Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites? Saved [10:92], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55].

 

Refutation Of The Internal Contradictions In The Qur'ân

Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites? Saved [10:92], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55].

Islamic Awareness

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Modified: 16th October 1999

---

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

According to the Christian missionaries:

In Sura 10:92, Allah speaks to Pharaoh who ferociously chased the Children of Israel, "But this day We save you in your body, that you may be a portent for those after you." Although this verse makes it clear that Allah saved Pharaoh from drowning, Suras 28:40, 17:103, and 43:55 contradict this, stating that Pharaoh was drowned: "Therefore We seized him and his hosts and abandoned them unto the sea ... But We drowned him and those with him, all together ... And [We] drowned them, everyone."

Rebuttal

We use the traditional method of Qur'ânic exegesis involving Context & Internal Relationships, i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru ba^cduhu ba^cdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). What is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur'ân. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place. Certain themes have been treated in more than one place in the Qur'ân, including, for instance, God's power and grace, the hereafter, stories of earlier prophets, etc. The conciseness or expansion in one place or another depends on muqtada'i 'l-hal, and an expanded statement in one place clarifies a concise one in another.

Let us first quote the relevent verses and see what they say.

So We seized him and his hosts, and We flung them into the sea: Now behold what was the end of those who did wrong! [Qur'ân 28:40]

So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him. [Qur'ân 17:103]

When at length they provoked Us, We exacted retribution from them, and We drowned them all. [Qur'ân 43:55]

It is clear from the above verses that the Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned. But it does not say what happened to the body of the Pharaoh after he was drowned. The verse below explains:

We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" [Qur'ân 10:90-92]

that Allah saved the body of the Pharaoh as a sign to those who come after him. The most relevant explanation here would be that the body of the Pharaoh washed ashore and his folks embalmed him.

So, there is no contradiction in the above verses. Rather they clarify fully the fate of the Pharaoh. It is clear for any Arabic speaker that the special mention of "in the body" (i.e. bibadanika) means clearly that it is the lifeless body of Pharaoh that was saved and not Pharaoh himself. This is confirmed by the use of the verb drown (i.e., aghraqa) in the above verses as the drowned are dead (even in English).

Further the Christian missionaries say:

When the Qur'an says "But this day We save you in your body, ..." what exactly does this mean? Today Muslims want us believe that this means "We will preserve your body for posterity", but why doesn't then the Arabic say "We will save your body" (but not your life)? Why does it use the preposition "in" when it says "save you IN your body"? The "you" is distinguished from "your body" and what is saved is not "the body" but the "you". That is how I read the translation. I would like to know if that is the common way how one would express it in Arabic that the person will die but the body will be preserved. In order to establish that this has always been the meaning, I would like to ask that somebody please tell me what the classical commentators said about this verse up to 100 years ago. Too many verses are given "new meanings" these days. What did Jalalayn, Razi, ibn Kathir, Tabari and others say is the meaning of this verse? Is it the saving of the life of Pharaoh [you in your body, i.e. you will stay alive in this body] or is it "you will die but your body will be preserved for those after you."? This is the linguistic question.

The commentaries of the Qur'ân give valuable linguistic openings about verse 10:92

"This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"

In order to get a full understanding of what is said in various commentaries we need to transcribe the verse 10:92 in Arabic:

falyawma nunajjîka bibadanika litakûna liman khalfaka 'âyah [...]

In the commentary of Ibn Kathîr^[1], one reads the following:

This is translated as

Ibn ^cAbbâs and other people from the salaf said that some people among the Children of Israel doubted about the death of Pharaoh. So, God ordered the sea to project his untouched lifeless body bearing his well-known shield on a najwah - a piece of land that juts out - in order that they know for sure that Pharaoh died. This is why He, the Almighty, said "falyawma nunajjîka" meaning "this day shall We raise you on a bulge" and "bibadanika" means "in your body" according to Mujâhid; Al-Hasan said "in a lifeless body" and ^cAbdullâh Ibn Shadâd said "untouched body with no torn limbs so that he could be identified" whereas Abû Sakhr explained it [i.e., bibadanika] as "with your shield". There is no contradictions between these sayings as previously shown and God knows best.

So, according to the commentary of Ibn Kathîr, it is the lifeless body of Pharaoh wearing his shield that was projected on a bulge for everyone to check that he really died. If we stick to the linguistic alternatives highlighted by the commentary, we would translate verse 10:92 as "This day shall We project you with your shield on a bulge in order that you may be a sign to those who come after you" or "This day shall We project your lifeless body on a bulge in order that you may be a sign to those who come after you". If we adopt the common meaning of "nunajjîka", the verse could be rendered: "This day shall We save your lifeless body in order that you may be a sign to those who come after you". Of course, the reader will have noticed that "you" was omitted in the last translation.  This is because while it is clear in Arabic that only the lifeless body of Pharaoh was saved, a word by word translation "save you in your body" would be somewhat redundant or misunderstood.

Various accounts with very similar narrations are quoted in the commentaries of al-Qurtubî and at-Tabarî.^[2] From the latter, we quote the following:

Muhammad Ibn Sa^cd told me: My father told me: My uncle told me that his father reported from his own father who reported that Ibn ^cAbbâs commented on "falyawma nunajjîka bibadanika litakûna liman khalfaka 'âyah" that God saved Pharaoh from the sea for the sake of the Children of Israel so that they looked at him after he was drowned. If one asked why say "bibadanika" and whether it would be possible for Pharaoh to be saved without his body so that one needs to specify "bibadanika". It would be said that Pharaoh could be saved as a body without life/soul meaning lifeless.

