Sami Zaatari has provided a series of replies (1, 2) to my articles concerning the deification and worship of Muhammad (1, 2).

Zaatari claims that I am ignorant of Islamic theology and that he is going to teach me the basics of Islam. Let us see how well he does.

On Obeying and Submitting to Muhammad

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

This completely ignores everything that I have written concerning this subject and indicates that Zaatari realized that he really didn’t have a sufficient response to my arguments. He, therefore, decided to simply write anything in order to give the misleading impression to his readers that he has a response to my assertions.

Due to the fact that this neophyte has a serious reading incomprehension, much like his colleague Bassam Zawadi, I am going to have to repeat myself.

In the first place, Zaatari’s point is simply non-sequitur, and is nothing more than a smokescreen, since there is no justification for Muhammad placing himself on the same level as his deity just because he was allegedly issuing orders from his god. This is simply irrelevant to the fact that such obedience results in Muhammad’s deification.

Here is a helpful illustration from the Holy Bible. According to God’s Word, the Holy Bible, the Lord Jesus said that the Father gave him the authority to judge so that everyone would honor the Son in the same way that they honor the Father:

"Moreover, the Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." John 5:22-23

Now it is simply irrelevant to argue that the Father gave the Son the authority to judge and that he is the One commanding that everyone honors his Son the way they honor him since this doesn’t change the fact that such honor results in the Son being worshiped as God.

In a similar manner, just because Muhammad supposedly received his instructions from Allah doesn’t change the fact that the obedience that the Quran expects Muslims to give to their prophet puts him on the same level of authority with his god.

And for a thorough refutation to Zaatari’s weak attempts of undermining the point of John 5:22-23 we recommend the following articles and rebuttals (1, 2, 3).

Secondly, according to the Quran (or at least according to Muhammad’s Sunna) obedience to Muhammad takes precedence over worshiping Allah. The hadith literature record an episode where Muhammad used Q. 8:24 to prove that the Islamic deity himself says that responding immediately to the call of his prophet is more important than worshiping him!

Narrated Abu Said bin Al-Mu'alla:
While I was praying in the Mosque, Allah's Apostle called me but I did not respond to him. Later I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I was praying." He said, "Didn't Allah say—‘Give your response to Allah (by obeying Him) and to His Apostle when he calls you?’" (8.24) … (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 1)

And:

CXLII: "O you who believe! Respond to Allah, AND to the Messenger, when He calls you to what will bring you to life! Know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that you will be gathered to Him." (8:24)

4370. It is related that Sa'id b. al-Mu'alla said, "I was praying and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, passed by called me, but I did not answer until I had finished praying. Then I went to him and he said, 'What kept you from coming to me? Does not Allah say, "Respond to Allah, AND to the Messenger, when He calls you to what will bring you to life!" (8:24)?' Then he said to me, 'I will teach you a sura which is the greatest of the suras in the Qur'an before you leave.' The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was about to leave, so I reminded him."

This is related from Abu Sa'id, a man of the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He said "It is: 'Praise be to Allah, the Lords worlds,' the Seven Oft-Repeated ones." (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir; source; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

One will not find greater arrogance and blasphemy than this. Instead of commending his companion for praying to Allah Muhammad has the audacity to chide him for not setting aside his prayers in order to beckon to his prophet’s call.

Doesn’t this establish that a Muslim’s relationship to Muhammad takes priority over his relationship to Allah? Which Muslim would dare say that Muhammad did not understand the meaning of Q. 8:24? Which Muslim would want to claim that Muhammad misused this verse and sinned against God by behaving in an arrogant and blasphemous way, ascribing to himself a position that the Quran does not give to him?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

Whatever the case, this one fact remains crystal clear – true Islam is the religion of fully surrendering to the wishes and desires of both Allah AND his co-equal messenger Muhammad, which is nothing more than blatant idolatry.

