Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article, "Allah's promises to protect Muhammad from the power of Satan: Responding to the assertions of a Muslim Apologist"


Bassam Zawadi


Sam Shamoun wrote a response to my article over here.


Sam Shamoun said:

First, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the historical veracity of the Satanic verses. For the data which conclusively proves that Muhammad thought that he had recited verses from Satan which he mistakenly thought were from Allah, please consult the following articles (123456789).

My Response:

We encourage our readers to visit all the links Shamoun provided above and then read my article here. One would see that Shamoun has never provided a single fully connected authentic chain of transmission for the Satanic Verses story.


Sam Shamoun said:

In the first place, Zawadi's belief that Satan can possess a person doesn't solve the problem but further complicates matters. His position either proves that Allah is a consistent failure and powerless against Satan since he cannot even prevent his faithful from being possessed by evil spirits, and therefore does contradict what the Quran teaches. Or, this shows that individuals who do come under demonic-possession are not righteous slaves, otherwise Allah would have protected them from being possessed.

Furthermore, it is apparent that Zawadi didn't know how to respond to my points and so decided to attack a straw man. The problem is not with Satan influencing individuals to sin. The problem is with Satan controlling Muhammad through magic to such an extent that the latter thought he was having sex with his wives.

My Response:

It seems like Shamoun doesn't want to deal directly with my response. I said that the authority of Satan that the Qur'an is discussing has to do with Satan forcing the individual to be misguided. That is all.


Nowhere does the Qur'an deny that Satan can possess His righteous servants. If Allah allows Satan to possess the individual, then this is Allah's trial for His servant. That is all. It doesn't mean Allah didn't have the power to save him. Allah's righteous servants will succeed by entering paradise in the next life. That does not mean that they can't suffer.


Shamoun couldn't have said it better:


Furthermore, the general promise to the righteous that they will be vindicated and saved does not mean that God does not allow them to suffer. (Sam Shamoun, Umar and the CrucifixionSource)


When Allah said that He would protect His righteous servants from Satan, it is speaking about protection in an ultimate sense, and that is from Satan's ability to misguide you.


Secondly, Shamoun fails to inform his readers that nowhere does Christianity deny that pious and sincere Christians could be demon-possessed. Many Christians would assert that it is possible.


Gil Rugh, senior pastor at Indian Hills Community Church, states:


There is a movement within professing Evangelicalism today that says, "Yes." (Gil Rugh, Demonization of the Believer: An Unbiblical Teaching ExposedOnline Source) 


Let Us Reason Ministries tells us about more respected Christians who believe in the possibility of demon possession in Christians:


Those who teach demon possession in Christians are Neil T. AndersonPeter Wagner, and a host of others. (Source)



C. Fred Dickason, the theology department chairman at Moody Bible Institute, argues that the Holy Spirit and Demon can cohabit with the same person on page 136 of his book Demon Possession and the Christian: A New Perspective.


In the sixth chapter of his book, Dickason refutes those who try to argue that the Bible states that demonization of a Christian is impossible. See here. He actually goes a step further and argues in the seventh chapter that the Bible does hint at the idea that a Christian could be demon-possessed. See here.


Bible scholar Merrill F. Unger said on page 150 of his book What Demons Can Do to Saints:


Clinical evidence abounds that a Christian can be demon-controlled as a carry-over from pre-conversion days or can fall under Satan's power after conversion and become progressively demonized, even seriously.