Of course, it is worthwhile to check the various meanings of the word "badan" (in bi-badan-ika) in a good dictionary. We looked it up in Lisân al-^cArab^[3] the famous Arabic lexicon and we found that it means body as well as old deer and shield. Some narrators (e.g. Tha^clab) said that it means any shield and others (e.g., Ibn Sîduh) said that it means a small shield more specifically. Typically, the Lisân quotes a hadîth from Imam ^cAlî^(KW) that when he asked Fatimah^(RA) for marriage he was asked: "What do you possess?". He answered "farasi wa badani" (i.e. my horse and my shield), badan being a shield made of chains/stitches. Also, in the Lisân, we checked that najwah means a high land that is not covered by the flood so that one could think to be saved on it, synonym najâh and plural nijâ'. More interestingly, the Lisân quotes verse 10:92 in both entries (badan and najwah) and quotes additional narratives supporting what is in the Qur'ânic commentaries.

In a nutshell, all the commentaries agree on the fact that it is the lifeless body of Pharaoh that was projected ashore (this is why the verse mentions specifically "bibadanika") for the Children of Israel to identify beyond any doubt that he really died. They could do so thanks to his famous shield or because his lifeless body was not torn after he was drowned.

Now that we have dealt with the issue of the 'contradiction,' let us now go into the red herrings which the missionaries have posed.

Red Herrings

According to the Christian missionaries:

Maurice Bucaille wrote his book in the early 70ies, long before the current reconstruction of Egyptian history. If indeed this body is of Merneptah as both of the above Muslims confirm just as it is the claim of Dr. Bucaille, then it is most probably not the body of the Pharaoh of Moses time. New research during the last 5 years or so tells a different story.

For details please see the review of David Rohl's new Egyptian chronology.

By the way, David Rohl who is putting forth this research is not a Bible believer (to my knowledge). The fact that all his research dovetails very well with the Biblical account was a surprise to him.

At the end of the day, one has to admit that Maurice Bucaille is no Muslim either. So, what is the point? Surely, being a non-Muslim or a non-Bible believer is not supposed to indicate that they got all the facts right.

Further, if one sees what the evangelical Christians at ChristianAnswers.net (See article Pharaohs and Kings Confused) say about the work of David Rohl called The Test Of Time, it is pretty clear that there Christians themselves are confused whether Rohl's revision is to be taken with correctly. Moreover it has been pointed out by Kenneth Kitchen that this "new chronology" creates more problem than it solves. There were parallel civilizations running with the Egyptian civilization and they were engaged in trade, battles etc. So, if one shifts the Egyptian chronology then it should fit with the chronologies of parallel civlizations. But unfortunately for Rohl much of his work would like to be proven as fictional, God willing.

Furthermore, a careful investigation of the text on Merneptah's Stela mentioned above is contrary to the presented claim a strong indication that Merneptah is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus. You will easily be able to conclude this after reading the following article on the Menerptah stela.

Well, there a theory has been proposed that is not yet verified. So, one can either accept it or reject it.

And one last thought. Much of the old knowlegde has been lost. Maybe it was still known at the time of Muhammad that this particular pharaoh was preserved and he just used the information he had and put it into the Qur'an. This wouldn't qualify as prophecy since prophecy is about something that will be in the future, but as a fact he know and then couched in words of a prophecy spoken to the Pharaoh. Let us look at the Qur'anic text to see what we can observe there. Sura Yunus, 10:90-93 reads in Yusuf Ali's translation:

From a Christian missionary's viewpoint it seems Muhammad^(P) not only knew the Old Testament, New Testament and the apocrypha (not to mention the stories in Arabia!) but also the Egyptology. They make it sound as if he had the encyclopaedic knowledge. When they are asked to furnish the evidence of where Muhammad^(P) learnt all these stories and who were his teachers, they have none to offer. We have already refuted the borrowing theories of the Qur'ân as well as mentioned some of the facts surrounding Egyptology and deciphering of hieroglyphs.

And Allah knows best!

Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen.

 

Refutation Of The Internal Contradictions In The Qur'ân

Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen.

Islamic Awareness

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Modified: 16th October 1999

---

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

According to the Christian missionaries:

According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen.

I am actually not sure what it means when Allah said in response to his repentance and confession of faith that "This day shall We save you in your body, ..."

10:100 does say that "no soul can believe, except by the Will of Allah" and verse 103 affirms that "This is it fitting on Our part that We should deliver those who believe!" And in 10:90 Pharaoh clearly confesses "I believe that there is no god except Him whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit." So, according to 100 and 103 this was a work of Allah and he will deliver him. But 4:18 says this is impossible.

But if this cannot be eternal deliverance from the judgment, then "as it seems" maybe it is deliverance from the drowining? I.e. physical deliverance? But this doesn't fit either, because Sura 17:103 makes clear that Pharaoh was indeed drowned and no repentence is indicated in this passage.

Rebuttal

Now what is left unclear by the Christian missionaries rather delibrately is that what is meant by Pharaoh being 'saved' in the verse 10:90-92. If we read the verse again

We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" [Qur'ân 10:90-92]

it is clear that the Pharaoh's dead body was saved and that he was not saved from the hell fire. This is because the Pharaoh repented only when the death approached him. And repentence at the face of death is not accepted as Allah says:

Allah accept the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: For Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous. [Qur'ân 4:17-18]

Further, this can be clarified by comparing verses 10:90-92, 4:17-18 with 38:42.

Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" And he was arrogant and insolent in the land, beyond reason,- He and his hosts: they thought that they would not have to return to Us! So We seized him and his hosts, and We flung them into the sea: Now behold what was the end of those who did wrong! And we made them (but) leaders inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find. In this world We made a curse to follow them and on the Day of Judgment they will be among the loathed (and despised). [38:42]

So, it is pretty clear that the Pharaoh instead of being admitted into the paradise, would be one of the companions of the hell-fire. Therefore, he is not saved from the Hell-fire; rather his lifeless body is saved. In other words, the verses are in perfect agreement and they clarify each other.

