The “Whack-a-Scam” Series: The Alleged “False Prophecy” in Surah Al-Fath

Bismillah

The “Whack-a-Scam” Series: Refuting Hassamo Shamoun on False Prophecies in the Quran – The Alleged “False Prophecy” in Surah Al-Fath

View as PDF

“Certainly has Allah showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and [hair] shortened, not fearing [anyone]. He knew what you did not know and has arranged before that a conquest near [at hand].”

– Surah al-Fath, 48:27

            In this article, we will continue the “Whack-a-Scam” series and refute Hassamo “Sam” Shamoun’s ridiculous and deceptive attempts to prove that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made “false prophecies”. This time around, Shamoun targeted Surah al-Fath, 48:27,[1] which promised that Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers would enter al-Masjid al-Haram while performing the Umrah.[2] As with the previous article in the series, in this article, we will demonstrate that not only did the prophecy actually come true, while simultaneously exposing Shamoun’s poor research, but that Shamoun unwittingly proved that yet another prophecy of Muhammad (peace be upon him) came true! Finally, we will end by demonstrating another actual false prophecy in Shamoun’s Bible, insha’Allah.

“On Entering Mecca”

            Shamoun began his diatribe by noting that the verse was revealed “in conjunction with the Muslims’ failed attempt of entering Makkah to perform Tawaf…”[3] This is true, as Ibn Kathir explained in his commentary:

“[i]n a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet’s vision would come true that year. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, some of the Companions disliked what happened. […] This is why Allah the Exalted and Most honored said, ‘Indeed Allah shall fulfill the true vision which He showed to His Messenger in very truth. Certainly, you shall enter Al-Masjid Al-Haram, if Allah wills,’) and He willed that this matter shall certainly occur…”[4]

But Shamoun also noted that when the Muslims attempted to go to Mecca, confident that the dream would become a reality, they were stopped by the Meccans, who were led by Suhail ibn Amr. This chain of events eventually led to the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, which among other things, stipulated that the Muslims would have to return to Madinah that year but would be able to enter al-Masjid al-Haram in Makkah the following year to perform the Umrah.

            Shamoun had “several problems” with this chain of events. First, going off on a tangent, he noted the other stipulations of the treaty made by the pagans were that the Muslims had “to return to them [the pagans] those who had converted to Islam” and that the text of the treaty could not include the phrase “Messenger of God” when referring to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Shamoun then noted that one of the unfortunate Muslims who was “forced to return to Mecca” was Abu Jandal, the son of Suhail ibn Amr. Based on his selective quotes from Muslim sources, Shamoun credulously wrote:

“[w]e need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?”

But why is this necessary? Was Moses (peace be upon him) in a situation where he needed to compromise with his enemies for the greater good? Was Jesus ever in such a situation? Is compromising in the interests of peace forbidden by the Bible?

            Also, the fact is that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not “compromise the truth of God”, nor did he “deny [his] apostleship”. Indeed, in the hadith from Sahih Bukhari that Shamoun appealed to, it clearly states (in the part that Hassamo did not put in bold; bold emphasis ours):

“The Prophet said, ‘By Allah! I am the Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me.”

Moreover, according to both Ibn Ishaq’s Sira and al-Tabari’s History, the opening invocation of the treaty was still to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), not to any of the pagan gods.[5] Therefore, the “truth of God” was not “compromised”.

            Having refuted Shamoun on this point, that only leaves the clause of the treaty that, in Shamoun’s words, required the Muslims to “to return to them [the pagans] those who had converted to Islam”. Sadly, just when the treaty was signed, Abu Jandal showed up, having escaped from Makkah after enduring years of torture. Suhail ibn Amr demanded that Abu Jandal be returned to him, a demand which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to accept due to the treaty obligations.

            First of all, it is rather ironic that hypocritical Christians never seem to be satisfied with Muhammad’s actions. When he is at war, they criticize him. When he is trying to make peace, they criticize him. As the saying goes…“damned if you, damned if you don’t”. This essentially sums up the bias, double standards, and hypocrisy of the Christian apologists, which is why we should ask a pertinent question: “Who cares what biased Christians think?”