People like Mark I. Bubeck, C. Fred Dickason, Kurt Koch, Charles H. Kraft, Merrill Unger, and C. Peter Wagner all give numerous examples of born-again Christians who have been diagnosed as suffering from "demonization." (Mark I. Bubeck, Overcoming the Adversary (Chicago: Moody, 1975), pp. 87-92; C. Fred Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian, with a foreword by Mark I. Bubeck (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1987), pp. 187-213; Kurt Koch, Occult Bondage and Deliverance: Advice for Counseling the Sick, the Troubled and the Occultly Oppressed (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal, 1970), pp. 67-71; Charles H. Kraft, "Dealing with the Demonization," in Behind Enemy Lines: An Advanced Guide to Spiritual Warfare, eds. Charles H. Kraft, Tom Whilte, Ed Murphy and others (Ann Arbor, MI: Vine, 1994), pp. 79-120 (89-91); Unger, What Demons Can Do, pp. 141-67; C. Peter Wagner, How to Have a Healing Ministry without Making Your Church Sick (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1988; reprint ed. Manila: OMF Literature, 1990), pp. 189-96, cited here)


One Christian states:


The point we are making is two fold. FIRST, a person, whether he be a Believer in Jesus Christ or a non-believer, who INVITES demons into his/her life will have his invitation answered (Source)



Another Christian by the name of Timothy S. Morton puts it so nicely:


Over the years, while reading and discussing demon possession with other Christian's, your author has found many are repulsed by even the suggestion that a Christian may be susceptible to demon possession. They talk as if one is extremely ignorant or even demented to even think such a thing, but when asked for their biblical proof that it is not possible, their position becomes desperate. They simply cannot produce a passage or verse that PROVES their argument, yet they still cling to their belief.

Over the years your author has found that all the arguments against demon possession of Christians are either based purely on emotion or on a misapplication of Scripture. You may be thinking, "Are you saying a Christian can be demon possessed? No, I didn't say that. What I am saying is there is no place in the Bible that conclusively says Christians can't be possessed. But, on the contrary, there are passages that seem to indicate (though not conclusively prove) that demon possession of believers CAN occur.

When asked for reasons why they think Christians can't be demon possessed one will usually hear, "It's not possible for the Holy Spirit and a demon to dwell in the same body," "It is unthinkable to believe the Holy Spirit would let a devil in a Christian's body, which is God's temple," A born again believer has been redeemed by the blood of Christ and because of that no devil can indwell him," etc., etc. But such arguments are purely emotional without a single Bible verse to stand on. These people have convinced themselves of something that is not true because of the repulsiveness of the question, but emotion and feelings do not make "sound doctrine." (Source)


So, as we can see, there is nothing wrong, according to Christianity, with a faithful servant of God being demon-possessed. So why should there be in Islam? Shamoun has to stop it with the double standards.

Sam Shamoun said:

Why didn't Allah prevent Muhammad from being controlled by magic if the Quran is correct that Satan will not affect those that are righteous before Allah?

My Response:

As I said, Islam does not teach that Satan cannot affect the human being in any way. If that is the case, then what is the purpose of Satan's creation? Of course, Satan could entice us, tempt us, and harm us by possessing us, but he can't misguide us from Islam if we are sincere truth, truth-seeking Muslims. Satan cannot force us to be misguided. It is our free-willed decision. That is how Satan cannot affect us. However, Satan could affect us by trying to tempt us to leave the straight path.

Sam Shamoun said:

  • Moreover, what was Muhammad actually doing during the entire year that he thought he was sleeping with his wives? After all, for him to believe he was really having sex implies that he was pleasuring himself in some manner otherwise how could he think that he was actually engaging in intercourse? Isn't this rather humiliating?

My Response:

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was doing everything he used to do at any other time. Nowhere do we see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was constantly thinking that he was with his wives or that he was hallucinating or being affected by black magic 24/7. It could have only affected him at different times of the day.


Secondly, we are unsure from which hadith Shamoun appealed to say that the spell lasted a whole year. We are only aware of Alfred Guillaume stating that Suhayli said he found a tradition in Jami' of Mu'ammar b. Rashad. However, we are not sure of the authenticity of this statement. Until Shamoun proves its authenticity, there is no reason for us to believe that this lasted a whole year. Even if it did, it still doesn't matter. 


Thirdly, as for Shamoun's statement:


After all, for him to believe he was really having sex implies that he was pleasuring himself in some manner otherwise how could he think that he was actually engaging in intercourse? Isn't this rather humiliating?