It is worthwhile to point here that this method of exegesis using internal relationships, i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru ba^cduhu ba^cdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other), is widely employed in the stories of the Prophets and the people of the past. Certain themes have been treated in more than one place in the Qur'ân, including, for instance, God's power and grace, the hereafter, stories of earlier prophets, etc. The conciseness or expansion in one place or another depends on muqtadâ'i 'l-hâl, and an expanded statement in one place clarifies a concise one in another.

And Allah knows best!

7 Proofs to Know Islam is the Truth

 

7 Proofs to Know Islam is the Truth

 

Theresa Corbin

We all have our doubts. It is as normal as breathing. Many wonder if their faith is baseless, if they would not be another faith if they had been born into a different family, if they might have been from a different country would they have a different belief system.

Islam does not reject these questions and in fact encourages discovery and reason when approaching faith. So it is not a negative thing to question. God consciousness can only be built on a firm foundation of knowledge.

 

Allah tells us in the Quran that:

…it is only those who have knowledge among His servants that fear Allah. (35:28)

Here are seven ways to know that Islam is the complete and perfect truth for all mankind.

1- Islam is the Same Message of All Prophets

 

 

From the first human being and Prophet Adam, (peace be upon him), to the last prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him), the message to mankind has not changed. Worship God, the only true God, and follow His prophets’ examples.

Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Every Prophet was sent by God to mankind to deliver a simple message: That God is one. In the Bible, Mark 12:29, Jesus (peace be upon him) said:

… hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” And “God said moreover unto Moses, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exodus 3:15) [emphasis added]

The message of Islam remains the same, worship God alone and follow His messengers, as it was from the first human being.

2- The Quran is the Only Holy Book that Has Never Been Changed by Man

Allah promises us in the Quran that:

Indeed, it is We who sent down the Quran and indeed, We will be its guardian. (Quran 15:9)

The Quran was written down during the life and times of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Not only did that ensure its survival after the prophet’s life, the Quran was also memorized by hundreds and thousands of people and it was spread word for word throughout Arabia.

 

 

According to Lost Islamic History, “those who had heard verses from the Prophet would go and spread them to tribes far away, who would also memorize them. In this way, the Quran achieved a literary status known among the Arabs as mutawatir. Mutawatir means that it was so vastly disseminated to so many different groups of people, who all had the same exact wording.” (Source)

Every word, letter and even every pause of the Quran has been passed down and remains the same till this day, over 1400 years after its revelation.

3- Islam Promotes the Use of Logic, Reason, and Knowledge

 

Mankind was given logic and intellect for a reason. God would never ask us to set it aside when it comes to faith and belief in Him. Without the use of our intellect, faith is rendered weak.

God knows that man needs proof in order to have deeper faith. Even Abraham (peace be upon him) asked God to give him a sign so his faith could be firm. And God did so through the birds Abraham trained and called back to himself after their death. God also provides such proof in Islam. The Quran presents reasoning and encourages people to think about the signs of creation and the signs of the Quran.

[This is] a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded. (Quran 38:29)

And many of these signs come in the form of scientific miracles.

4- Scientific Proof

Some of the proofs of Islam are only now being discovered as humankind makes scientific discoveries. Some of these scientific proofs include:

The Seas Don’t Mingle with One Another

He released the two seas, meeting [side by side]. Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses. (Quran 55:19-20)

 

 

This is called the Halocline phenomenon and was discovered only in the late 19th century at the very earliest (13 centuries after the revelation in the Quran), until then it was believed that the seas where just one homogeneous, free flowing body.

Because of the physical force called ‘surface tension,’ the waters of neighboring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.

The Expansion of the Universe

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. (Quran 51:47)

At the beginning of the 20th century, the only view in the scientific community was that the universe was fixed in size and infinite in existence. However, modern research has revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning and that it constantly “expands.”

A fact that was explained in the Quran in a time when telescopes and similar technological advancements were not even close to being invented.

The Function of the Mountains

And We placed within the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should shift with them, and We made therein [mountain] passes [as] roads that they might be guided. (Quran 21:31)

The verse states that mountains perform the function of preventing shocks in the Earth (lest it should shift). This fact was not known by anyone at the time the Qur’an was revealed. It was brought to light only recently as a result of the findings of modern geological research.

The “Mountains play a similar role to a nail or peg firmly holding down a tent. For example, Mount Everest, the summit of which stands approximately 9 km above the surface of the Earth, has a root deeper than 125 km.” Andre Cailleux and J. Moody Stuart, Anatomy of the Earth (McGraw-Hill Companies: 1968), 220.)

Similarly, mountains extend to the surface layer joining lines on and below the surface, and nail these together. By fixing the Earth’s crust they prevent any sliding over the magma layer or among the layers. Scientific facts discovered only recently but mentioned in the Quran in the 7th century.

These are just a few scientific evidences in the Quran. Check out Mission Islam for more (missionislam).

5- The Prophet is Mentioned in Previous Revelations

 

The Prophet Muhammad is mentioned many times in the Old and New Testament. In some places his name has been translated as comforter. This is what the name Muhammad has been translated as.

According to Dr. Zakir Naik, “the word ‘Comforter’ is used in the English translation for the Greek word “Paracletos” which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter. “Paracletos” is the warped reading for “Periclytos”. Jesus (PBUH) actually prophesied Ahmed by name. Even the Greek word “Paraclete” refers to the Prophet (PBUH) who is a mercy for all creatures.”

It is also mentioned in Isaiah 29:12:

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

We know the story when the Angel Gabriel came to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Cave of Hirah that he commanded Muhammad to “Read” and Muhammad replied that he could not read or “I am not learned”. (Source)

6- Proof of Muhammad’s Prophethood

Every prophet came with good character and morals. The Prophet Muhammad was no exception. He was known as the trustworthy and the truthful even to his enemies (those who opposed the message of Islam).

Every prophet came with miracles. The Prophet Muhammad, by God’s permission also performed many miracles. During his Prophethood, one of his miracles was that he was allowed by God to split the moon.