            Second, the stipulation of the treaty was not to “to return to them those who had converted to Islam”. The way Shamoun put it, it would mean that all Makkan Muslims had to be returned, which is ludicrous. The reality is that the meaning of the clause was to return any Muslim who left Makkah after the treaty was signed and who left without permission from his/her guardian. This is why Abu Jandal had to be returned.[6]

            Third, and most importantly, Shamoun neglected to mention what the Prophet said to Abu Jandal when the latter was pleading not to be sent back to his oppressors. Ironically, once again, the same source that Shamoun quoted destroys his argument. In the Tarikh al-Tabari, it states (emphasis ours):

“The Messenger of God said: “Abu Jandal, count on a reward, for God will give you and those who are oppressed with you relief and a way out. We have made a treaty and peace between ourselves and these people; we have given them and they have given us a promise, and we will not act treacherously toward them.”[7]

Indeed, even Umar ibn al-Khattab reassured Abu Jandal and urged him to be patient (emphasis ours):

“’Umar b. al-Khattab jumped up with Abu Jandal, walking beside him, and saying, “Be patient, Abu Jandal! They are only polytheists, and the blood of any of them is no more than the blood of a dog!” He held the hilt of his sword close to him. (‘Umar used to say, “I hoped he would take the sword and strike his father with it, but the man was too attached to his father.”)”[8]

This is ironic because Shamoun had made a big deal about Umar initially protesting that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was giving in to the pagans’ demands, as stated in a hadith from Sahih Bukhari (emphasis ours):

“`Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, ‘Aren’t you truly the Messenger of Allah?’ The Prophet (ﷺ) said, ‘Yes, indeed.’ I said, ‘Isn’t our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Then why should we be humble in our religion?’ He said, ‘I am Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.’”[9]

            So, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had reassured Abu Jandal that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) would give him “a way out” of his predicament and that he should be patient and trust in Allah’s plan. Ergo, this was a prophecy. Did it come true? Yes, it did! In the same hadith from Sahih Bukhari cited above (see note #8), it states (emphasis ours):

Abu Jandal bin Suhail got himself released from them (i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraish embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraish heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (i.e. infidels) and took their properties. The people of Quraish sent a message to the Prophet () requesting him for the sake of Allah and kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet () would be secure. So the Prophet (ﷺ) sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir’s companions) and Allah I revealed the following Divine Verses: “And it is He Who Has withheld their hands from you and your hands From them in the midst of Mecca, After He made you the victorious over them. … the unbelievers had pride and haughtiness, in their hearts … the pride and haughtiness of the time of ignorance.” (48.24-26) And their pride and haughtiness was that they did not confess (write in the treaty) that he (i.e. Muhammad) was the Prophet of Allah and refused to write: “In the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the Most Merciful,” and they (the mushriks) prevented them (the Muslims) from visiting the House (the Ka`bah).”

Since the pagans realized that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not involved in the activities of Abu Basir and his men, and thus the Prophet was not violating the treaty, they eventually pleaded with him to take those men in and the treaty would still be valid. Alhamdulillah! Not only did Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) provide a way out for Abu Jandal and others, as Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had prophesied, He also forced the pagans to plead with Muhammad (peace be upon him) to let Abu Basir and his men stay in Madina and STILL considered the clauses of the treaty to be fulfilled and valid! And perhaps best of all, eventually, Suhail ibn Amr himself converted to Islam when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Makkah a few years later! The Prophet’s patience in making peace and compromising with his enemies for the greater good paid off in the end. And yet Shamoun is claiming that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a false prophet! Subhan Allah!

            The other problem Shamoun had was that the original dream in which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) saw himself and his followers entering al-Masjid al-Haram was not initially fulfilled. According to Shamoun:

“[t]he anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, “Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka’ba this year?””

The contradiction in Shamoun’s absurd assessment did not seem to dawn on him. How could the Prophet have “promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year” and then claim later on that he did not say it would have been that year? The fact is that the vision that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had did not specify when it would be fulfilled, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not specify either. As Mufti Muhammad Shafi explained in his commentary (emphasis ours):

“…the vision of the Holy Prophet ﷺ was not merely a dream, but a Divine inspiration which he had to strictly obey and follow. However, no time or date was specified for this.”[10]

It is understandable that he set out for Makkah with his followers, hoping that the vision would be fulfilled immediately. However, when Surah Fath, verse 27 was revealed, it explained that the fulfillment of the vision depends upon the will of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). In the end, it still came true.