What is humiliating about this? If someone has a wet dream and is "pleasuring himself in some manner," would that also be humiliating?

Also, we don't know how the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to imagine this. Perhaps it was only a quick vision or hallucination, and then it disappeared. If that is the case then the Prophet (peace be upon him) wouldn't have "pleasured himself".

Sam Shamoun said:

  • And why would Allah humiliate his prophet in such a way, allowing him to think he was having sex when he really wasn't, thereby shaming him in front of the Muslims and unbelievers?

My Response:

This is where Shamoun has some nerve to speak. How dare Shamoun claim that this incident of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is humiliating. At the same time, he has no problem believing that the Creator of this Universe humiliated Himself by becoming a man (Philippians 2:7-8), a curse (Galatians 3:13), being mocked by his opponents (Matthew 27:37) and being spat at in his face with fists striking him and slapping him (Matthew 26:67).

Just see how one Christian describes his "God":

As Jesus hung upon the cross - beaten, naked and shamed. (Scotty Smith, Objects of His AffectionSource)

Is this the humiliated "God" that attracts Shamoun? Yet, Muhammad's (peace be upon him) black magic trial pushes him so far from Islam. What reasoning is this?

The most humiliating thing I would have to defend the Biblical Jesus from if I were a Christian (God forbid) is how he cried out to God, accusing Him of abandoning him:

Matthew 27:46

46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


How can a righteous Prophet speak to his Lord in such a way? How can he accuse God of forsaking him, especially when God has promised not to forsake those who truly seek him (Psalm 9:10) and are faithful (Psalm 37:28)? Let us guess: Shamoun will cleverly find a way to reconcile between the two, but won't allow for such a reconciliation for Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) black magic experience and the verses in the Qur'an? Well, we stopped being surprised by Shamoun's double standards since they aren't news to us anymore.

Sam Shamoun said:

·Moreover, why would Allah allow Muhammad's wives to go on without having sex with their husband for nearly a year? What kind of god is this that would actually permit a man to neglect his marital duties with his spouses when he could have simply healed him from the very start?

My Response:

Where does it say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not engage in intercourse with his wives throughout this time?

Also, note that Shamoun asks:

What kind of god is this that would actually permit a man to neglect his marital duties with his spouses

Well if Shamoun has no problem with the Biblical Jesus being too cold-hearted to allow his followers to fulfill their parental duties by attending their father's funeral and bidding their mothers and wives (included in marital rights) farewell (Luke 9:59-62) then Shamoun shouldn't have a problem with Muhammad (peace be upon him) not having sex with his wives for an entire year (that is assuming that this is the case, for Shamoun hasn't provided evidence for the spell lasting for one year, nor has he provided evidence for the Prophet not having sex with his wives during the time of the spell)

Sam Shamoun said:

·Does Zawadi really want non-Muslims to believe that for an entire year Muhammad wasn't receiving "revelations" when he was under this state? Can Zawadi (or any other Muslim) provide a conclusive statement from the Islamic narratives themselves which say that he wasn't being inspired during this period of time that Satan had him under his control?

My Response:

I never suggested that Muhammad (peace be upon him) wasn't receiving revelations during the time of the spell (even though I don't see any objections to that if it were the case). On the contrary, Muslims stress that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was still very active as Allah's messenger even during that time because the magic did not affect that aspect of his job:

 'Iyaad said: Thus it is clear that the witchcraft prevailed over his body and physical faculties, not over his discernment and beliefs


Al-Mahlab said: The protection of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) against the devils does not mean that they would not try to harm him. In al-Saheeh it is narrated that a devil wanted to spoil his prayer but Allaah protected him against him. The same applies to witchcraft; the harm that affected him did not have any impact on his conveying of the message, rather it was akin to any other kind of sickness that afflicted him, such as having difficulty in speaking or doing certain things, or experiencing illusions that did not last. Rather it passed and Allaah foiled the plots of the devils. End quote. 

