals) as well as the particular Dajjal who will appear before the end of world and claim divinity.

  Ibn Sayad was not the Dajjal. He was among dajjals, but not the particular Dajjal. Some Companions of the Prophet mistakenly believed that Ibn Sayad is the Dajjal. He later embraced Islam and was called Abdullah and only God knows what was in his intention. As for the Hadith quoted by Mr. Shamoun

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir:
I saw Jabir bin 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, "How can you swear by Allah?" Jabir said, "I have heard 'Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453)
  This had been before the identity of Ibn Sayad became clear, because Muslims were awaiting Ibn Sayad to either claim prophethood or deny it.


End of the World

  Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) denied any knowledge of time of the Hour. There are soooo many Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions to prove this. However, Mr. Shamoun resorted to unreliable reports to claim that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prophesied the time of the Hour. This is clearly false!

  Reports mentioned by At-Tabari are unreliable and related by none but him alone. Even if he considered them sound!


Fulfilled prophecies of Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him)

  If I were to discredit Muhammad’s prophethood, I wouldn’t waste my time digging in unreliable Islamic traditions or weak reports of Hadith to formulate my case. Instead, I would make a strong case of false prophecies mentioned in the Qur’an and most authentic traditions. But, unfortunately, these sources include none but true fulfilled prophecies, thus making my mission (of discrediting Muhammad) quite impossible.

  Here are a few prophecies from the Holy Qur’an that all came true during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him) or shortly after.

“Or do they say: We acting together can defend ourselves? Soon will their multitude be put to flight, and they will show their backs.” (Holy Qur’an 54:44-45)

  This passage was revealed while Muslims were persecuted in Mecca. ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab said, “I did not know which multitude till shortly before the battle of Badr; I heard God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) saying during wearing his shield, “Soon will their multitude be put to flight.” Then I knew it.”(2)

“Verily He Who ordained the Quran for thee, will bring thee back to the Place of Return.” (Holy Qur’an 28:85)

  “The place of return” refers to Mecca (Sahih-ul-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 296). This verse was revealed when the Prophet (peace be upon him) escaped from Mecca to Madinah(3). This prophecy undoubtedly came true after 8 years.

“Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, if God wills, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear.” (Holy Qur’an 48:27)

  This prophecy of entering Mecca to perform pilgrimage was fulfilled in the next year as I have shown before.(4)

“God's Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy victory and many gains.” (Holy Qur’an 48:18-19)

  The speedy victory that shortly came after this revelation was the conquest of Khaibar and the many gains were the spoils of this conquest.

“Say to those who reject Faith: soon will ye be vanquished.” (Holy Qur’an 3:12)

  This verse was revealed in the first year after Higra (i.e. migration to Madinah) and indeed they all were vanquished.(5)

“And God will defend thee from men (who mean mischief).” (Holy Qur’an 5:67)

  God’s Messenger used to be guarded until this verse was revealed. Then, he appeared to his guards saying, “O men, go! For God will defend me.”(6)
  This prophecy came true; Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was never killed by his enemies, but died peacefully in his house.

“And another (favour will He bestow), which ye do love, help from God and a speedy victory. So give the glad tidings to the Believers.” (Holy Qur’an 61:13)

  This was the glad tiding of conquest of Mecca. It took place as it was foretold.

“Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit.” (Holy Qur’an 48:16)

  These people were the apostates whom Muslims fought, during the era of the first Orthodox Caliph Abu Bakr, under leadership of Khalid Ibn Al-Walid in the famous battle of Yamamah. 1200 Muslim soldiers were martyred in this battle that ended with killing Musailamh the false prophet.(7)

“God has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion- the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me.” (Holy Qur’an 24:55)

  God promised the Muslims that He would grant them the land to establish Islamic Law and State, and would turn their fear into security. This promise indeed came true. During Prophet’s lifetime, Muslims had most of Arabia and Yemen. Few years after his demise, Islamic State prevailed from Andalusia to Central Asia and Islamic Law was implemented.(8)

  These are prophecies from the most authentic Islamic Book, the Holy Qur’an. Why did Mr. Shamuon ignore this wealth of prophecies and go to gather pieces from unreliable (or even borderline) Islamic traditions to build his case? Mr. Shamoun’s position is getting worse and worse.


Conclusion

  Mr. Sam Shamoun concluded by saying, “We have examined both the Quran and the Islamic traditions and found that both sources contain false predictions. In light of the prophetic criteria given by God in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Muhammad fails this test. This means that Muhammad is neither a true prophet nor is he the prophet like Moses.”