            This can be compared to the vision of Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him), in which he saw himself sacrificing his son:

“And when he reached with him [the age of] exertion, he said, “O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I [must] sacrifice you, so see what you think.” He said, “O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast.””[11]

While revealed under different circumstances, each dream was divine revelation which had to be obeyed. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) obeyed and, in his case, the dream was not actually fulfilled as it was meant to be a test. Similarly, though the dream of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not fulfilled in the same year, the reason was that it was meant to be a test. However, eventually, it was fulfilled.

            Shamoun also quoted the commentary of Ibn Kathir to show that the Muslims were confident that the dream would come true the same year, and when it did not, even Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was shocked. But Shamoun neglected to show the following part of the commentary (emphasis ours):

“`Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about this, saying, “Haven’t you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it” The Prophet said, (Yes. Have I told you that you will go to it this year) `Umar said, “No.” The Prophet said, (Then you will go to it and perform Tawaf around it.) `Umar received the same answer from Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, letter for letter.”[12]

So, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was satisfied that the dream would come true eventually, even if others were shocked that it had not come true immediately. Furthermore, as we already noted (see note #8), Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) repented of his “improper questions” and did many good deeds as expiation.

            While the results of the attempted umrah were not what most of the Muslims were expecting, nevertheless, within a few years they came to realize the wisdom behind it. The same source that Shamoun quoted, the Tarikh al-Tabari, shows how Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) brought much good from the treaty (emphasis ours):

“In his account, Ibn Humayd (on the authority of Salamah-Ibn Ishaq-al-Zuhri) adds that al-Zuhri used to say: No victory greater than this one had been won previously in Islam. There had been only fighting when the people met together; however, when the truce took place, and war laid down its burdens, and all the people felt safe with each other, they met with each other in conversation and debate, and no one possessing understanding was told about Islam but embraced it. Thus, in those two years as many or more entered Islam as had been in it before.”[13]

Thus, regardless of Shamoun’s idiotic protests, just because the vision was not fulfilled that year, even though that was the expectation, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) had other plans, and through these plans, He brought about a greater good and the eventual victory of Islam.

            Next, Shamoun attempted to prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) “broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh”. As usual, this is more Shamounian manipulation of the facts. He appealed to the case of Umm Kulthum, as related in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirah:

“Umm Kulthum [d.] Uqba b. Mu’ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers ‘Umara and Walid sons of ‘Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it.”

According to Shamoun:

“Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God’s will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad’s God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one’s oath is strictly forbidden.”

First, we again see the double standards and bias that is characteristic of Christian apologists. Previously, Shamoun criticized Muhammad (peace be upon him) for sending converts like Abu Jandal back to the Makkans, even though that was due to the oath he had taken vis a vis the treaty of Hudaybiyah.[14] However, now in the case of Umm Kulthum, he is accusing the Prophet of “breaking one’s oath”! Once again, as the saying goes…“damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.

            Second, the cases of Umm Kulthum and other women were not violations of the treaty. In fact, there is no evidence from the same sources that Shamoun quoted to indicate that the pagans accused Muhammad (peace be upon him) of violating the treaty after he refused to return the women! In fact, when the pagans themselves violated the treaty two years later, Abu Sufyan went to plead with the Prophet to keep the treaty intact. This proves that the pagans had not considered the treaty to be annulled when Muslim women were not sent back to them, so who cares what Shamoun thinks?

            Nevertheless, Shamoun’s argument is wrong for other reasons, and we can never refrain from embarrassing him when the opportunity arises. As noted by brother Kaleef Karim (Discover-the-Truth.com), the text of the treaty as related by Ibn Ishaq clearly stipulates that the clause of returning Muslims who had emigrated without permission was specifically regarding men.[15] Indeed, Ibn Ishaq’s version states (emphasis ours):

“…if anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he will return him to them…”[16]

The Tarikh al-Tabari provides a similar version (emphasis ours):

“…whoever shall come to the Messenger of God from Quraysh without the permission of his guardian, [Muhammad] shall return him to them;”[17]

This was also confirmed by Ibn Qayyim (emphasis ours):

“Once he returned to Al-Madeena, believing women such as Umm Kulthoom came to him. However, he did not return her, because Allaah the magnificent forbade him to do so, and it has been said that the polytheists sought to impose a condition upon women which applied only to men.”[18]

Finally, Ibn Kathir confirmed the same, and names other scholars who did so as well. In his commentary on Surah 60:10, Ibn Kathir stated (emphasis ours):

“[i]n that treaty, there were these words, ‘Everyman (in another narration, every person) who reverts from our side to your side, should be returned to us, even if he is a follower of your religion.’ This was said by `Urwah, Ad-Dahhak, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd, Az-Zuhri, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-Suddi.”[19]

Thus, it is undeniable that the plain text of the treaty did not include women. All Islamic sources agree on this matter. Therefore, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was justified in refusing to return Umm Khulthum (may Allah be pleased with her) to the pagans.

