Muhammad's False Prophecies

Response to Hesham Azmy, Part 3

Sam Shamoun

[Continued from Part 2]

This is the final response in our series of rebuttals to Hesham Azmy's alleged rebuttal of my Muhammad's false prophecies article. The author begins:

Concerning the Dajjal

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

Mr. Shamoun wrote

Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople.

The only proof Mr. Shamoun provided was reports from Sunan Abi Dawood, these reports are not present in most authentic collections of Hadith. We do not accept them for granted. Prophecies should be carefully dealt with, because in collections of Sunan accuracy of reports is not always maintained, thus turning any true prophecy into a lie.


Interestingly, the author chided me earlier for claiming that Muslims fabricated the prophecy of the Roman victory over Persia:

So, when they cannot refute the prophecy, they claim that Muslims fabricated it. Very convenient!

Yet now he admits that not all Sunan reports are accurate, thus turning prophecies into lies. This basically means that Muslims fabricated hadiths. In other words, THEY LIED AND FALSIFIED SAYINGS OF MUHAMMAD AND HIS COMPANIONS! It seems that when it is convenient, the author will openly admit to fabrication in order to protect Muhammad from being a false prophet. Talk about a double standard.

Yet if it is possible for Muslims to fabricate sayings of their prophet and his companions, then theoretically it is also possible that they fabricated verses of the Quran. One example of such fabrication can be found in the following article (see also this article).

Second, as I had indicated in a previous rebuttal, the author assumes that the study of the isnad (chain of transmission) is reliable and therefore can be used to determine the inauthentic traditions from the authentic ones. The author is seemingly unaware that to use the isnad to prove the reliability of the hadith is circular reasoning since the only way to know the reliability of the isnad is to look into the hadith itself. You cannot use the hadith to prove the isnad, and then use the isnad to prove the hadith.

Sunni Muslim Meherally Akbarally provides further evidence why one cannot appeal to the isnad as a means of verification:

"Should one defend each and every narration that is thrown at him, because it is allegedly identified as an authentic Hadith? I do not think so. Many of these narrated texts can be based upon weak narrations or spurious reports and others can be presented out of contexts or intentionally distorted. Often it is mentioned that the Arabs living in the era of the prophet had far greater capacity than what we have today, of memorizing and then repeating without error later on, what the prophet had narrated. The question is how can one verify an unwritten text, years later? Anyone who has read the article on this site ‘Qur’an does not say; Jesus was substituted on the Cross’, would realize how easily texts can be added, even to the pre-recorded texts of the Qur’an, and then such a version is published and circulated, even in this century.

"One may argue that this wholesale rejection demonstrates that the early compilers like Bukhari (d. 256/870), Muslim (d. 261/875), Tirmidhi (d. 279/892), Abu Dawud d. 261/875), Nasai (d. 303/915) and Ibn Majah (d. 273/886) had very strict standards and the dubious or unreliable reports were weeded out. Another may argue that the probability of bypassing the scrutiny goes higher as the percentage of such a rejection goes higher. The later rationale gets a valid support from the fact that the compiled and published Ahadith are "Classified" into various categories, by the scholars who have spent years studying the Science of compiled Ahadith. It is also noticed on the Internet that a particular narration classified by one Muslim student or writer under a certain category or class is strongly disputed by another. Even the recorded classification done by an earlier learned scholar is being revised by a subsequent scholar. Majority of the Shiah reports are of even later date. Mostly they are from the Buyid period of around 454 Hijri."


"The above list tells us that each and every "published" Hadith that is identified and enumerated cannot be justly labeled "authoritative or sound". Also, the possibility of a "weak" or "faulty" Hadith falling under the wrong criteria and/or regarded as "sound" by a compiler, cannot be ruled out with hundred percent surety. Hence, the use of incorrect terminology/classification by us or our resentment to observe the needed caution because of personal attitude, may end up putting the Credibility of the Messenger or the Integrity of Islam on the line, instead of the rejection of the credibility of a narrator or a compiler." (Source)

Meherally brings up two interesting points. First, how can one definitely know that what is stated in a text that is compiled nearly two centuries after the events it reports is accurate? One simply cannot, and therefore all the talk of classification of hadiths is circular since one must prove the reliability of the transmission by the text, and then proceed to verify the text by the chain of transmission contained within it!