As a side note, Zaatari refers to Allah commanding the angels to worship Adam and Satan’s refusal to do so as further justification for Muhammad equating himself with Allah. This example is rather ironic since it actually refutes Zaatari’s entire case and shows that the Quran is an inconsistent and incoherent book which does not teach absolute pure monotheism. To see all of the problems with Allah ordering his heavenly host to worship a creature we recommend the following articles and rebuttals (1, 2).

On Praying to and Worshiping Muhammad

Zaatari claims that the sources that I used to prove that Muslims worship Muhammad refute me,

You know what I love? I love it when someone quotes specific texts, and then tries to make an argument out of those texts when the very same texts that are being quoted serve as a rebuttal to the arguments that are trying to be made! This is exactly the case here.

I really don't know if Shamoun is just being willfully and purposely ignorant and silly, or if in actuality he actually has a reading problem compounded with a thinking problem. If it is the latter then I am seriously starting to worry about Shamoun, and I really do mean that.

In making this assertion Zaatari is only providing more evidence that he lacks basic reading comprehension and is incapable of understanding even the most essential aspects of logical argumentation.

After making this assertion Zaatari proceeds to provide a quote from one of the hadiths I sourced and says:

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

The very first part of the tashahhud conclusively refutes Shamoun. Notice what we are commanded to say, we are commanded to say that ALL ACTS OF WORSHIP belong to Allah! No where does the text say that acts of worship belong to Allah AND the prophet Muhammad?

I could simply end my article right here and now, but I won't, as the Tashahhud simply crushes Shamoun's thesis so bad I am compelled to continue.

So therefore the Tashahhud makes it clear that all worship is for Allah, not for Allah and Muhammad, hence I want to know from where did Shamoun get the idea that we pray or that our worship is directly for the prophet Muhammad?

Zaatari has proven that he didn’t even bother reading my articles carefully and that he doesn’t have a clue what my point was. First, Zaatari fails to inform his audience that the Arabic word for worship comes from the Arabic term ibaadah, and is more literally translated as service. The problem that Zaatari faces is that Islam does not limit service to Allah alone, but allows Muslims to serve others as well, a point which I thoroughly documented in one of the endnotes to the third part of the series of articles that Zaatari claims to be responding to: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/serve_besides_allah3.htm

I also discuss this same point here.

As if he couldn’t get any more desperate Zaatari proceeds to attack straw man,

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

So sending peace upon the prophet, and invoking Allah's mercy and blessings upon the prophet Muhammad means we are praying to the prophet Muhammad? I really don't know from where this missionary gets such ideas!

Shamoun has to show how sending peace upon the prophet is prayer, in fact the fact we invoke ALLAH to send the mercy and blessings to the prophet refutes Shamoun's assertion. In fact it gets even worse for Shamoun when we continue to read the Tashahhud which says:

Peace be upon us and upon Allah's upright servants

So I guess I worship myself too, and I worship all the other Muslims as well! Just because I say peace be upon us (including myself) and to other Muslims, it means I worship them, because according to Shamoun sending our peace to the prophet Muhammad means we are praying directly to him, as well as worshipping him!

This right here proves how silly Shamoun is, and how he doesn't know how to think properly.

Talk about refuting oneself! Note, once again, what the hadith says:

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

Now contrast this with the following:

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

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

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

Did Zaatari even bother noticing the difference in the wording? Or is Zaatari simply playing stupid here since he realized that he had no way of refuting my point?

Zaatari is not done yet but provides more examples of his stupidity. I had stated that even Salafi scholars like Bilal Philips were aware of the idolatrous implications of addressing Muhammad directly in one’s prayers and so therefore encouraged Muslims to adopt the following form of the prayer:

Narrated Ibn Mas'ud:
Allah's Apostle taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Quran, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah's Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammad is Allah's slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet, but when he had died, we used to say, "Peace be on the Prophet." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 281)

Here is how Zaatari responds to my assertion,

The missionary claims that Sheikh Albani, and Bilal Phillips realized that saying such a thing was idolatry, yet when Shamoun speaks about their positions we see that Shamoun yet again refutes himself!