The Last Hour draws near, and the moon is split asunder! And if they see a sign (miracle), they turn away and say, ‘Passing magic!’- for they are bent on giving it the lie, being always want to follow their own desires. (Quran 54:1-3)

Many people around the world also witnessed the splitting of the moon and it was recorded in many parts of the world.

Every Prophet had the gift of being able to heal the sick. This was also a miracle of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It is said in an authentic narration that “Abdullah ibn Ateek broke his leg and Muhammad healed it by wiping his hand over it. Abdullah said it was as if nothing had happened to it!”. (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

7- The Truth can Only Be Singular

 

 

If one faith affirms that angels are gods themselves, another affirms that angels are demons, and yet another affirms that angels are a creation of God, all three cannot be true at the same time since they contradict each other. This is a simple logical truth. The truth can only be singular and all else falsehood.

It is true to say that we are free to believe whatever we wish to believe it, but that does not make it truth. Truth is singular. It does not and cannot contradict itself. God is one. His truth is singular. His prophets all came with a singular message. The truth from their and our Lord.

(From Discovering Islam’s archive)

Refuting Sam Shamoun's Arguments Against The Monotheism of Islam: Part 1

Refuting Sam Shamoun's Arguments Against The Monotheism of Islam: Part 1 Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Quran Difficulty: Is Allah the only sovereign or isn't he?" [Introduction, Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals to Shamoun, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Tawassul in Christianity]     By   Bassam Zawadi     Sam Shamoun's article could be located over here.   Sam Shamoun said: The Quran states in many passages that Allah is the sovereign king or ruler of the universe and that the kingdom or dominion belongs entirely to him:  Knowest thou not that to Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that you have none, apart from God, neither protector nor helper? S. 2:107 To Allah belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and of the earth; and Allah is powerful over everything. S. 3:189; cf. 5:17-18; 9:116 Specific Islamic texts emphasize the point that Allah doesn't share his rule with anyone and therefore doesn't have any associate in his kingdom: And say: 'Praise belongs to Allah, who has not taken to Him a son, and who has not any associate in the Kingdom, nor any protector out of humbleness.' And magnify Him with all the magnificence. S. 17:111 Say: "Allah knows best how long they stayed. With Him is (the knowledge of) the unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clearly He sees, and hears (everything)! They have no Wali (Helper, Disposer of affairs, Protector, etc.) other than Him, and He makes NONE to share in His Decision and His Rule." S. 18:26 Hilali-Khan Blessed be He who has sent down the Salvation upon His servant, that he may be a warner to all beings; to whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth; and He has not taken to Him a son, and He has no associate in the Kingdom; and He created every thing, then He ordained it very exactly. S. 25:2 The Muslim scripture further mentions that on the Day of Judgment or last day Allah will show that the kingdom belongs to him alone:   It is He who created the heavens and the earth in truth; and the day He says 'Be', and it is; His saying is true, and His is the Kingdom the day the Trumpet is blown; He is Knower of the Unseen and the visible; He is the All-wise, the All-aware. S. 6:73 The Kingdom upon that day shall belong to Allah, and He shall judge between them. As for those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, they shall be in Gardens of Bliss. S. 22:56 Upon the day that heaven is split asunder with the clouds and the angels are sent down in majesty, the Kingdom that day, the true Kingdom, shall belong to the All-merciful and it shall be a day harsh for the unbelievers. S. 25:25-26 Exalter of ranks is He, Possessor of the Throne, casting the Spirit of His bidding upon whomever He will of His servants, that he may warn them of the Day of Encounter, the day they sally forth, and naught of theirs is hidden from Allah. 'Whose is the Kingdom today?' 'It is Allah's the One, the Irresistible!' Today each soul shall be recompensed for that it has earned; no wrong today. Surely Allah is swift at the reckoning. S. 40:15-17 However, there are other passages which contradict all of this since the Quran specifically mentions individuals who share in Allah's rule and dominion: Have you not considered the chiefs of the children of Israel after Musa, when they said to a prophet of theirs: Raise up for us a king, (that) we may fight in the way of Allah. He said: May it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust. And their prophet said to them: Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. They said: How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than he, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth? He said: Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample giving, Knowing. And the prophet said to them: Surely the sign of His kingdom is, that there shall come to you the chest in which there is tranquility from your Lord and residue of the relics of what the children of Moses and the children of Aaron have left, the angels bearing it; most surely there is a sign in this for those who believe. And David slew Jalut, and Allah gave him kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased. And were it not for Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures. S. 2:246-248, 251 Say: 'O Allah, Master of the Kingdom, Thou givest the Kingdom to whom Thou wilt, and seizest the Kingdom from whom Thou wilt, Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt, and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt; in Thy hand is the good; Thou art powerful over everything. S. 3:26 And when Moses said to his people, 'O my people, remember Allah's blessing upon you, when He appointed among you Prophets, and appointed you kings, and gave you such as He had not given to any being. S. 5:20 Certainly We tried Solomon, and We cast upon his throne a mere body; then he repented. He said, 'My Lord, forgive me, and give me a kingdom such as may not befall anyone after me; surely Thou art the All-giver.' So We subjected to him the wind, that ran at his commandment, softly, wherever he might light on, and the Satans, every builder and diver and others also, coupled in fetters: This is Our gift; bestow or withhold without reckoning.' And he had a near place in Our presence and a fair resort. S. 38:34-40 My Response:   It has never crossed Shamoun's mind that the first verses that he put forth mean that no one ULTIMATELY owns the kingdoms of the world just as Allah, however if Allah wills He may allow a human being to rule over the people and have a kingdom of his own. Notice that Surah 3:26 that Shamoun put forth for us makes it clear that it is Allah who can give the kingdom to whomever He wills, which indicates that He is the ultimate one in control.   