Secondly, Meherally states that certain hadiths that are placed by some Muslims in a particular classification are then placed in a totally different classification by other Muslims! Talk about confusion!

The following author highlights additional problems:

There are some major logical problems with the Muslim assumptions and the "science" of hadith.

1. An unbroken, sound chain of good characters does not guarantee truth. The content of a hadith is true if and only if the content corresponds to reality. Whether the content corresponds to reality is unrelated to an isnad. The most a sound isnad guarantees is the minimization of the possibility that something was added or deleted from the original report. However, if the original report is defective, then we get an unbroken line of transmitters of a lie, a distortion, a hallucination, false consciousness, etc.

2. The original observer of Muhammad’s words or actions had to interpret those words/actions. Thus rather than a hadith being a description of an event/person, the content is an inference about, an interpretation of, the meaning of a description. No hadith is a description; every hadith is an inference or an interpretation. The good character of the original observer does not guarantee the reliability of his/her interpretation. Those individuals with good character were subject to superstition, cultural bias, ignorance, etc. What has been transmitted is valuable as a look into the mind of individuals in that culture at that time. That is fascinating indeed—as anthropology. It just doesn’t guarantee truth.

3. One might claim that the isnad of most hadith is more of a cable than a chain. There are multiple lines of transmission rather than a single, unbroken chain of transmission. For rhetorical purposes let’s grant that the isnad is more a cable than a chain. Now all that Muslims have are multiple lines subject to the same problems of cultural bias, superstition, and ignorance. Most people from similar cultural backgrounds interpret events in similar ways. (The Science of Hadith or the Anthropology of Hadith? )

Another Muslim writer also comments on the "science" of hadith classification:

The Hadith collection went through a selection procedure in which the following conditions were used for the acceptance of a hadith.

1. Continuity of the chain of transmitters. The chain of transmitters has to be unbroken in order for a Hadith to be acceptable.

2. The integrity of the transmitters. The integrity of transmitters is established in terms of their outward observance of Islam.

3. Soundness of Memory of the Transmitters. This must be verified through the biographical sciences of Hadith that each transmitter has a sound memory.

4. Conformity of the Hadith. It is important that the Hadith conform with similar Hadiths on the same topic.

5. The absence of defects in the Hadith. A defect is defined as a hidden defect in the Hadith which can only be detected after thorough investigation.

Considering the five points in turn one can see a glaring omission i.e. there is no mention of the rejection of a Hadith on the basis of its contradiction with the Qur'an. Effectively it means that the Hadith can override the Qur'an or in other words the Hadith is more important than the Qur'an.

Let me now examine the above five points. In the first case Bukhari is supposed to have travelled widely to establish the names of the various persons in the chain, right up to the Prophet’s time. If a hadith is to be good then the chain of transmitters must be unbroken and one must be able to find out all the links. But how did the links come about when there were no written hadiths during the first century? In fact a lot of research has been done on the hadiths, especially by western historians (orientalists) as they have tried to recover history from the hadiths, but their investigation almost unanimously discovered that one can recover some history of the second and the third century but almost nothing of the first century. This clearly proves that the links which spread over eight generations MUST HAVE BEEN CONCOCTED. So it seems that the science of ISNAD which was said to be the rule or method by which a hadith is regarded as sahih or not HAS GOT TREMENDOUS FLAWS IN IT. How can then we go on believing on something that was not written down and yet some 250 years later Bukhari managed to trace it back to its source (i.e. the Prophet) by establishing all the links in the chain.

On the second and the third criteria Bukhari had to establish that the transmitters were honest persons in terms of their outward observance of Islam and that they had sound memory. He did this by collecting the biography of each of the transmitters. How he managed to do this without written records, in a gap of about eight generations, is beyond imagination. Let me take an example from Bukhari. In a large number of hadiths Abu Huraira is taken as the last link in the chain of narration. He did not however have a good memory but Bukhari found an answer for this, and I quote:

Bukhari (4:841)

Narated Abu Huraira: I said, "O Allah’s Apostle! I hear many narrations from you but I forget them." He said, "Spread your covering sheet." I spread my sheet and he moved both his hands as if scooping something and emptied them in the sheet and said, "Wrap it." I wrapped it round my body, and since then I have never forgotten a single Hadith.