Fath al-Baari, 10/226, 227 


Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 


How the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was guided to treat the spell which Jews cast on him: 


This has been denied by some people who said that this could not have happened to him, and they thought that it was a shortcoming and a fault. But it is not as they think, rather it comes under the heading of sickness and pain that befell him; it is a kind of illness which befell him just as he was also affected by poison - there is no difference between the two. It is proven in al-Saheehayn that 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was bewitched until he thought that he had had intercourse with his wives when he had not done so, and that is the worst kind of witchcraft."


Al-Qaadi 'Iyaad said: Witchcraft is a kind of sickness which happened to him like other kinds of sickness. That cannot be denied and it does not detract from his Prophethood. 

With regard to his imagining that he had done something when he had not done it, that does not have any impact on his truthfulness, because of the evidence to that effect and the scholarly consensus that he was protected from that. Rather it was one of the matters of this world which are not the reason for which he was sent, and which are not the basis of his virtue and in which he was like all other human beings. It is not far-fetched to say that he might imagine some things that were not real, then things became clear to him later on, as indeed happened. End quote. 

Zaad al-Ma'aad, 4/124 


So it is clear that the hadeeth is saheeh, and that it does not detract from the status of Prophethood. Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, protected His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and made him infallible before this spell was cast, during it and afterwards. The spell did no more than make the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) think that he had had intercourse with his wives when he had not done so; it had to do with a purely worldly matter, and had nothing to do with his conveying of the message at all. The words of the scholars quoted above are sufficient, and whoever wants to know more may refer to Fath al-Baari and Zaad al-Ma'aad. (Source)


Sam Shamoun said:

·Wouldn't this imply that Satan is more powerful than Allah seeing that he was able to bewitch Muhammad for nearly a year even though the Quran says that he wouldn't be able to harm Allah's righteous servants?

·Or should we assume that Muhammad wasn't righteous enough and was in fact a deviator, which explains why Allah would allow him to be so humiliated by the devil?

My Response:

We will not repeat ourselves regarding the correct interpretation of the Qur'anic verses regarding Allah's protection of His Messenger. No, this wouldn't imply that "Satan is more powerful than Allah" because we don't believe that Allah tried to stop the incident from occurring to begin with. However, He allowed it to occur as a trial for the Messenger (peace be upon him).

Sam Shamoun said:

Zawadi thinks he has another explanation which makes sense of Muhammad being duped and inspired by Satan to praise idols:


Now even if we were to assume that the Satanic verses story is true, this wouldn't make Muhammad (peace be upon him) an evil doer, for one version of the fabricated story of the Satanic verses states that Satan placed those words on the Prophet's mouth and eventually Angel Gabriel came to the Prophet later that evening and exposed Satan. So after the Prophet was aware of this, he denounced the Satanic verses. So here we see that the Prophet still remains on the straight path of Islam and is still to be considered a righteous servant of Allah who just underwent a trial from Satan.

This explanation doesn't fair any better for the following reasons:

  • Again, why didn't Allah prevent Satan from casting words on Muhammad's mouth in the first place?
  • Why didn't Gabriel arrive before Satan could cast his words on Muhammad's tongue, especially when the Quran says it is Allah who sends the devils upon his messengers?

And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies - Shayatin (devils) among mankind and jinns, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion (or by way of deception). If your Lord had so willed, they would not have done it, so leave them alone with their fabrications. (Tafseer Qurtubi, Vol.7, Page 67) S. 6:112 Hilali-Khan

Since Allah not only knew beforehand that Satan would try to deceive Muhammad, but he was the one who actually sent the enemy to place his words on Muhammad's tongue, why then didn't he send his angel to prevent the devil from casting words on the lips of his messenger?