Hence, even if Allah does allow kings to rule over their kingdoms, it doesn't change the fact that there is still only one true ruler over all the kingdoms of the world and that is Allah, since it is only by His will that kings could rule over others.   Also, can't we pose the same argument against Shamoun? How does Shamoun explain the fact that everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to God who rules over all kingdoms (1 Chronicles 29:11; 2 Chronicles 20:6), but others could rule as well (1 Kings 4:21)?   We are used to Shamoun's double standards by now, so we don't really expect a response from him anyways.     Sam Shamoun said: To make matters worse, there are certain expositors which say that the following passage, And as for the night, keep vigil a part of it, as a work of supererogation for thee; it MAY BE that thy Lord will raise thee up to a laudable station. S. 17:79 Refers to the last day when Allah will actually seat Muhammad on his very own throne! The renowned Muslim historian and commentator al-Tabari wrote that: "Even though the traditions we have mentioned on the authority of the Prophet and his Companions and the Followers indicate the correct interpretation of maqaman mahmudan in Qur. 17:79 (as referring to Muhammad's role as intercessor on the Day of Resurrection), Mujahid's statement that God will seat Muhammad on His Throne remains one whose soundness CANNOT BE REJECTED either on the basis of traditions (khabar) or on the basis of speculation (nazar). This is so because there is no tradition from the Messenger of God or anyone of his Companions or the Followers that declares it to be impossible. From what we have said, it has become clear that, it is not impossible for an adherent of Islam to say what Mujahid had said, namely, that God will seat Muhammad on His Throne. If someone says: We do not disapprove of God's seating Muhammad on His Throne (in view of the following tradition transmitted by) 'Abbas b. 'Abd al-'Azim - Yahya b. Kathir - al-Jurayri - Sayf al-Sadusi - 'Abdallah b. Salam: 'On the Day of Resurrection, Muhammad will be on the Lord's footstool (kursi),' but we disapprove of God's seating him together with Him, it should be said: Is it then permissible in your opinion that He seat him on it but not together with him? If he permits this, he is led to affirming that either he is together with Him, or God seats him (on the Throne) while being Himself either separate from it or neither contiguous with nor separate from it. Whatever alternative he chooses, he thereby enters into something that he disapproves. If he says that it is not permissible, he deviates from the statements of all the groups we have reported. This means diverging from the views of all adherents of Islam, since there is no other possible statement than those three, according to each of which Mujahid's statement in this sense is not impossible." (The History of Al-Tabari - General Introduction and From Creation to the Flood, translated by Franz Rosenthal [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1989], Volume I, Appendix A. A Partial Translation of Tafsir on Qur. 17:79 (Above, pp. 75 f.), pp. 149. 151; capital and underline emphasis ours) See also al-Tabari's explanation of Q. 17:79. Al-Qurtubi, who is also viewed as an outstanding Muslim exegete, commented on this same Quranic reference in his al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Qur'an: The third explanation of this verse is what al-Tabari reported from a party of scholars - among them Mujahid - whereby "the Exalted Station is the seating by Allah of the Prophet with Him on His Throne (kursiyyih)." They narrated a hadith to that effect, and al-Tabari backed up the possibility (jawâz) of such a thing with some extravagant statements (shatatin min al-qawl). However, what he said cannot be inferred [from the verse] except with over-subtlety as to meaning (al-talattuf bi al-ma'nâ), and it is far-fetched (fîhi bu'd). This is not to say that there is no such narration; only that [one endowed with] knowledge interprets it figuratively (al-'ilmu yata'awwaluhu). On that basis it is the same, with respect to possibility, whether Allah seats the Prophet on the Throne or on the ground. For His elevation over the Throne is not in the sense of displacement (intiqâl), removal (zawâl), nor change of position from standing to sitting, nor any state or condition to which the Throne itself is subject. Rather, He is elevated over the Throne in the way He has stated concerning Himself, without saying how. Nor does His seating of the Prophet on the Throne impose upon the Prophet (s) the attribute of Lordship [sic] or move him out of that of servanthood [sic]. Rather, it consists in an elevation because of his status, and an honor bestowed upon him because of his sublime character. (Source; underline emphasis ours) Another Muslim authority named Ibn Batta stated in his book al-Sharh wa al-Ibana 'ala Usul al-Sunna wa al-Diyana ("Elaboration of the Principles of Sunni Doctrine"), p. 61, that: The Prophet shall be seated on the Throne with his Lord (yujlas ma'a rabbihi 'alâ al-'arsh), and this privilege belongs to no one else. Thus did Nafi' narrate it from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet concerning the verse: "It may be that thy Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station" - he said that He shall seat him with Him on the Throne. Thus also did Mujahid explain it, as narrated by Muhammad ibn Fudayl, from al-Layth, from Mujahid. (Underline emphasis ours) In case the readers are wondering who this Mujahid is, he is Mujahid ibn Jabr, Abu al-Hajjaj al-Makhzumi (d. 102), one of the major commen­tators of the Qur'an among the tabi'in or followers of Muhammad's companions (sahabah), and viewed as holding the highest rank in reli­ability among hadith narrators (thiqa). It is related by a Muslim scholar named Ibn Sa'd, in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (6:9), that Mujahid went over the explanation of the Islamic scripture together with Ibn 'Abbas, Muhammad's first cousin and one of the most knowledgeable Muslims that ever lived, approximately thirty times. And here is a modern Muslim writer who affirms this interpretation: Do they know any other Prophet or angel whom Allah addressed directly and by whose life He swore? "By thy life (O Muhammad)!" (15:72); "And who is better in his discourse than he who calls unto Allah and does good and says: I am one of the Muslims?" (41:33) i.e. who is better in speech than the Prophet? "Lo! those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings" (98:7) i.e. the Prophet is the best of created beings; "Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct" (49:13) i.e. the Prophet is the noblest of those to whom the Qur'an is addressed in the sight of Allah; "And lo! thou (Muhammad) art [I swear] of a tremendous nature" (68:4). The reality of this compliment - khuluqin `azim - can be fathomed only by the Speaker Himself and whoever He wills; "Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake, while _some of them He exalted (above others) in degree_" (2:253) i.e. the Prophet. "And we preferred some of the Prophets above others" (17:55) then He said: "It may be that thy Lord will raise thee to a praised estate" (17:79), a Station which the Prophet said none but he would receive and this is the Station of Intercession at the right of the Glorious Throne as we described at length in the posting "The Seating of the Prophet on the Throne." (G.F. Haddad, The Prophetic Title "Best of Creation"; *; *; underline emphasis ours) For more on Muhammad occupying Allah's throne we advise consulting the following articles: http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/Al-Tabari.htm http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/ProphetsSeatingontheThrone.htm   My Response:   First of all, Shamoun ignorantly links to this article http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/ProphetsSeatingontheThrone.htm, which refutes Shamoun's case! This article ascertains that the veracity of all these narrations that speak about the Prophet (peace be upon him) sitting on the thrown with Allah cannot be verified. Notice some of the comments that the author makes:   The authenticity of this narration is not known and its wording departs from all the other narrations, though not its meaning.   