(Source; italic and capital emphasis ours)

This basically means that the author has no way of knowing whether these Sunan reports are inauthentic. They may or may not be. But the same is also true of the so-called "sound" hadiths.

Our appeal to the hadiths is to demonstrate to the Muslims who do believe in them that the hadiths contain false prophecies. That these Sunan hadiths contain false prophecies implicitly supports their authenticity since no Muslim would willfully leave in false predictions made by their Prophet or even invent and insert false prophecies.

The author continues:

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


The author didn't read my article carefully since he accuses me of not knowing the difference between a dajjal from THE Dajjal. Yet this is what I wrote in the very same article the author claimed to have read (at the end of the article, directly before the conclusion):

Someone might interject here and claim that the traditions make mention of 30 Antichrists to come into the world:

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4319:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah. (see also Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 237)

This implies that Ibn Saiyad was just one of the thirty antichrists, and not THE Antichrist that was to come right before the end of the world.

There are several problems with this assertion. First, none of the traditions claim that Ibn Saiyad is one of the thirty antichrists that were to appear. Rather, the traditions imply that he is THE Dajjal or Antichrist. Second, if we take either of the dates proposed by at-Tabari or Abu Dawood all thirty Dajjals needed to have appeared before either 1070-1132 or 1453 AD. Finally, according to the New Testament Muhammad is actually one of these Antichrists:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour… Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:18, 22-23

Since Muhammad denied that Jesus is God's Son he is therefore one of the many antichrists that was to come according to the apostle John.

Therefore, no matter from what angle one looks at it we are still left with irreconcilable contradictions and false predictions.

Furthermore, Muhammad and his companions also failed to make the distinction between a dajjal and THE Dajjal:

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:

Allah’s Apostle and Ubai bin Kab Al-Ansari went to the garden where Ibn Saiyad used to live. When Allah's Apostle entered (the garden), he (i.e. Allah’s Apostle) started hiding himself behind the date-palms as he wanted to hear secretly the talk of Ibn Saiyad before the latter saw him. Ibn Saiyad wrapped with a soft decorated sheet was lying on his bed murmuring. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw the Prophet hiding behind the stems of the date-palms. She addressed Ibn Saiyad saying, "O Saf, this is Muhammad." Hearing that Ibn Saiyad stopped murmuring (or got cautious), the Prophet said, "If she had left him undisturbed, he would have revealed his reality." (See Hadith No. 290, Vol. 4 for details) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 806)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin ‘Umar:

‘Umar bin Al-Khattab set out with Allah's Apostle, and a group of his companions to Ibn Saiyad. They found him playing with the boys in the fort or near the Hillocks of Bani Maghala. Ibn Saiyad was nearing his puberty at that time, and he did not notice the arrival of the Prophet till Allah's Apostle stroked him on the back with his hand and said, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of the unlettered ones (illiterates)". Then Ibn Saiyad said to the Prophet, "Do you testify that I am Allah’s Apostle?" The Prophet denied that, saying, "I believe in Allah and all His Apostles," and then said to Ibn Saiyad, "What do you see?" Ibn Saiyad said, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Allah's Apostle added, "I have kept something for you (in my mind)." Ibn Saiyad said, "Ad-Dukh." The Prophet said, "Ikhsa (you should be ashamed) for you can not cross your limits." 'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop off h is neck." Allah's Apostle said (to Umar). "Should this person be him (i.e. Ad-Dajjal) then you cannot over-power him; and should he be someone else, then it will be no use your killing him." ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar added: Later on Allah's Apostle and Ubai bin Ka'b Al-Ansari (once again) went to the garden in which Ibn Saiyad was present.

When Allah’s Apostle entered the garden, he started hiding behind the trunks of the date-palms intending to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before the latter could see him. Ibn Saiyad was lying on his bed, covered with a velvet sheet from where his murmur was heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw the Prophet and said, "O Saf (the nickname of Ibn Saiyad)! Here is Muhammad!" Ibn Saiyad stopped his murmuring. The Prophet said, "If his mother had kept quiet, then I would have learnt more about him. ‘Abdullah added: Allah's Apostle stood up before the people (delivering a sermon), and after praising and glorifying Allah as He deserved, he mentioned the Ad-Dajjal saying, "I warn you against him, and there has been no prophet but warned his followers against him. Noah warned his followers against him but I am telling you about him, something which no prophet has told his people of, and that is: Know that he is blind in one eye where as Allah is not so." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 194)