            The last criticism Shamoun leveled against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was regarding the use of the phrase “in shaa Allah” in Surah al-Fath, 48:27. Shamoun stated that:

“…Muslims claim that every single word in the Quran was revealed directly by God to Muhammad through Gabriel. Based on this assumption Muslims further reason that one will not find Muhammad’s words intermingled with the words of God. This being the case, how do Muslims explain the fact that S. 48:27 has Allah saying insha’ Allah, i.e. “If Allah wills”? Does God not know what his will is? If so, is he uncertain whether his purpose shall come to pass necessitating him to then qualify his statement with the phrase, insha’ Allah?”

The answer is quite simple. As Maududi explained in his commentary, it all has to do with the “presumptions” of unbelievers like the pagans of Makkah (emphasis ours):

“[t]he presumption on the basis of which the disbelievers of Makkah had played the drama of preventing the Muslims from `Umrah was that only he whom they would allow would perform `Umrah, and would perform it only when they would allow it. At this Allah has said: “This depends on Our, not on their, will. The reason why ‘Umrah has not been performed this year is not because the disbelievers of Makkah did not allow it to be performed, but because We did not will it to be performed; in the future ‘Umrah will be performed if We will, no matter whether the disbelievers allow it or disallow it.” Besides, these words also contain the meaning that the Muslims too, will perform `Umrah not by their own power but because We would will that they should perform it; otherwise if We do not will, they do not possess any power to perform it by themselves.”[20]

This comes back to the issue of many Muslims being shocked that the vision of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had not come true when they expected it to. Allah’s will was NOT dependent on their expectations. Indeed, the opposite was true; their expectations are dependent on the will of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). This is a lesson for all people and for all time.

            Another explanation is that the verse teaches Muslims the importance of saying “if Allah wills” in all matters concerning the future. This was explained by Imam Qurtubi in his commentary.[21]

            Finally, the verse clearly states that Allah:

“…knew what you did not know and has arranged before that a conquest near [at hand].”

This clearly shows that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) indeed knows when His promise will occur and refutes Shamoun’s silly insinuation that Allah does “not know what his will is”.

            Based on the above analysis, we can conclude that the prophecy in Surah al-Fath did come true (the Muslims entered al-Masjid al-Haram to perform tawaf). In fact, so did a second prophecy made by Muhammad (peace be upon him), which was fulfilled when Abu Jandal and others were able to stay in Madinah after the Quraysh themselves requested Muhammad (peace be upon him) to take them in.

            Following the example of the previous article in the series, let us now look at another case of an actual false prophecy in the Bible.

The Prophecies in Daniel 11–12

            Similar to the book of Revelation, the book of Daniel contains many “prophecies”, many of which can be categorized as examples of “retrospective prophecy”.[22] In other words, the “prophecies” of the “future” were actually events that had occurred in the time of the author and his audience. This explains the striking details in events concerning the “king of the North” in Daniel 11, whom scholars have reasonably identified as a title for the Seleucid (Greek) kings, especially Antiochus IV (d. 164 BCE). This also explains why the prophecies concerning these kings became rather vague towards the end of Daniel 11, ending with the death of the last king (Antiochus was still alive when the book was being written).