  I have shown that Mr. Shamoun’s allegations are unfounded. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never gave a false prophecy. Mr. Shamoun –through misquoting authorities and partial rendering of sources- worked hard to make few prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) appear false or unfulfilled, this has been well refuted.

  On the other hand, we have found that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave quite a number of true irrefutable unchallengable prophecies that bear witness to his truthfulness. These prophecies can never be approached by a critic.


Appendix: Treaty of Hudaibiyyah

  Due to its importance, this treaty should be handled separately. For uninformed readers, who do not know much about its circumstances, I quote Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakfuri from his book “Ar-Raheeq-ul-Mkhtoom”, i.e. the Sealed Nector, the chapter of Al-Hudaibiyah Treaty

  When Arabia began to witness the large impressive sweep in favour of the Muslims, the forerunners of the great conquest and success of the Islamic Call started gradually to loom on the demographic horizon, and the true believers restored their undisputed right to observe worship in the sacred sanctuary.

  It was about the sixth year Hijri when the Prophet [pbuh] saw in a dream, while he was still in Madinah, that he had entered the sacred sanctuary in Makkah in security with his followers, and was performing the ceremonies of ‘Umrah (lesser pilgrimage). Their heads were being shaved and hair cut off. As soon as he informed some of his Companions the contents of his dream, their hearts leapt up with joy since they found in it the actualization of their deep longing to take part in pilgrimage and its hallowed rites after an exile of six years.

  The Prophet [pbuh] had his clothes washed, mounted his camel and marched out towards Makkah at the head of fifteen hundred Muslims including his wife Umm Salamah. Some desert bedouins whose Faith was lukewarm hung back and made excuses. They carried no weapons with them except sheathed swords because they had no intention of fighting. Ibn Umm Maktum was mandated to dispose the affairs of Madinah during the Prophet’s absence. As they approached Makkah, and in a place called Dhi Hulaifa, he ordered that the sacrificial animals be garlanded, and all believers donned Al-Ihrâm, the pilgrim’s garb. He despatched a reconnoiterer to hunt around for news of the enemy. The man came back to tell the Prophet [pbuh] that a large number of slaves, as well as a huge army, were gathered to oppose him, and that the road to Makkah was completely blocked. The Prophet [pbuh] consulted his Companions, who were of the opinion that they would fight none unless they were debarred from performing their pilgrimage.

  The Quraishites, on their part, held a meeting during which they considered the whole situation and decided to resist the Prophet’s mission at all costs. Two hundred horsemen led by Khalid bin Al-Waleed were despatched to take the Muslims by surprise during Zuhr (the afternoon) prayer. However, the rules of prayer of fear were revealed meanwhile and thus Khalid and his men missed the chance. The Muslims avoided marching on that way and decided to follow a rugged rocky one. Here, Khalid ran back to Quraish to brief them on the latest situation.

  When the Muslims reached a spot called Thaniyat Al-Marar, the Prophet’s camel stumbled and knelt down and was too stubborn to move. Muhammad [pbuh] swore he would willingly accede to any plan they put forward that would glorify Allâh’s sanctities. He then reprovingly spurred his camel and it leapt up. They resumed their march and came to pitch their tents at the furthest part of Al-Hudaibiyah beside a well of scanty water. The Muslims reported thirst to the Prophet [pbuh], who took an arrow out of his quiver, and placed it in the ditch. Water immediately gushed forth, and his followers drank to their fill. When the Prophet [pbuh] had rested, Budail bin Warqa’ Al-Khuza‘i with some celebrities of Khuza‘ah tribe, the Prophet’s confidants, came and asked him what he had come for. The Prophet [pbuh] replied that it was not for war that he had come forth: "I have no other design," he said, "but to perform ‘Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) in the Holy Sanctuary. Should Quraish embrace the new religion, as some people have done, they are most welcome, but if they stand in my way or debar the Muslims from pilgrimage, I will surely fight them to the last man, and Allâh’s Order must be fulfilled." The envoy carried the message back to Quraish, who sent another one called Mikraz bin Hafs. On seeing him, the Prophet [pbuh] said that that was a treacherous man. He was given the same message to communicate to his people. He was followed by another ambassador known as Al-Hulais bin ‘Alqamah. He was very much impressed by the spirit of devotion that the Muslims had for the Sacred Ka‘bah. He went back to his men and warned them against debarring Muhammad [pbuh] and his Companions from doing honour to Allâh’s house on the peril of breaking his alliance with them. Hulais was succeeded by ‘Urwa bin Mas‘ud Ath-Thaqafi to negotiate with Muhammad [pbuh]. In the course of discussion he said to the Prophet [pbuh]: "Muhammad! Have you gathered around yourself mixed people and then brought them against your kith and kin in order to destroy them. By Allâh I think I see you deserted by these people tomorrow." At this point Abu Bakr stood up and expressed his resentment at this imputation. Al-Mugheerah bin Shu‘bah expressed the same attitude and reprovingly forbade him from touching the Prophet’s beard. Here, Quraish’s envoy remarked indignantly and alluded to the latter’s treacherous act of killing his companions and looting them before he embraced Islam. Meanwhile, ‘Urwah, during his stay in the Muslim camp, had been closely watching the unfathomable love and profound respect that the followers of Muhammad [pbuh] showed him. He returned and conveyed to Quraish his impression that those people could not forsake the Prophet [pbuh] under any circumstances. He expressed his feelings in the following words: "I have been to Chosroes, Caesar and Negus in their kingdoms, but never have I seen a king among a people like Muhammad [pbuh] among his Companions. If he performs his ablution, they would not let the water thereof fall on the ground; if he expectorates, they would have the mucus to rub their faces with; if he speaks, they would lower their voices. They will not abandon him for anything in any case. He, now, offers you a reasonable plan, so do what you please."