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

The Prophet said to Ibn Saiyad, "I have kept for you a secret." Ibn Saiyad said, "Ad-Dukh." The Prophet said, "Keep quiet, for you cannot go beyond your limits (or you cannot exceed what has been foreordained for you)." On that, 'Umar said (to the Prophet), "Allow me to chop off his neck!" The Prophet said, "Leave him, for if he is he (i.e., Ad-Dajjal), then you will not be able to overcome him, and if he is not, then you gain no good by killing him." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 615; see also Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437 and Volume 4, Book 52, Number 290d)

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir:

I saw Jabir bin ‘Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, "How can you swear by Allah?" Jabir said, "I have heard ‘Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453)

The footnote to this Hadith in Muhammad Muhsin Khan's summarized translation states:

[1] PERHAPS Jabir and ‘Umar thought that Ibn Saiyad will be of the minor Dajjals who will be thirty or more according to the Prophet’s saying, and who will appear before the appearance of the real (major) Dajjal.

Interestingly here are Mr. Azmy's own comments:

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


Let me highlight the author's statement here:

"… Some Companions of the Prophet MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT Ibn Sayad IS THE DAJJAL ..."

Not only were the Companions mistaken, but apparently Muhammad was also mistaken since he never corrected the Companions' misunderstanding.

The author responds to my use of the following hadith:

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir:
I saw Jabir bin 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, "How can you swear by Allah?" Jabir said, "I have heard 'Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453)

This had been before the identity of Ibn Sayad became clear, because Muslims were awaiting Ibn Sayad to either claim prophethood or deny it.


The author tries to explain away the problem by appealing to what happened to Ibn Sayyid much later in history. Yet this still does not solve the problem. In fact, this introduces another problem.

Since Ibn Sayyid didn't turn out to be the Dajjal, or even one of the dajjals, this again demonstrates that Muhammad was a false prophet. According to the above hadith Umar swore that Ibn Sayyid was the Dajjal and Muhammad never corrected him. The fact that he didn't correct Umar demonstrates that this is another time where Muhammad was wrong. Let us break this down to see why:

  1. Did Muhammad's companions believe that Ibn Sayyid was the Dajjal? — Yes.
  2. 2. Did Muhammad correct them? — No.
  3. Did Muhammad’s silence on the matter only reinforce his Companion’s belief that Ibn Sayyid was the Dajjal? — Yes.
  4. Was Ibn Sayyid the Dajjal or even one of the thirty dajjals? — No.
  5. Does this not prove that Muhammad and his companions were wrong? — Yes.

The most interesting part about all this is that many Muslim apologists appeal to what is known as the falsification test to prove the Quran's divine claims. This test proposes that in order for a person's claims to be proven correct, one must provide a test whereby the claim or theory can be proven false. If the claim or theory passes this falsification test then the claim is shown to be correct.

One example of such a test is Sura Abu Lahab (S. 111) in which the Quran states that Muhammad's uncle would die as an unbeliever. Abu Lahab could have easily proven that Muhammad was a false prophet by embracing Islam, thereby falsifying the Quran. Yet he never did.

Interestingly the story of Ibn Sayyid actually falsifies Muhammad's claim of prophethood. Since Ibn Sayyid embraced Islam this means that Muhammad and his Companions were wrong and therefore Muhammad cannot be a prophet of God.

(For a response to Abu Lahab's alleged inability of falsifying Muhammad's claim see this article.)

The author continues:

End of the World

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

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


Here, the author has already made up his mind that no matter what Al-Tabari (or anybody else for that matter) writes he is automatically wrong. This exposes the author's circular methodology. If a Muslim historian or a hadith happens to refute the author's position then they all must be false. The reason why they are false is based on the author's assumption that Muhammad is a true prophet. It goes something like this:

Muhammad is a true prophet and true prophets do not make false predictions.

Al-Tabari contains hadiths where Muhammad falsely predicted the end of the world.

These hadiths must be false since Muhammad is a true prophet and true prophets don't make false predictions.

The author has basically assumed that his position is true and therefore no evidence to the contrary can refute his claims.

