Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article, "Muhammad and Oath-Making: Another Example of Muhammad failing to practice what he preached"


 Bassam Zawadi




Sam Shamoun's article can be located here.  

There are two lines of approach that one could take to deal with the seemingly problematic hadith in question:  

2706. It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: "A man came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, tell me, which of the people has most right to my companionship?' He said: 'Yes, BY YOUR FATHER, you will certainly be told.' He said: 'Your mother.' He said, 'Then who?' He said: 'Then your mother.' He said: 'Then who?' He said: 'Then your mother.' He said: 'Then who?' He said: 'Then your father.' He said: 'Tell me, O Messenger of Allah, about my wealth - how should I give in charity?' He said: 'Yes, BY ALLAH, you will certainly be told.'" (Sahih)  

The first approach is to deny that it ever occurred. Sheikh Albani, in his Salsilah Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 4992, gives a detailed discussion and shows that the added phrase "By Your Father" is not authentic. Several other narrations about this same event have authentic chains, yet they don't contain the added phrase "By Your Father." However, the narrations that do contain it do not have authentic chains of transmission. 

The second approach is to confront the text and explain it somehow directly. 

There are two possible ways to do this:  


It is possible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) swore by the man's father before doing such a thing was declared haram by Allah. 

Shamoun has some objections to arguing such a position.

He says: 

First, Muslims believe that the Meccans are descendants of Ishmael and that both he and his father Abraham built the Kabah and instituted the rites of pilgrimage. This means that the people would have known and been informed that such oath-making is forbidden by the God of Abraham. At the very least, Muhammad should have known this in light of his association and contact with both Jews and Christians. 

There is no evidence whatsoever to believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) heard that oath-making was forbidden by the Meccans, Jews, or Christians. 

Secondly, even if he did, why would the Prophet (peace be upon him) care? He didn't hold them in religious authority. 

If Shamoun wants to give me a headache as he usually does and argue that the Qur'an commanded the Prophet (peace be upon him) to obey the People of the Book, then I would be more than happy to continue refuting him on that point as I usually do. 

Shamoun gives his second reason: 

Second, Muslims assert that Allah protected Muhammad from all idolatrous practices even before his so-called prophetic career began. If this is the case then, surely, Allah would have prevented his messenger from committing idolatry by making an oath in the name of the fathers.  

God declares and decides what breaks His law whenever He feels like it. 

God chose to allow incest with the first generation of people (how else did humans start to develop?) but decided to prohibit it later. 

Muslims have no problem believing that bowing down to others with the intention of respect was okay in the past, yet idolatrous today since God says so. 

Similarly, Muslims have no problem with the idea that God temporarily permitted oaths to be taken by others than Him and then later on forbade this practice. 

Now, Shamoun may argue that oath-making by other than God was already haram at that time because it is declared haram in the Bible. Again, this is irrelevant since those laws were never meant to be imposed upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) or Muslims since the Islamic position is that those laws were meant for specific people in the past. Islam then came and chose what to retain from those laws in the way that it gradually did. 

Finally, Shamoun argues: 

Third, Muhammad's slip occurred after his alleged prophetic ministry began, during the time when Muslims believe that their prophet was receiving inspiration. In fact, Muslims believe that Muhammad only spoke by way of revelation. As one Muslim polemicist puts it:

{Wa-ma yantiqu 'ani-l-huwa, in huwa illa wa'hyum yu'ha (He, Muhammad, does not speak of his own desire, it is only a revelation revealed)} (53:3-4)

Prophet Muhammad did not only speak, or 'Nataqa (in the present tense: Yantiqu)' the Quran, he also spoke the Sunnah. Abdullah Ibn 'Amr Ibn al-'Aas used to write everything the Prophet said, meaning, his Hadeeth or religious statements. Muslims from the tribe of Quraish - the Prophet's tribe - criticized Abdullah for doing this, claiming that sometimes the Prophet might say things in anger. Abdullah Ibn 'Amr asked the Prophet about it, and he said, while pointing to his mouth .