The authenticity of this narration is not known and Daylami (d. 509) did not give his chain when citing the hadith   The chain of this hadith would then be weak and cut-up (da'îf munqati') as confirmed by Ma'ruf and al-Arna'ut's comments               M. Nasir al-Albani who said: "Its chain is weak and severed (maqtû')."               Ibn al-Jawzi said: "This narration is not authentic from the Prophet (s)."   Isn't it amazing? Shamoun brings up an argument and then links us to an article that demonstrates that the evidence for the position is weak!   Secondly, even if we do assume that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sits with Allah on the Throne, this is only proof of Allah greatly honoring the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Where does it say in Islamic sources that only the divine could sit on the Throne? No where does it say that. It is only Shamoun's personal subjective opinion that tells him that if someone sits on the Throne with God then that makes the person God. This is completely unfounded and baseless.   Sam Shamoun said: The inspired Christian Scriptures teach that the risen Christ now sits on and rules from his Father's Divine throne as the exalted and immortal Lord of all creation whom every creature shall eventually worship: ". Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'" Mark 14:61b-62 "and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way." Ephesians 1:19-23 "For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person-such a man is an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:5 "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11 "To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." Revelation 3:21 "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne (singular) of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him." Revelation 22:1-3 Unfortunately for these Muslims, and contrary to their denials, they failed to see how this plagiarizing of Biblical truth turned Muhammad into a demigod and thereby stands in direct conflict with the express statements of the Quran that there is no other deity or potentate besides Allah. My Response:   Shamoun suffers from a severe case of Trinity fever. Whatever passage he looks at, he immediately states "These passages show that Jesus is God!"   Jesus sitting at the right hand of God does not in any way imply that he is God.   On the contrary, it serves to show that he is not God. "To sit at the right hand" is a Jewish idiom signifying the custom of a dignitary honoring someone. If we take the case of a king, it would be the place of uppermost honor for any of his subordinates. Therefore, Jesus' session merely signifies His exaltation to the place of highest honor in heaven, but not that He is God. The Father inviting Jesus to come and sit at His right hand illustrates His superiority over Jesus and Jesus' dependence upon Him.   We would also like to ask Shamoun how come there aren't three thrones in heaven for each of the persons in the Triune Godhead.   Richard Bauckham said:   In Second Temple Judaism, then, the throne of God in the highest heaven became a key symbol of monotheism. (Richard Bauckham, The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus, page 53)   Marinus de Jong said:   God on his heavenly throne remains the center of all worship (Rev 7:11-17), and adoration of the Lamb in no way endangers or diminishes the worship due him. (Marinus de Jong, God's Final Envoy, page 138)     If the Throne of God became a symbol of monotheism and that the God on the Throne receives all worship and the Trinity is true, then why isn't there a Throne for each person? If Shamoun insists that all three persons were sharing the Throne, then I challenge Shamoun to cite me one verse that says that the Holy Spirit is sitting on the Throne as well. He cannot. We sure do hope that Shamoun doesn't get desperate and states what other Christian's state, which is that the Throne of the Holy Spirit is the body of the believer. If he does, then it becomes pretty obvious that he is avoiding the argument, for the Holy Spirit should be able to occupy a Throne and still be in the believers simultaneously.   Sam Shamoun said:   In order to help Muslims see the problem with this view it needs to be emphasized that placing Muhammad alongside Allah on the same throne basically means that he is a co-ruler with Allah. Moreover, to hold the position of Muhammad being a co-occupant of the divine throne inevitably leads to believing that a finite creature is equal with his creator. And yet how can any creature, no matter how exalted, ever be equal with the almighty in authority and rank?   My Response:   These are only words that Shamoun is uttering. He hasn't shown any proof for the truth of these claims.   Sam Shamoun said: In order to get around this problem certain Muslims may simply wish to discard these traditions, despite the many great Muslim minds that fully embraced and believed in the veracity of these reports. In fact, we even have cases where renowned scholars such as al-Tabari went out of their way to defend the authenticity and soundness of these reports. Be that as it may, by rejecting such traditions the Muslims only help to expose the utter chaotic and confused state in which Islamic scholarship finds itself as it seeks to cope with the intellectual and scholarly onslaught on the Muslim source material. It merely reveals that Islam is in shambles and cannot withstand the critical scrutiny and rational analysis of its primary sources by open-minded intelligent individuals. It is only a matter of time that, by the grace of the risen Lord Jesus, Islam will collapse and Muslims will be free from the shackles of the false teachings of the false prophet Muhammad and his god.   My Response:   Shamoun never considered the reality that the science of hadeeth was set up in order to distinguish false narrations from true ones. He thinks that if somehow a difference of opinion on a certain narration occurs then that makes all of our traditions doubtful. This is just sheer ignorance and this logic can even be used more forcefully against Shamoun, for we can say that since there is a difference of opinion over the veracity of Mark 16:9-20 and other passages in the Bible that would render his entire Bible doubtful!   As previously shown (from a link that Shamoun provided!) these traditions are not very reliable specifically because of weaknesses in their chains of transmission. Secondly, even if we do accept these traditions then they still don't pose a problem, as I have previously explained.   