Second, to simply brush aside al-Tabari will not solve the problem for the author. Al-Tabari was not the careless historian that some Muslims make him out to be. Here is my response to Saifullah regarding the latter's claim that al-Tabari denied being an accurate hadith transmitter:

This is perhaps the weakest evidence the author has yet presented. The reason the author's argument is weak is the result of the fact that Tabari's statement is true for the entire hadith collection. Note what Tabari said in the above citation and compare it with the hadith as a whole:

"... This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference ..."

Tabari's point is not so much a denial of the authenticity of his writings as it is of the transmission of the hadith itself. There is no way for a person to authenticate any hadith, let alone Tabari's writings, since the collection of traditions were not written down until over a hundred years after the life of Muhammad and his companions. To then try and use Tabari's citation as proof that Tabari's works are unverifiable simply because this is what he seems to be claiming is going beyond the intended meaning of the writer.

This point is solidified by the fact that Tabari was able to establish the authenticity of certain reports by his ability to distinguish the sound traditions from those that were questionable. Note the following citations taken from the History of al-Tabari, Volume 1- General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989):

"We have stated before that time is but hours of night and day and that the hours are but traversal by the sun and the moon of the degrees of the sphere. Now then, this being so, there is (also) a sound tradition from the Messenger of God told us by Hannad b. al-Sari, who also said that he read all of the hadith (to Abu Bakr)- Abu Bakr b. `Ayyash- Abu Sa'd al-Baqqal- `Ikrimah- Ibn Abbas: The Jews came to the Prophet and asked him about the creation of the heavens and the earth. He said: God created the earth on Sunday and Monday. He created the mountains and the uses they possess on Tuesday. On Wednesday, He created trees, water, cities and the cultivated barren land. These are four (days). He continued (citing the Qur'an): `Say: Do you really not believe in the One Who created the earth in two days, and set up others like Him? That is the Lord of the worlds. He made it firmly anchored (mountains) above it and blessed it and decreed that it contain the amount of food it provides, (all) in four days, equally for those asking'- for those who ask. On Thursday, He created heaven. On Friday, He created the stars, the sun, the moon, and the angels, until three hours remained. In the first of these three hours He created the terms (of human life), who would live and who would die. In the second, He cast harm upon everything that is useful for mankind. And in the third, (He created) Adam and had him dwell in Paradise. He commanded Iblis to prostrate himself before Adam, and He drove Adam out of Paradise at the end of the hour. When the Jews asked: What then, Muhammad? He said: `Then He sat straight upon the Throne.' The Jews said: You are right, if you had finished, they said, with: Then He rested. Whereupon the Prophet got very angry, and it was revealed: `We have created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days, and fatigue did not touch Us. Thus be patient with what you say.'" (Ibid., pp. 187-188)

"The two reports transmitted by us from the Messenger of God have made it clear that the sun and the moon were created after God had created many things of His creation. That is because the hadith of Ibn Abbas on the authority of the Messenger of God indicates that God created the sun and the moon on Friday. If this is so, earth and heaven and what was in them, except the angels and Adam, had been created before God created the sun and the moon. All this (thus) existed while there was no light and no day, since night and day are but nouns designating hours known through the traversal by the sun and the moon of the course of the sphere. Now, if it is correct that the earth and the heaven and what was between them, except what we have mentioned, were in existence when there was no sun and no moon, the conclusion is that all existed when there was no night or day. The same (conclusion results from) the following hadith of Abu Hurayrah reported on the authority of the Messenger of God: God created light on Wednesday- meaning by `light' the sun, if God wills." (Ibid., pp. 190-191)

"Abu Ja'far (al-Tabari) says: Regarding this, the correct statement, in our opinion, is the one who said: God created the earth on Sunday. He created the heaven on Thursday, and He created the stars and the sun and the moon on Friday. (We consider it correct) because of the soundness of the report mentioned by us earlier on the authority of Ibn `Abbas from the Messenger of God. The tradition transmitted to us on the authority of Ibn `Abbas is not impossible. It says that God created the earth but did not spread it out. Then he created the heavens "and fashioned them (into seven heavens)," and thereafter "spread out" the earth. He then brought forth from it its water and its pasture, and the mountains He anchored firmly." Indeed, in my opinion this is the correct statement. That is because the meaning of "spreading out" is different from that of "creating." God says: "Are you more difficult to create than the heaven He constructed? He raised high its roof and fashioned it. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning. And it was the earth He spread out thereafter." (Ibid., p. 216)