  Seeing an overwhelming tendency towards reconciliation among their chiefs, some reckless, fight-prone youngsters of Quraish devised a wicked plan that could hinder the peace treaty. They decided to infiltrate into the camp of the Muslims and produce intentional skirmishes that might trigger the fuse of war. Muhammad bin Maslamah, chief of the Muslim guards, took them captives, but in view of the far-reaching imminent results about to be achieved, the Prophet [pbuh] set them free. In this context Allâh says:

"And He it is Who has withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makkah, after He had made you victors over them." [Al-Qur'an 48:24]
  Time passed. Negotiations went on but with no results. Then the Prophet [pbuh] desired ‘Umar to see the nobles of Quraish on his behalf. ‘Umar excused himself on account of the personal enmity of Quraish; he had, moreover, no influential relatives in the city who could shield him from danger; and he pointed to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan, who belonged to one of the most powerful families in Makkah, as the suitable envoy. ‘Uthman went to Abu Sufyan and other chiefs and told them that the Muslims had come only to visit and pay their homage to the Sacred House, to do worship there, and that they had no intention to fight. He was also asked to call them to Islam, and give glad tidings to the believers in Makkah, women and men, that the conquest was approaching and Islam was surely to prevail because Allâh would verily establish His religion in Makkah. ‘Uthman also assured them that after the performance of ceremonies they would soon depart peacefully, but the Quraishites were adamant and not prepared to grant them the permission to visit Al-Ka‘bah. They, however, offered ‘Uthman the permission to perform the pilgrimage, if he so desired in his individual capacity, but ‘Uthman declined the offer saying: "How is it possible that I avail myself of this opportunity, when the Prophet [pbuh] is denied of it?" The Muslims anxiously waited for the arrival of ‘Uthman with mingled feelings of fear and anxiety. But his arrival was considerably delayed and a foul play was suspected on the part of Quraish. The Muslims were greatly worried and took a solemn pledge at the hand of the Prophet [pbuh] that they would sacrifice their lives to avenge the death of their Companion and stand firmly by their master, Muhammad [pbuh], under all conditions. This pledge goes by the name of Bay‘at Ar-Ridwan (a covenant of fealty). The first men to take a pledge were Abu Sinan Al-Asadi and Salamah bin Al-Akwa‘, who gave a solemn promise to die in the cause of Truth three times, at the front of the army, in the middle and in the rear. The Prophet [pbuh] caught his left hand on behalf of ‘Uthman. This fealty was sworn under a tree, with ‘Umar holding the Prophet’s hand and Ma‘qil bin Yasar holding a branch of the tree up. The Noble Qur’ân has referred to this pledge in the following words:
"Indeed, Allâh was pleased with the believers when they gave their Bai‘a (pledge) to you (O Muhammad [pbuh] ) under the tree." [Al-Qur'an 48:18]
  When Quraish saw the firm determination of the Muslims to shed the last drop of blood for the defence of their Faith, they came to their senses and realized that Muhammad’s followers could not be cowed down by these tactics. After some further interchange of messages they agreed to conclude a treaty of reconciliation and peace with the Muslims. The clauses of the said treaty go as follows:

1. The Muslims shall return this time and come back next year, but they shall not stay in Makkah for more than three days.
2. They shall not come back armed but can bring with them swords only sheathed in scabbards and these shall be kept in bags.
3. War activities shall be suspended for ten years, during which both parties will live in full security and neither will raise sword against the other.
4. If anyone from Quraish goes over to Muhammad [pbuh] without his guardian’s permission, he should be sent back to Quraish, but should any of Muhammad’s followers return to Quraish, he shall not be sent back.
5. Whosoever wishes to join Muhammad [pbuh], or enter into treaty with him, should have the liberty to do so; and likewise whosoever wishes to join Quraish, or enter into treaty with them, should be allowed to do so.