Sam Shamoun said: And even if a Muslim rejects these narratives s/he must still contend with the gross contradiction within the Islamic scripture concerning the question of whether Allah shares his rule or not. A Muslim may try to get around this problem by saying that the passages which say that Allah does not share his kingdom with anyone actually mean that all authority and rule stem from him and that individuals only reign because of Allah's permission. The problem with this explanation is that this is not the plain reading of the passages and that is not what the verses say. Since Muslims believe that the Quran is the standard of Arabic eloquence and grammar we would expect to find the Muslim scripture being more clear in communicating this point regarding Allah granting dominion to his creatures since the kingdom belongs to him, assuming of course that this is what the author(s) of the Quran was(were) actually saying. In other words, one can only accept this interpretation, e.g. Allah wasn't denying that there are others who reign but was really saying that all rulership stems from him, at the expense of the Quran's alleged perfect eloquence and structure. A Muslim must face the fact that the author(s) of the Quran once again failed to clearly communicate his/her/their message since s/he/they didn't write what s/he/they really wanted to say, but wrote in such a way as to convey the wrong idea which actually ended up contradicting other verses of the Quran!  My Response:   This is the most deceptive part of Shamoun's article. He is a deceiver who doesn't give the Qur'an the same courtesy he gives to the Bible. He says that our explanation does not fit in with the 'plain reading' of the text. Over here, when Shamoun says 'plain reading' he actually means 'literal strict reading in isolation of its context'. He doesn't mean to say -clear obvious meaning in light of what we know about Islam as a whole'.   I have also presented an example from the Bible regarding this same issue, which clearly exposes Shamoun's double standards.   Sam Shamoun said:   To put it another way, if the Quran is really saying that Allah is the true source and giver of rulership and dominion, and not that other rulers do not exist, then consistency in exegesis demands that we interpret Quranic statements which say that Allah is the sole divinity to mean that he is the sole source of deity. These verses do not mean that other gods do not exist. In other words, just as there are others who rule, even though Allah is the only one who has dominion, there are also other gods that exist who receive their divinity from Allah, the only so-called deity.   My Response:   Shamoun the ignorant exegete continues to utter foolish words. Can't Shamoun understand that we could interpret the passage to mean that Allah is the true and ultimate source and giver of leadership because we have other passages that affirm that Allah gives people leadership, however there are no passages that state that there are other 'gods' thus making the analogy absolutely ridiculous and fallacious?   We ask Shamoun to be consistent and answer the following question:   Since you interpret Jesus's statement 'The Father is Greater Than I' to mean greater than in authority, but not in essence does this mean that every time you see a passage, which states that God is greater than someone then that means that He is only greater than that person in authority, but equal in essence? If you argue no and that you must look at context, then why are you being so stubborn by twisting the verses of the Qur'an?   Shamoun then cites a Tabari tradition about Al Uzza, however he doesn't provide the isnaad for us to analyze its authenticity.     Appendix   Shamoun has written a response over here.   Shamoun said:   However, not only did Zawadi completely ignore my citation from al-Tabari who defends the veracity of this tradition:   Al-Tabari is stressing on the fact that one must not reject the narrations because they are afraid of the implications that it might have. He is arguing that its meaning is acceptable. I do agree with Imam Al-Tabari that it is not impossible for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to sit on the Throne with Allah. I have no objections to that. The only reason why I don't believe it is because it has not been demonstrated through any authentic chains of transmission.   Shamoun then wastes our time talking about scholars who believed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) would be seated with Allah. I am already aware of that, but how does that answer my argument that there is no authentic chain of transmission? Shamoun emphasizes on statements saying that the chain is uninterrupted, but how does it being connected accrue to its authenticity? He cites the scholars condemning people as Jahmis and heretics if they denied that Muhammad (peace be upon him) sits on the Throne. But there is a huge difference between the Jahmis and others such as my self who would reject this belief. The reason why the Jahmis rejected this belief is because of logical and philosophical reasons. They objected to its possibility. This is worthy of condemnation. However, I would reject the belief because there is no solid evidence for it in Qur'an or authentic hadeeth. I wouldn't be condemned for that. Some Orthodox Muslims simply accepted this as one of the valid meanings for the Praised Status (maqaam al mahmoud), which would be given to the Prophet (peace be upon him).   Shamoun said:   Zawadi also failed to mention that even his very own idol Ibn Taymiyyah and his pupil Ibn Qayyim believed and embraced the veracity of this tradition!   I haven't found any explicit statements from Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibnul Qayyim that they believed this, rather they only mentioned that scholars held this opinion and that it was a valid opinion that was accepted, but they never explicitly stated that they held to it. Even if they did, what would be the problem anyways?   Shamoun said: Yet since Zawadi doesn't like "weak" narrations here is one which is deemed to be reliable or sound: 8. Another Narration From 'Abd Allah ibn Salam From 'Abd Allah ibn Salam, in a long hadith on the Day of Judgment: "A seat (kursî) will be placed for the Prophet on the right of Allah."[38] [38] Al-Hakim narrated it in his Mustadrak (4:568-569) and declared its chain sound (sahîh), as confirmed by al-Dhahabi. (Bold and underline emphasis ours) Where in this narration does it say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is sitting on the same Throne as Allah? Rather it is speaking about a different throne. Also, Shamoun should cite GF Haddad in full since he says:   Yet the hadith scholars have drawn atten­tion to 'Abd Allahbn Salam as one of the Companions who frequently report narrations from the People of the Book (isrâ'îliyyât). Because of this, they have refrained from giving his mawqûf reports - and those of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As - the status of marfû? unless independently confirmed. Similar caution applies to the Successors Ka'b al-Ahbar and Wahb ibn Munabbih.