If you notice what the missionary said, Sheikh Albani and Bilal Phillips only now argue on how we are supposed to correctly PRONOUNCE the Tashahhud, saying rather than say peace be upon you, we should say peace be on the prophet.

So Sheikh Albani and Bilal Phillips are arguing on PRONUNCIATION, it has nothing to do with whether it is idolatry or not.

If Sheikh Albani and Bilal Phillips believed the Tashahhud was idolatry the two men would have disputed the entire Tashahhud during the life time of the prophet, and they would have said it was wrong, and a fabrication. Yet the two men do not argue that, rather they affirm that the Tashuhhud used to be pronounced as such during the life time of the prophet, but now since the prophet is dead, they say the pronunciation should be different, and changed from YOU to PROPHET.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps this time Zaatari will actually address my arguments instead of evading them by his smoke and mirror tactics.

To make matters worse, Zaatari mentions that the tashahhud or Islamic prayer ends by testifying that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, which provides further evidence that Muhammad is Allah’s coequal partner and Islam’s second god (1, 2, 3, 4).

Are the Majority of Muslims Anti-Sufis?

Zaatari continues to expose more of his ignorance of Islam, this time of Islamic history, since he claims that most Muslims do not hold to Sufi beliefs. The fact is that the majority of Muslim scholars, both of the past and present, were/are Sufis or those who perform(ed) tasawwuf. It is Zaatari’s Salafi cult, itself a minority in relation to the vast majority of Muslim scholars, who deny Sufism. For the details and historical evidence that proves that the majority of scholars have been Sufis we suggest that the readers peruse the website of Shaykh Gibril Foaud Haddad (1, 2).

Zaatari couldn't prevent himself from providing more evidence of his hypocrisy and inconsistency. He chides me for sourcing scholars like Haddad and says:

… it would be like me quoting a Catholic against Shamoun, it makes no sense. I don't agree with the Sufi position, but none the less those same Sufis he quotes would still refute Shamoun if they heard his arguments and tell him he is lying against them. I know many Sufis who believe that Shamoun is both a liar, and very stupid. I have many readers who are of the Sufi school of thought as well, and they thoroughly enjoy watching me dismantle and crush Shamoun's false lies. In fact it is ironic that Shamoun keeps quoting Sheikh Haddad, a prominent Sufi scholar, the very same scholar who often attacks Christianity for Shirk and so on. So very good Shamoun, keep quoting Sheikh Haddad, as it will do a fine job of exposing your own faith when people want to go and read Haddad's works.

Here Zaatari is doing nothing more than committing a false analogy, as well as of ad hominem slurs, along with a genetic fallacy. In the first place, Zaatari does not hesitate to quote Unitarian Christians or even Christ-denying Jews to refute our exegesis of the Holy Bible, when these same groups would readily admit that Muhammad was a false prophet and that Zaatari himself is a liar and stupid for sourcing them out of context to prove his point. After all, their beliefs concerning the Messiah conflict with Muhammad’s teachings, which means that if Zaatari is going to be consistent then he must either stop quoting them or reject Muhammad as a fraud, a deceiver, a false prophet. And I am sure that these same groups are enjoying seeing me dismantle and crush Zaatari’s utterly pathetic and shallow defenses of his false prophet Muhammad.

Secondly, it is irrelevant whom I quote as long as what my sources have to say is supported by the facts. The problems that Zaatari and his Salafi cult face is that Sufi scholars such as Shaykh Haddad and Hamza Yusuf Hanson (*) have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Sufism and praying to Muhammad and to other saints (a doctrine known as tawassul) are thoroughly Islamic practices. These same authorities have convincingly refuted the arguments raised by Salafis against such beliefs and acts of devotion.