"Rather, write! For by He (Allah) in Whose Hand is my soul, nothing save the Truth comes out of it." (A Sahih Hadeeth; Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud [3646]) (Introduction to: Muhammad The Prophet of Mercy - Muhammad's Role in Islam, by Jalal Abualrub, edited by Alaa Mencke [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], p. 35)

If the assertion that Allah protected Muhammad from idolatry even before he claimed to be a prophet is correct then wouldn't Muhammad's lord have gone out of his way to guard his prophet from committing such a sin after the "revelation" began to descend, during the time where Muhammad was supposedly always speaking by inspiration? Should we therefore assume that Allah inspired Muhammad to make an oath in the name of somebody's father, thereby causing him to commit idolatry? 

It is irrelevant if the incident occurred after the Prophet (peace be upon him) became a Prophet at 40. 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) would gradually receive revelations for another 23 years. Thus, it is possible that for the first 10 years, the Muslims might have been doing things that later became forbidden (e.g., drinking alcohol). 

Thus, it is irrelevant to say that this incident occurred after Muhammad (peace be upon him) became a Prophet.

Shamoun's argument would only be strong if he could prove that this incident took place after Allah prohibited oath-making by anyone besides Himself; however, Shamoun was not able to demonstrate this. 

As for Surah 55:3-4, one must understand that not every word that came from the Prophet's mouth is divine revelation. It is only when the Prophet (peace be upon him) claims something that implies that he is receiving revelation, and the verse emphasizes that he is not a liar and speaking from himself. 

If the Prophet (peace be upon him) were to tell his wives and children that he loves them, this is not coming from God, but himself. 

If he were to say that he disliked a particular food (he disliked eating lizards), this was only from himself and not from divine revelation. 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) differentiated between his role as a human being and as a Messenger: 

Saheeh Muslim 

Book 030, Number 5831:

Rafi' b. Khadij reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to Medina and the people had been grafting the trees. He said: What are you doing? They said: We are grafting them, whereupon he said: It may perhaps be good for you if you do not do that, so they abandoned this practice (and the date-palms) began to yield less fruit. They made a mention of it (to the Holy Prophet), whereupon he said: I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being. 'Ikrima reported that he said something like this. 

Thus, we should not misunderstand that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was always speaking divine revelation.  


This is the position that I take. 

The phrase "by your father" was a common expression among Arabs at that time, and its intended meaning was not an oath. 

Imam Nawawi argues: 

قد سبق الجواب مرات عن مثل هذا , وأنه لا تراد به حقيقة القسم , بل هي كلمة تجري على اللسان وقيل غير ذلك .


We answered this many times before, and swearing is not intended in this expression, but it is a common expression, and other explanations were given. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Birr wal Sillah wal Aadaab, Bab: Barr Al Waaledayn wa Annahuma Ahaqqa bihi Commentary on Hadith no. 4622, Source) 

Thus, the expression in and of itself could either be an oath or not, depending on the intention of the one who said it. 

This is common among Arabs. 

For example, the phrase "thuqulatka ummuk," meaning "may your mother lose you," was a way of grabbing someone's attention and, indeed, was not to be understood literally. 

Even in some Arab countries, you have expressions like "dammak khafeef," meaning "your light blooded," signify that the person has a good sense of humor. You also have expressions such as "yikhrab 'aqlak," meaning "may your brain be ruined," that signify that the person is intelligent. 

Thus, statements must be analysed according to the speaker's intention. Just by examining the speaker's intention, one can see that the statement can mean completely different things. 

I argue that the Prophet's (peace be upon him) intention when uttering that statement was not to take an oath but to use common terms at the time.

Shamoun must disprove all possible answers to have a strong argument. I say that he can't and will not do so.



Return to Refuting Sam Shamoun

Return to Homepage

click here to view site

HomeWhat's new?ChristianityRefutations Contact Me