            The identification of the last king as Antiochus can be proven by considering the more specific “prophecies” in the beginning of chapter 11. While there are also specific details in earlier chapters (especially chapter 9), we will focus on chapter 11. Here are the series of events leading to the rise of the “king of the North”, along with the likely historical parallel (see Raymond Hammer’s commentary on Daniel for references):[23]

“Prophecy” in Daniel

Historical Parallel

·         After 4 Persian kings, “a mighty king will arise” (Daniel 11:3)

·         Alexander the Great’s empire

·         The king’s empire will be “parceled out toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 11:4)

·         Alexander’s empire was divided between his generals after his death into four kingdoms

·         The “king of the South” will grow strong (Daniel 11:5), and is based in Egypt (Daniel 11:8)

·         The Ptolemaic dynasty, founded by Alexander’s general Ptolemy, rules Egypt

·         The “daughter of the king of the South” will help make an alliance with the “king of the North”, but she will be “betrayed” (Daniel 11:6)

·         Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II, married Antiochus II, but was eventually murdered by his other wife, Laodice

·         In revenge, a king from the “family line” of the daughter of the “king of the South” will attack the “king of the North” (Daniel 11:7)

·         Ptolemy III, the brother of Berenice, invaded the Seleucid kingdom

·         After a few years, the “king of the North” will invade Egypt but will “retreat” (Daniel 11:9)

·         In 240 BCE, Seleucus Callinicus invaded Egypt but was defeated

·         The “king of the South” will march again and defeat a large army from the North (Daniel 11:11)

·         In 217 BCE, Antiochus III was defeated, and Palestine was annexed by Egypt.

·         There will be a rebellion against the “king of the South” with many of Daniel’s people (“those who are violent”) taking part (Daniel 11:14)

·         Jews are said to have aided Antiochus III in his battles against the Egyptian armies

·         The “king of the North” will once again invade Egypt, and will eventually attempt to make an alliance by giving his daughter in marriage to the “king of the South”, but his plans will fail (Daniel 11:15-17)*

*Note: The NIV has a footnote that an alternative reading in verse 17 is “but she” instead of “but his plans”. Thus, the verse would read “…but she will not succeed or help him”.

·         Antiochus III gave his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy V, but Cleopatra persuaded her new husband to form an alliance with the Romans

·         The successor to the northern kingdom will rule for a few years but “will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle” (Daniel 11:20)

·         Seleucus IV Philopator became the Seleucid king after Antiochus III

·         A “contemptible person” will then become “king of the North” and will be militarily active, winning many battles through intrigue and will attack Egypt (Daniel 11:21ff)

·         Antiochus IV was militarily active and attacked Egypt

·         The “king of the North” will invade Egypt a second time but will be forced to retreat because of opposition from “ships of the western coastlands*” (Daniel 11:29-30)

*Note: The NIV mentions “ships of the western coastlands”, but the Hebrew phrase is actually “ships of Kittim”, which originally referred to the Greeks. However, in the Qumran scrolls (specifically, in the “Commentary on Habbakuk”), “Kittim” was used as a reference to the Romans.[24]

·         Roman intervention prevented Antiochus IV from successfully invading Egypt

·         In anger at his defeat, the “king of the North” will “vent his fury against the holy covenant” and “abolish the daily sacrifice” and set-up the “abomination that causes desolation” in the temple (Daniel 11:30-31)

·         Antiochus IV sacked the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and set-up a statue of the pagan god Zeus in the temple grounds

·         The “king of the North” will “exalt and magnify himself above every god” and will also honor a “god of fortresses” while suppressing other cults (Daniel 11:36-39)

·         Antiochus IV referred to himself as “Epiphanes” or “God manifest”; the “god of fortresses” was Jupiter Capitolinus, another name for Zeus

·         The “king of the North” will invade many countries, including Egypt, and conquer them; after hearing of alarming reports from the “east and the north”, he will “pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain” and will “come to his end” (Daniel 11:40-45)

·         Antiochus IV did not invade Egypt again and died in Persia of disease

As we can see from the above chronological list, there are undeniable parallels between the “prophecies” in Daniel 11 and historical events involving the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties. The only place where a prophecy does not align with known historical facts is at the end of the chapter, where a false prophecy is made. Antiochus IV “Epiphanes”, the king who “exalted” himself, was unable to threaten Egypt again due to Roman intervention and died in Persia, rather than in the Holy Land near the “beautiful holy mountain”.