As if this couldn't get anymore ironic, this lad claims that both he and the Sufis believe that hellfire awaits me even though his own false prophet said that everyone will enter hell, including Muslims, and that out of seventy-three Islamic sects only one will be saved! (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

In conclusion, Zaatari has failed once again to refute the fact that Muslims have deified Muhammad and do worship him by addressing him directly in their daily prayers.

For more on these points and other related material we suggest reading the following articles and rebuttals (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

Addendum   (added on 19 June 2008, one day after the publication of the above rebuttal)

Sami Zaatari has produced a "reply" (*) to my thorough refutation of his weak and desperate attempt of defending the Muslim deification and worship of the false prophet Muhammad.

It is obvious that I hit a nerve with this young lad since all throughout his "rebuttal" he refers to me as an unclean pagan, and in this he is simply following the example of his false messenger (1, 2).

Zaatari keeps repeating the same arguments which have been already refuted and continues to demonstrate that he grossly lacks the ability to reason logically and to read carefully, all of which are clear indications that he is way over his head and needs to find another line of work.

There are a couple of points that I want to briefly touch upon since this will help to prove my assertion that this amateur should not be engaging in apologetics, unless of course he is bent on assisting the mission of Christian apologists by producing material that only further embarrass and discredit Muhammad and his religion.

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

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

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

For instance, what do Muslims mean that all acts of ibaadah are to be rendered unto Allah alone? Does it mean that all prostration (i.e. sujud/sajda) is only to be given to Allah? It can’t mean that since the Quran itself says that Allah commanded and/or permitted that such acts of worship be shown to creatures such as Adam and the prophet Joseph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

Two important points to note here. First, another narration states that all requests and invocations (known as du'a) are clear acts of worship:

Narrated An-Nu'man ibn Bashir:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Supplication (du'a') is itself the worship. (He then recited:) "And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you" (xI.60). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 8, Number 1474)

And:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas
Once I was riding (on an animal) behind the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he said: Boy, I would like to teach you something. Be careful and follow Allah's commands perseveringly. Allah will protect you. You should safeguard His rights, and you will always find Him with you; if you need something, ask Allah, and when you need help, solicit Allah ALONE for the same. Bear it in mind that if all the people combined together to grant you some benefit, they would not be able to do so except that which Allah has determined for you and that if all of them were combined together to do you harm, they would not be able to do so except that which Allah has determined for you. The pens have been set aside and the writings of the book of fate have become dry. Transmitted by Tirmidhi. (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 15; ALIM CD-Rom Version)

This, therefore, proves that the Muslims who were praying directly to Muhammad, asking him for his help, were actually worshiping him and equating him with Allah.

Secondly, make sure to keep in mind the fact that this narrative is graded as sahih, or authentic, and cannot simply be dismissed as a forgery.

In fact, noted medieval Muslim theologian and expositor Ibn Kathir sourced this hadith in his book on the miracles of Muhammad:

The story of the blind man who regained his sight with the Du‘a’ of the Prophet:

Imam al-Baihaqi related on the authority of ‘Uthman bin Hunaif who said: “I heard the Prophet when a blind man came to him and complained to him that he had lost his sight. The man said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I do not have anyone to lead me (as I am a blind man) and it has become difficult for me to keep going.’ The Messenger of Allah then said: ‘Go and make Wudu’ (ablution) and pray two Rak‘as and say: “O Allah! I ask You and turn to you by the dignity of your Prophet Muhammad, the Messenger of Mercy. O Muhammad! I turn to my Lord, by your dignity (and honor), to return back my sight to me. O Allah! I ask You for his intercession (for me).”’” Uthman said: “By Allah, we did not leave our place, and we did not remain there for long, except that the man came in as if he had never suffered from any disease.” (Ibn Kathir, The Miracles of the Prophet, translated by Dr. Nancy Eweiss, edited by Selma Cook (Dar Al-Manarah for Translation, Publishing & Distribution, 1422 AH/ 2002 AC), D. The blind man was cured when he said Du‘a’ that was taught to him by the Prophet, p. 93 and again pp. 199-200)

That one of Islam's greatest exegetes referenced this hadith further establishes that is an authentic report (at least from a Muslim perspective). After all, this specific narrative wouldn't be of any help to Ibn Kathir's case if it were a forgery.