  The above quotation is quite long, but very important to understand the historical context of this treaty before we deal with Mr. Shamoun’s accusations against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Mr. Shamoun wrote concerning the return of Abi Jandal
We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans'? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?
  If Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) kept Abu Jandal, Mr. Shamoun wouldn’t fail to accuse him of keeping not his word. The problem is not the Prophet’s behaviour, it is Mr. Shamoun’s mentality.
  Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said to Abi Jandal, “Be patient, resign yourself to the Will of Allâh. Allâh is going to provide for you and your helpless companions relief and means of escape. We have concluded a treaty of peace with them and we have taken the pledge in the Name of Allâh. We are, therefore, under no circumstances prepared to break it.” (Ibid)

  However, this item of the treaty was dissolved a few months later. Abul-A’la Al-Maududi said in his commentary on Surat-ul-Fath

What had troubled the Muslims most in this treaty, was the condition about the fugitives from Makkah and Madinah, that the former would be returned and the latter would not be returned. But not much long afterwards this condition also proved to be disadvantageous for the Quraish, and experience revealed what far reaching consequences of it had the Holy Prophet fore seen and then accepted it. A few days after the treaty a Muslim of Makkah, Abu Basir, escaped from the Quraish and reached Madinah. The Quraish demanded him back and the Holy Prophet returned him to their men who had been sent from Makkah to arrest him. But while on the way to Makkah he again fled and went and sat on the road by the Red Sea shore, which the trade caravans of the Quraish took to Syria. After that every Muslim who succeeded in escaping from the Quraish would go and join Abu Basir instead of going to Madinah, until 70 men gathered there. They would attack any Quraish caravan that passed the way and cut it into pieces at last, the Quraish themselves begged the Holy Prophet to call those men to Madinah, and the condition relating to the return of the fugitives of itself became null and void.

Mr. Shamoun wrote
Second, to make matters worse Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh. This refusal was in clear violation of things expressly stipulated in the very document that Muhammad had agreed to sign:
"Umm Kulthum Uqba b. Mu'ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers 'Umara and Walid sons of 'Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it." (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 509; italic emphasis ours)
Hence, Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God's will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad's God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one's oath is strictly forbidden. (Cf. Numbers 30:1-2)
  Please note here the double-stranded argument of Mr. Shamoun; he blamed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) before for keeping his word and, now, he blames him for not keeping it.
  In response to Mr. Shamoun’s argument, Um Kulthuom was a woman and women were not included in the terms of the treaty that mentioned men only. Also, God forbade returning believing women to the unbelievers
“O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them: God knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower). And there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of Unbelieving women ….” (Holy Qur’an 60:10)

  This clearly refutes the desperate arguments whom Mr. Shamoun inserted inside his article. And God guides only whom He pleases.


Related links ...

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Muhammad's false Prophecies" by Answering-Christianity Website.

Prophecies from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Answering-Christianity Website.

Prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Iqra Islamic Publications.

Answer to insinuations that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a false prophet by Al-Muhaddith.


Footnotes ...
1) Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah Al-Hujuraat, 1990, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh, p. 32.
2) Al-Baidawi commentary, page 704. Also Fath-ul-Bari by Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani, volume 8, page 619.
3) Abus-Su'oud commentary, volume 4, page 323.
4) Dala'l-un-Nubuwwah by Al-Baihaqi, volume 4, page 313. Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, volume 6, page 208. Al-Wafa by Ibn Gawzi, volume 1, page 418.
5) Al-Wafa by Ibn Al-Gawzi, volume 1, page 418. Al-Baidawi commentary, page 68. Abus-Su'oud commentary, volume 1, page 445.
6) Sunan-ul-Tirmithi, volume 11, page 174. Dala'l-un-Nubuwwah by Al-Baihaqi, volume 2, pages 184 and 465 also volume 3, pages 254 and 373. Al-Wafa, volume 1, page 409. Al-Shifa, volume 1, page 347. Hada'q-ul-Anwar, volume 1, page 272. As-Sirat-un-Nabawwiyyah by Al-Thahabi, page 86.
7) Al-Baidawi commentary, page 679. Abus-Su'oud commentary, volume 5, page 160.
8) Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, volume 6, page 208. Al-Wafa by Ibn Al-Gawzi, volume 1, page 418.
 
 

Back to Noorullah main page