  • This explanation also fails to explain how Allah could even allow Muhammad to recite verses which Satan placed on his mouth praising the idols of the Meccans when this led the pagans to believe that Allah had now accepted the intercession and the existence of their goddesses, thereby leading them further into shirk.
  • In fact, this event provided more confirmation to the pagans that Muhammad was a liar and deceiver since he first glorified their goddesses and then retracted his statements and condemned the existence of these very idols that he initially praised. In light of this, why would Allah allow the enemy to put the praise of the goddesses on Muhammad's mouth when he knew that he would have to revoke these statements? By having to cancel out Satan's verses didn't Allah help to confirm the suspicions and doubts of the unbelievers concerning Muhammad's credibility, e.g. he was nothing more than a forger who was making up the Quran and trying to pass it of as revelation from Allah?

My Response:

We have already dealt with this issue here.

Sam Shamoun said:

There are several problems with Zawadi's desperate appeal to authority and his selective sourcing of Muslim scholars. First, Zawadi doesn't see his own dilemma since if Allah could protect Muhammad from being harmed by human beings then surely he could have protected his messenger from being inspired by Satan and controlled by a sorcerer. In fact, the Quran says that magicians will never be successful:

"And throw that which is in your right hand! It will swallow up that which they have made. That which they have made is only a magician's trick, and the magician will never be successful, no matter whatever amount (of skill) he may attain." S. 20:69 Hilali-Khan

But this is not what happened since Satan duped Muhammad and a sorcerer was so successful against Allah's "messenger" that his magic had such control over his mind that he had Muhammad actually believing that he was having sex with his wives, when he wasn't, for nearly a year! This either means that Allah failed and isn't powerful enough, or Muhammad wasn't righteous and therefore Allah handed him over to be disciplined by Satan. There are several problems with Zawadi's desperate appeal to authority and his selective sourcing of Muslim scholars. First, Zawadi doesn't see his own dilemma since if Allah could protect Muhammad from being harmed by human beings then surely he could have protected his messenger from being inspired by Satan and controlled by a sorcerer. But this is not what happened which means that Allah failed and isn't powerful enough, or Muhammad wasn't righteous and therefore Allah handed him over to be disciplined by Satan.

My Response:

It appears that Shamoun has a problem defining the word "success." When the Qur'an says that the magician will not be successful, does it mean that he will never be able to cast a spell on someone? Well, of course not. Islam acknowledges that black magic is real and people can be affected by it. So, obviously, this is not what the verse means.

The verse means that the magician will never be successful in achieving his goals if God doesn't permit it. The context is clear from verses 68-69 that Allah is helping Moses and assuring him that he will be successful. He assures them that the magic of his opponents is only trickery and isn't real when He says, "is only a magician's trick" (in Arabic khayal) and that the miracles that Moses (peace be upon him) will perform are real because they are from God. Thus, the magicians will not succeed against them.

Magic is only an illusion according to the texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah, both using a variation of the word khayal to describe what happened to prophets Musa and then Muhammad (peace be upon them both). Allah saved both of the Prophets from the effects of these illusions. The magician failed in reaching his goal, and the word khayal indicates a psychological effect, not an actual one, e.g., magic cannot add a third hand to someone, cause a believer to become a disbeliever, or move a chair from its actual place. Still, magic can cause an illusion or an appearance of something unreal.


Therefore, Moses (peace be upon him) thought that the ropes were snakes, while Muhammad (peace be upon him) thought he had sex with his wife when he didn't.


The verse speaks of the magician actually not doing what he appeared to have been doing, i.e., the magician did not actually make the rope turn into a snake. Rather, he only made it look like a snake in movement, so he did not succeed in creating what people thought he would create. The magician did not cause any physical damage to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to cause him not to have sex; he only caused him to think he satisfied his desire, but he failed, for we have no evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not have sex afterward normally. So the magician does not actually succeed in doing what he appears to have intended, but he only creates an illusion of something.


When Allah saves some people from the magic, He saves them from thinking the illusion is actually a reality.