Moreover, even if this hadith were classified as inauthentic a Muslim would still need to explain why Muslims were forging prayers to Muhammad when they (supposedly) know that all such prayers must be offered only to Allah.

Ibaadah cannot mean that a person is to fully submit to and obey Allah above everyone else since we have already established that both the Quran and the so-called authentic Sunna command Muslims to also completely surrender to every whim and decision of Muhammad.

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

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

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

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

Chapter 17: IT IS OBLIGATORY TO LOVE THE PROPHET MORE THAN THE MEMBERS OF ONE'S HOUSEHOLD: ONE'S CHILD, FATHER OR EVEN THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY

It is reported on the authority of Anas that the Messenger of Allah said: No bondsman believes, and, in the hadith narrated by Abdul Warith, no person believes, till I am dearer to him than the members of his household, his wealth and the whole of mankind. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0070)

It is reported on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah said: None of you is a believer till I am dearer to him than his child, his father and the whole of mankind. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0071)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Zaatari has done by referring to this hadith is to prove that the Quran and hadiths are contradicting themselves. At the very least, Zaatari has simply provided further evidence that Muhammad was inconsistent since he forbade his followers from worshiping him like Christians worship Jesus, but then went on to command his followers to fully submit to his orders and decrees, thereby elevating himself to the level of deity.

As a final illustration of his utter desperation and stupidity notice what this lad says:

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

I challenge Zaatari to provide a quotation where I said that being a messenger of God makes a person God. The argument, if Zaatari had taken the time to actually understand it, is that by placing Muhammad as an integral part of the confession of faith by the use of the Arabic conjunction wa ("and") Muhammad has inevitably become Allah’s coequal partner. Here is the quote once again so that Zaatari doesn’t get away with such blatant distortions:

Qatada said, "Allah exalted his fame in this world and the Next. There is no speaker, witness nor anyone doing the prayer who fails to say, 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.'"

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri related that the Prophet said, "Jibril, peace be upon him, came to me and said, 'My Lord and your Lord says, "Do you know how I have exalted your fame?"' I said, 'Allah and His Messenger know best.' He said, 'When I am mentioned you are mentioned with Me.'"

Ibn 'Ata quoted a hadith qudsi saying, "I completed belief with your being mentioned with Me." And another one which says, "I have made your mention part of My mention so whoever mentions Me, mentions you."

Ja'far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, "No one mentions you as the Messenger but that he mentions Me as the Lord."

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

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

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

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

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

Pay careful attention to the point of the Qadi concerning the conjunction wa implying partnership and equality, thereby turning Muhammad into Allah’s coequal partner, and that its use is not accepted or allowed for anyone other than him. And:

"… He coupled his name with His own name, and his pleasure with His pleasure. He made him ONE OF THE TWO PILLARS of tawhid." (Ibid., p. 27; capital emphasis ours)

What Zaatari needs to explain to his readers is how can a finite creature be an integral and essential part of Islamic monotheism, being the very heart of the oneness of Allah, without this turning him into a god and a coequal partner with Allah?

This, again, shows that Zaatari is either ignorant (which is true) or dishonest (which is also true) since he will resort to deliberately lying in order to score cheap debate points. Unfortunately for this neophyte he seems not to have enough common sense to see that by lying he only makes it worse for himself since this gives his opponents the opportunity to further embarrass and discredit him.

So much for his "counter-reply."

Rebuttals to Sami Zaatari
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page