The claim that Tabari uncritically accepted reports does not stand in light of the preceding citations where Tabari clearly distinguishes between sound traditions from those that were questionable in nature. In fact, Saifullah and his staff indirectly attest to Tabari's ability to separate authentic from inauthentic statements. In the paper on the science of hadith, we find Saifullah providing an example of a fabricated tradition that circulated during the time of Umar:

"Mauduc ahadīth are also recognised by external evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular incident.81 For example, when the second caliph, Umar b. al- Khattab decided to expel the Jews from Khaibar, some Jewish dignitaries brought a document to Umar apparently proving that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had intended that they stay there by exempting them from the jizyah (tax on non-Muslims under the rule of Muslims); the document carried the witness of two Companions, Sa'd b. Mucadh and Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. Umar rejected the document outright, knowing that it was fabricated because the conquest of Khaibar took place in 6 AH, whereas Sa'd b. Mucadh died in 3 AH just after the Battle of the Trench, and Mu'awiyah embraced Islam in 8 AH, after the conquest of Makkah!82"

When we go to footnote 82, we find the following statement:

"82.see Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Manar al-Munif fi 'l- Sahih wa 'l-Dacif (ed. A.F. Abū Ghuddah, Lahore, 1402/1982), pp. 102-105 for a fuller discussion. Ibn al-Qayyim mentions more than ten clear indications of the forgery of the document, which the Jews repeatedly attempted to use to deceive the Muslims over the centuries, but each time a scholar of Hadīth intervened to point out the forgery - such incidents occurred with Ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī (d. 310), al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463) and Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 728), who spat on the document as it was unfolded from beneath its silken covers."

Saifullah includes Tabari as one of those who had been aware that the document circulated by the Jews was an obvious forgery. Yet, how would Tabari have known this if he were simply recording traditions uncritically? Furthermore, notice that Saifullah in this citation lists Tabari as "a scholar of Hadith", contradicting the very point that he tries to establish in this paper.


That the only response the author could provide was to attack al-Tabari's reliability affirms that the author is simply unable to refute the arguments. In light of this, Muhammad's false prophecy regarding when the world was going to end remains as strong evidence that he was not a true prophet.

The author concludes with a series of alleged fulfilled "prophecies" which supposedly came to pass:

Fulfilled prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Several responses are in order. First, the fact that there are so-called prophecies that came to pass doesn't explain away those prophecies that failed. All this simply shows is that some parts of the Quran may be inspired, yet other parts are not.

Second, the test of prophethood doesn't only entail the accurate fulfillment of future predictions, but also entails that the prophet's message conforms to the message of the previous prophets and messengers.

The Holy Bible speaks of individuals accurately foretelling future events as well as performing miracles, yet who come and teach falsehood. The Holy Bible warns true believers not to follow such individuals:

"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 13:1-5

"At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible." Matthew 24:23-24

"I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough ... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, 13-15

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Galatians 1:6-9

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:22-23

"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in THE TEACHING OF CHRIST does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." 2 John 1:7-11

Muhammad contradicted the message of God's true prophets and messengers regarding the nature of God and the person of Christ. This means that Muhammad's alleged fulfilled predictions are deceptions aimed at leading God's people away from the truth and do not verify his prophetic claims.

Therefore, Muhammad not only failed the test of Deuteronomy 18:20-22, but also failed the test of prophetic consistency as well! (see this article for more information)

Finally, the author assumes what he has yet to prove. He assumes that all these prophecies were made before the events in question, and therefore qualify as genuine predictions. Yet the author has no way of knowing this since all the extant Quranic MSS date to a period after these events had already transpired. As we have indicated, evidence exists to support that Muslims fabricated verses and inserted them into the Quran and were therefore capable of fabricating alleged prophecies. See above.

The author is also dependent upon the hadiths to verify that certain prophecies refer to certain events that eventually came to pass. Yet as we have already noted, the author uses a double standard since when the hadiths are not favorable to his position he turns around and accuses them of being false.

In light of the preceding points, the author has shown his inability to refute my arguments. Instead, he has chosen to attack straw men and throw out red herrings by bringing up irrelevant issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Muhammad made false predictions.

This concludes our rebuttal. If the author chooses to respond, we will inform our readers.

Until then, we will continue to remain in the service of our Great God and King, our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God's eternal Son. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We will always love you.

Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page