We must also pay attention to the word falah in the verse, which is translated as "succeed"; it is not merely success. It is success that brings Allah's pleasure. If you look at this word in various hadeeths, you will realize that the verse talks about material success and beneficial success. That is why Imam Razi said: 


   قوله: { وَلاَ يُفْلِحُ ٱلسَّـٰحِرُ حَيْثُ أَتَىٰ } يدل على أن الساحر لا يحصل له مقصوده بالسحر خيراً كان أو شراً وذلك يقتضي نفي السحر بالكلية



His statement "and the magician will never be successful" indicates that the magician does not attain his goal in reality, whether he intended good or evil by his magic, and this means magic does not actually occur, (Fakhar ad-Din ar-Razi, Tafsir Al Kabir, Commentary on Surah 20:69, Source)


Imam ar-Razi means that the magician cannot cause physical changes or create new realities because it is all an illusion. So, if the magician wants to do good by creating money for a needy person out of nothing, he cannot. If he wants to create a snake out of a rope to do evil with it, he cannot, and thus, Imam ar-Razi says that this means that magic does not exist, i.e., it is all an illusion. This is corroborated by the word khayal used in the Quran and Sunnah.


In conclusion regarding this point, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) only experienced an illusion (which he eventually got out of and did not stay in till the day he died) and not reality, the magician wasn't successful against the Prophet (peace be upon him).


Thus, there is no contradiction between this Qur'anic verse and the incident with the Prophet (peace be upon him).


Sam Shamoun said:

Secondly, nothing that Zawadi cited from his Muslim authorities denies that these texts can also apply to Allah protecting his messengers from Satan and his minions.

My Response:

I don't understand what Shamoun is referring to.

Sam Shamoun said:

Thirdly, there are other Muslims who do see how these verses are relevant to these stories:

Thus, if seen in the perspective of the Qur'an, there is not even a hint of any information, on the basis of which it could be said that the Prophet was ever under any magical spell. The Qur'an, on the contrary, leads us to believe that because of God's close guard over the Prophet (pbuh), no such harm could have befallen the Prophet (pbuh).

However, there are a few Hadith, which inform us that the last two Surahs of the Qur'an were revealed at a time when the Prophet (pbuh) was under a magical spell. Two of the important points in the information given by these Hadith are:

  • The Prophet (pbuh) remained under this magical spell for six months; and
  • This spell caused amnesia in many of the day-to-day affairs of the Prophet (pbuh).

It is quite obvious that the information given in these narratives is not only against the stated verses of the Qur'an, but also creates serious doubts about the infallibility of the prophets of God. After all, if God and His appointed angels could not (or did not) protect the Prophet (pbuh) against such a magical spell then what exactly is the implication of God's declaration mentioned in Al-Jinn 72: 27 - 28 and His promise mentioned in Al-Maaidah 5: 67? (Was the Prophet (pbuh) ever a Victim of a Magical Spell?source; underline emphasis ours)

And in trying to reconcile Q. 72:27-28 and 5:67 with the fact that Muhammad suffered physical injuries the Understanding Islam website states:

As for the times in which the Prophet (PBUH) got hurt, I do not see these as negative. On the contrary, they may be viewed as positive. This has many reasons. The fact that a person is able to come on the battle field and strike the Prophet (PBUH) so hard and yet not kill him must surely have been utterly displeasing to the Prophet's (PBUH) enemies. They came so close so often and yet remained so far. It also showed the people's great rebellion; that they not only reject a Messenger of God after he made the truth as clear as day light but actually go as far as injuring him and attempting to murder him. They did indeed get what was coming to them. Furthermore, this was an occasion of testing the believers to see how they would react. There were some that lost all hope and began to flee but then there were others that remained firm. What is important to notice here is that none of these injuries did anything to message of God or its safe deliverance.