[1][39]               These narrations bring to three the reported positions of the Prophet (s) in the different versions of the hadith of the seating: On the Throne, in front of the Throne, and to the right of the Throne. The first is itself divided into two versions: alone, or "with Allah." The latter is obviously the most controverted version.[2][40]   Shamoun then said:   Hence, Muhammad will be given a seat right next to Allah! This means that Muhammad shares in Allah's exclusive rule over all creation and is therefore Allah's partner who is another sovereign lord besides Allah!   Shamoun, do us a favor and keep your unwarranted Trinitarian exegesis outside of our faith. We have no clue or idea how on earth you concluded such a thing, so please either prove it or just spare us your crazy interpretations.   Shamoun then mentions narrations, which I have already addressed elsewhere in this series of refutations to Shamoun.   Shamoun said: Zawadi must be suffering from amnesia since he forgot the following citation which he borrowed from "Servetus the Evangelical": Richard Bauckham said: In Second Temple Judaism, then, the throne of God in the highest heaven became a key symbol of monotheism. (Richard Bauckham, The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus, page 53) Shamoun has got to be kidding me. He thinks that just because I cite Christian scholars against him then that would mean that I agree with their beliefs! I only cited Bauckham because he is theologically authoritative to the Christian. Not the Muslim. EVEN if it were true that according to the Bible to sit on the Throne with God proves one's divinity, in no way does that mean the same thing according to Islam.   Appendix 2     Shamoun added an appendix to his rebuttal.   Shamoun said:   He is arguing for the authenticity and veracity of this report, as well as for its theological soundness.   Anyone could read the citation that Shamoun provided from Imam Al Tabari, especially the bold parts that Shamoun highlighted and clearly see that Imam Al-Tabari did not claim to adhere to this belief. Even Al-Tabari himself acknowledges what interpretation he views as correct: "Even though the traditions we have mentioned on the authority of the Prophet and his Companions and the Followers indicate the correct interpretation of maqaman mahmudan in Qur. 17:79 (as referring to Muhammad's role as intercessor on the Day of Resurrection)" What he was saying was that Mujahid's statement is not impossible (meaning it cannot be rejected), however he didn't say that we should accept it. If Al-Tabari personally accepted this belief then so what? How does that change the fact that there is no authentic chain of transmission going back to the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself?   Shamoun said:   The scholars that I cited clearly stated that any person who denies the soundness of this narration is to be condemned, which proves that these scholars believed that this report was reliably transmitted and that it was based on authentic chains of transmission. This is the main reason why these same scholars condemned the Jahmis, not because of their appeal to logic and reason, but because of their rejection of a report that was based on a sound chain. This also refutes Zawadi's assertion that there is no authentic chain confirming the veracity of this report since the sources I quoted claimed there was.   Clearly Shamoun is ignorant about terminologies employed by Islamic scholars and the historical context surrounding the disputes between Jahmis and orthodox Muslims. He doesn't understand what the Jahmis beliefs and arguments were all about and in what context these scholars were saying what they said. We could provide several statements from classical scholars declaring those who said that the Qur'an is created is a kaafir or those who deny that Allah is above the Throne is a kaafir, however one needs to understand the principles of Takfeer and distinguish between general Takfeer and specified individual Takfeer and based on what conditions should someone be labeled a kaafir (e.g. does he have valid scriptural reasons or just appealing to emotions?). This is not the time or place for this discussion. We simply respond by saying that Shamoun must not appeal to authority and actually prove his case from Qur'an or authentic hadeeth.   Shamoun then cites Ibnul Qayyim, but again fails to provide evidence that he adhered to the position. Scholars listing supporters of a belief doesn't necessitate that they believed in it as well. The most we know about Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim is that they neither denied nor affirmed this belief.   Again, I don't understand the problem. I am already aware of and concede to the valid difference of opinion regarding this issue. I have zero problems with someone taking the opinion that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would sit on a throne next to Allah that day. So Shamoun doesn't have to waste his time telling me that such and such scholars believed in it. However, I reject this opinion (i.e. I reject that we must believe in it and don't make a positive denial to its truth) because there is no solid evidence for it from Qur'an or the statements of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Shamoun said:   According to these reports there will actually be two seats or thrones in heaven, not just one, one for Allah and the other for Muhammad.   Where did thrones in heaven come from?   Shamoun said:   By sitting on another kursi or throne alongside Allah's Muhammad inevitably ends up sharing in Allah's unique rule over creation as sovereign lord. Muhammad therefore becomes a partner with Allah in his sovereignty, which means that Muslims actually have two Lords, not just one!     First of all, it is not the Throne that is sovereign, but the one on the Throne.   Secondly, who said that the Prophet's (peace be upon him) throne (assuming he will sit on a throne) is of the same glory and magnitude as that of Allah? Does the disciples sitting on thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel when the Son of Man would also sit on his glorious throne on the Day of Judgment (Matthew 19:28) also make them divine? We feel Shamoun is going to come up with some kind of explanation, which could also work for the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). However, if Shamoun just simply wants to fallaciously argue that since God has a Throne and someone else also does then that would also mean he is divine, then we would surely have a field day with the Bible!   Shamoun said:   1.      According to the Quran Allah's throne symbolizes his sovereignty over all creation. 2.      The Quran further attests that Allah does not allow anyone to share in his unique rule over his creation. 3.      Certain reports claim that Muhammad will be seated on Allah's own throne, whereas other narratives state that he will actually be seated on his very own throne next to Allah's. 4.      In either case, this means that Muhammad shares in Allah exclusive sovereign rule over the entire creation. 5.      As such, this makes Muhammad into another lord and deity besides Allah. 6.      This in turn violates one of the essential components of Islamic monotheism, namely Tauhid al-Rububiya.   If only Shamoun could clearly show the connection from point 3 to point 4, we would be more than willing to agree with him. But as usual he cannot prove his case.