            What is worse is that Daniel 12 prophesies that after these events, and another period of “distress”, the dead will be resurrected, with some achieving “everlasting life” and others achieving only “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:1-2). Furthermore, it is explained by an angel that from the abolishment of the daily sacrifices (during Antiochus IV’s reign) and the setting-up of the “abomination that causes desolation”, there will be 1290 days (Daniel 12:11). The angel also states that those who reach “the end of 1335 days” will be “blessed” (Daniel 12:12). Considering that Antiochus IV began his persecution of the Jews around 168/167 BCE and died in 164 BCE, the period of persecution was around 3-4 years. This corresponds pretty well with the 1290 and 1335 days mentioned in Daniel 12:11-12. Thus, it is undeniable that the “prophecies” in Daniel 11–12 concerned the Seleucid occupation of Palestine and the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV. That these prophecies were not fulfilled is plainly obvious.

Conclusion

            This article has shown yet another example of Hassamo Shamoun’s contemptible ignorance and scholarly incompetence. Instead of spending his time trying to disprove the Quran, he should spend it learning the truth about his Bible. While the Quran contains true prophecies, such as the one in Surah al-Fath, the Bible contains obvious false prophecies. No amount of mental gymnastics and deceitful twisting of the facts will change this. The Quran is vindicated yet again, while the Bible languishes in its prophetic blunders. And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!


[1] https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/false_prophecies.htm

[2] On Shamoun’s embarrassing performance in defending his claim that al-Masjid al-Haram only refers to the Kaaba and not to the land around it, see here: https://quranandbibleblog.com/2019/07/14/al-isra-and-the-temple-in-the-islamic-sources-response-to-sam-shamoun-part-iii-a/

[3] Interestingly, Shamoun unwittingly admits that al-Masjid al-Haram is NOT just the Kaaba, but the land in Mecca! And yet, he was arguing with me like a fool that the masjid is ONLY the Kaaba! See note #2 above.

[4] http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Fath/Allah-has-indeed-fulfilled-the—

[5] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 504; The History of al-Tabari, Volume VIII: The Victory of Islam, trans. Michael Fishbein (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 85-86.

[6] Also, as Yasir Qadhi explains, the treaty did not stipulate that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to enforce the treaty or that he had to round up any Muslim emigrants who had arrived in Madinah, including Abu Jandal. This was the responsibility of the pagans to come on their own and ask for their return (see his discussion here, mark 52:35: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T9ISoCbRbw&list=PLAEA99D24CA2F9A8F&index=66&ab_channel=YasirQadhi).

[7] The History of al-Tabari, Volume VIII: The Victory of Islam, trans. Michael Fishbein (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1997), p. 87.

[8] Ibid.

Umar had hoped that Abu Jandal would take matters into his own hands and free himself from his oppressors, even though one of them was his father. If he had done so, it would not have been a violation of the treaty.

[9] Sahih Bukhari, 54:19, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/54/19.

This hadith also states that Umar realized he was wrong to question the Prophet in this regard and that he “performed many good deeds as expiation for the improper questions…” (cf., see The History of al-Tabari, op. cit., p. 85).

[10] Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Ma’ariful Qur’an: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Holy Qur’an, Vol. 8, trans. Muhammad Shamim (Karachi, Pakistan: Maktaba-e-Darul-‘Uloom, 2010),  p. 65.

[11] Surah As-Saffat, 37:102.

[12] http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Fath/Allah-has-indeed-fulfilled-the—

[13] The History of al-Tabari, op. cit., p. 90.

[14] In fact, in the case of Abu Jandal, the treaty had not been finalized when he arrived, but Suhail ibn Amr still demanded that he be sent back to Makkah.

[15] https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/01/11/did-the-treaty-of-hudaybiyyah-include-women/

[16] Ibn Ishaq, op. cit., p. 504.

[17] The History of al-Tabari, op. cit., p. 86.

[18] Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, Zad al-Ma’ad: Provisions of the Afterlife Which Lie Within Prophetic Guidance, trans. Ismail Abdus Salaam (Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 2010), p. 364.

[19] http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Mumtahina/After-Al-Hudaybiyyah,-Emigrant—

[20] http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/48/index.html#sdfootnote48sym

[21] See Shafi, op. cit., p. 101.

[22] See the article on the book of Revelation: https://quranandbibleblog.com/2015/05/31/the-book-of-revelation/

[23] Raymond Hammer, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible: The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 107–119.

[24] Ibid., p. 110.

Indeed, in the Septuagint, the word “Kittim” is translated as “Romans” (Ibid., p. 107).

 

2 thoughts on “The “Whack-a-Scam” Series: The Alleged “False Prophecy” in Surah Al-Fath

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s