However, when we talk of the Prophet (PBUH) being cast under spells, I think that this would probably affect the Message. The Hadith that refer to him being under a spell for six months would in my opinion most certainly have affected the Message. So, while the Prophet (PBUH) getting physically harmed does not contradict the cited verses of the Qur'an, the spiritual damage to him (through spells) in my opinion would. (Magical Spell on the Prophet (pbuh)source; underline emphasis ours)

In fact, there were Muslims in the past such as the Mu'tazilites who used Q. 5:67 to disprove the story of Muhammad's bewitchment, so this is not simply a modern position:

I In commenting on this Suhayli asserts that the tradition is sound and is accepted by the traditionists. He found in the Jami' of Mu'ammar b. Rashad (a work which I cannot find mentioned by Brockelmann) the statement that the spell lasted a year. He adds that the Mu'tazila and Modernists REJECTED THE TRADITION ON THE GROUND THAT PROPHETS COULD NOT BE BEWITCHED OTHERWISE THEY WOULD COMMIT SIN and that would be contrary to the word of God 'And God will protect thee from men' (5.71). He finds the tradition unassailable. It is properly attested and intellectually acceptable. The prophets were not preserved from bodily afflictions in which category sorcery falls. (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth Impression 1995), p. 240; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Zawadi thought that he understood the Quran correctly and assumed that his eisegesis refutes my understanding and application of the Quranic verses. However, as is his consistent habit, Zawadi has simply misunderstood and even distorted what the Quran says and cited sources which he erroneously assumed agreed with his position, and yet conveniently ignored and didn't address those Muslims who used passages such as Q. 5:67 and 105 to prove that Muhammad could not be bewitched.

My Response:

Shamoun said:

and didn't address those Muslims who used passages such as Q. 5:67 and 105 to prove that Muhammad could not be bewitched.

And who are these great Muslim authorities that I didn't refute? Well, according to Shamoun, it is one of the staff members of the Understanding Islam website, which is known for its unorthodox liberalistic dogmas in many areas (e.g., rejecting authentic hadith if it doesn't appear to be reconcilable with the Qur'an at a surface level view like this case) and the Mu'tazilites, an early heretical sect who died long ago! Wow! I can't believe I forgot to pay attention to these scholarly authorities!

Anyways, looking at the comments by Understanding Islam, notice that they said:

As for the times in which the Prophet (PBUH) got hurt, I do not see these as negative. On the contrary, they may be viewed as positive. This has many reasons. The fact that a person is able to come on the battle field and strike the Prophet (PBUH) so hard and yet not kill him must surely have been utterly displeasing to the Prophet's (PBUH) enemies.

Well, it appears that he is being inconsistent here. Here, he has no problem with the Prophet (peace be upon him) getting affected by his enemies (i.e., he got physically hurt) because, ultimately, his enemies didn't succeed in killing him. I agree with this, and I would say that in analogy, the Prophet (peace be upon him) got affected by magic, but ultimately, he was protected from it when Angel Gabriel came down to him and told him to get out of the situation. So what is the difference?

Notice the subjective opinions that the author puts forth:

However, when we talk of the Prophet (PBUH) being cast under spells, I think that this would probably affect the Message. The Hadith that refer to him being under a spell for six months would in my opinion most certainly have affected the Message. So, while the Prophet (PBUH) getting physically harmed does not contradict the cited verses of the Qur'an, the spiritual damage to him (through spells) in my opinion would.

I don't care about this person's "opinion," which is subjective. He can't prove anything wrong with the Prophet (peace be upon him) temporarily being affected by magic and God ultimately saving him. On the contrary, this proves Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a true Messenger of God. If he was a false messenger, why would God help him out of the bewitchment?

Sam Shamoun said:

In conclusion, the evidence conclusively shows that not only was Muhammad bewitched but he also had Satan inspire him to recite his verses which he only later realized did not come from Allah. This means that, according to the Quranic passages we referenced in our original article, Muhammad was either unrighteous and Allah therefore decided to hand him over to the power and control of Satan, or Allah wasn't powerful enough to save his messenger in time.

My Response:

In conclusion, Shamoun, as usual, keeps ranting about the Satanic verses that have already been refuted over and over again (see here). He also continues to display his ignorance of the true meanings of Qur'anic verses. He deliberately does not allow for any harmonization, thus exposing his double standards as usual.




Return to Refuting Sam Shamoun


Return to Homepage




click here to view site

HomeWhat's new?ChristianityRefutations Contact Me