بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

A Response to “MUHAMMAD’S FALSE PROPHECIES” by Al-Finlandi

By Guest Author: MUFC Hussain

View as PDF

In his sheer desperation to prove that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was a false prophet, the Christian apologist “Al-Finlandi” introduced his article with a couple of quotes from the Bible. To comment on the two quotes he brings, one from Deuteronomy 18:21-22 and the other from Matthew 24:24, I will attempt to share why such quotes in their wider context can backfire on Al-Finlandi.

Deuteronomy 18:21-22

 You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?” If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

I will begin by saying that without shame, Al-Finlandi decided to quote from Deuteronomy 18, for he would know that not only does it talk about a prophet like Moses عليه السلام, whom Al-Finlandi would have to take to be a prophecy of Jesus عليه السلام coming to Israel, but it is a quote from scripture which he and Jews both hold to their hearts, and which the Jews will accuse him and other Christians like him of twisting.

If we look at the verse before verses 21-22 we read about the prophet to come which Moses عليه السلام allegedly speaks of as follows, “But any prophet who dares to say something in my name that I didn’t command him to say or who speaks in the name of other gods must die.” [Deuteronomy 18:20]

Should we wonder what method false prophets are to be killed? We need not look any further since just two chapters later in Deuteronomy, we read in Deuteronomy 20:22-23, “If someone has committed a capital crime and is put to death (namely by stoning), then hung on a tree, his body is not to remain all night on the tree, but you must bury him the same day, because a person who has been hanged has been cursed by God — so that you will not defile your land, which Adonai your God is giving you to inherit.”

While Deuteronomy 18:21-22 does indeed tell us how we can identify a false prophet, in that if the prophet ends up speaking in the Lord’s name that which does not happen then this would mean the Prophet is not from the Lord, what Al-Finlandi should realize is that in its wider scope such a passage is talking of a ‘prophet like Moses’. So, should we take Al-Finlandi’s understanding of Jesus as being Lord and him being crucified by the Jews to be true?

Then what he does is ironically open himself up to the charge from Jews who follow the same scripture he quotes from that Jesus عليه السلام was a false prophet who Moses himself talks of for they (i.e., the Jews) in their tradition relate about Jesus عليه السلام the following:

  וכרוז יוצא לפניו:  לפניו אין מעיקרא לא:  {והתניא בערב הפסח תלאוהו לישו הנוצרי והכרוז יוצא לפניו מ‘ יום קודם שהוא יוצא ליסקל על שכישף והסית והדיח את ישראל כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו ולא מצאו לו זכות ותלאוהו בערב הפסח

And a herald goes before him etc.: indeed, before him, but not beforehand!

However, (in contradiction to this) it was taught (tanya): On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover Jesus the Nazarene (Yeshu ha-noṣrī) was hanged (telaʾuhu). And a herald went forth before him 40 days (heralding): Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery (kishshef) and instigated (hissit) and seduced (hiddiah) Israel (to idolatry). Whoever knows anything in his defense, may come and state it. But since they did not find anything in his defense, they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover. [Sanhedrin 43A]

Talking the above Jewish tradition into account, the reason why I said Al-Finlandi without shame is quoting Deuteronomy 18:21-22 in a charge against the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم is because we see that by doing so Al-Finlandi neglects this same chapter puts the question mark on his understanding of Jesus عليه السلام and if this would make the Jesus which he claims to know a true prophet from the Lord or not.

Al-Finlandi should not be concerned if Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم was himself a true prophet or throw stones whilst living in a glasshouse.

It is interesting to further note, that Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم through revelation from the Lord in the Qur’an removes any chance in such a charge being leveled by Jews against Jesus عليه السلام being a false prophet using Deuteronomy when it is said by Allah سبحانه وتعالىٰ‎ in the Holy Qur’an regarding Jesus عليه السلام:

وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوه

…They (the Jews) did not kill him [by stoning], nor did they crucify him… [Qur’an 4:157]

Such is the revelation of Allah سبحانه وتعالىٰ‎ that reveals the truth about Jesus عليه السلام and prevents him from being the subject of charges of idolatry, sorcery, or even that of being a false prophet whose dead body defiles the land and is cursed unlike the Christian understanding of Jesus عليه السلام!

Matthew 24:24

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and (they) shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

In this verse, we read that Jesus عليه السلام allegedly prophecies the coming of “false Christs” and “false prophets” but what is enough to say about this verse is that the common understanding of this verse is its relation to 2 Thessalonians 2:9 which reads, “The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder” [2 Thessalonians 2:9]

Making it a prophecy about the Anti-Christ and the allies of the Anti-Christ as the earliest Church fathers who Al-Finlandi holds dear have understood this verse to be a reference to:

Epiphanius the Latin in AD 403 says of this verse: We are warned by the Lord so that if anyone were to come to us falsely in his name, none of us would believe in such a person, having already been prepared… Likewise, in the last days, the antichrist will declare himself to be God, as the apostle says, “Thus he will sit in the temple of God, calling himself God … whom the Lord Jesus Christ will kill with the breath of his mouth.” The day of judgment will come upon the antichrist also, and the Lord will kill him with the sword of his mouth.”

John Chrysostom in AD 407 says of this verse: …Matthew 24:24 here He is speaking of Antichrist, and indicates that some also shall minister to him…

Two things stand out from these few interpretations. The ones whom Jesus عليه السلام is alleged to be speaking of in his warning are those who are either allies of the Anti-Christ or the Anti-Christ himself.

In light of the above two interpretations, it should be noted that we as Muslims believe that Jesus عليه السلام is the Messiah for the Holy Qur’an says:

يَـٰٓأَهْلَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ لَا تَغْلُوا۟ فِى دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا۟ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ إِلَّا ٱلْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا ٱلْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ ٱللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُۥٓ أَلْقَىٰهَآ إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌۭ مِّنْهُ ۖ فَـَٔامِنُوا۟ بِٱللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِۦ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا۟ ثَلَـٰثَةٌ ۚ ٱنتَهُوا۟ خَيْرًۭا لَّكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا ٱللَّهُ إِلَـٰهٌۭ وَٰحِدٌۭ ۖ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥٓ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌۭ ۘ لَّهُۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَمَا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِٱللَّهِ وَكِيلًۭا

O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfillment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs. [Qur’an 4:171]

This would rule out Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم being the Anti-Christ himself for he did not claim to be the Christ. However, let us say that what remains is the chance he actually could have been an ally or minister of the Anti-Christ himself and therefore a quasi-Anti-Christ.

Unless Al-Finlandi would like to argue now that Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم in affirming Jesus عليه السلام as the Christ means that Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم is actually an ally of Jesus عليه السلام and in being an ally to Jesus عليه السلام this makes Jesus عليه السلام the Anti-Christ and so proves Matthew 24:24 to be about him then I cannot see how this would entail being a possibility.  

On top of this, would be more likely should we consider Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم to be an ally of the Anti-Christ?

1. That the Qur’an which claims to revelation from Allah سبحانه وتعالىٰ‎ sent to him affirms the Christ is indeed Jesus عليه السلام (in the verse quoted above) and that Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم to say about Jesus عليه السلام the following, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 3286]

Or…

2. Claim that Jesus عليه السلام was not the Christ and accuse him as the Jews do of obscenities like sorcery or idolatry.

Now surely one would not think that Satan would go against himself, would they?

For if one should contend that is the case, I would ask, “If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How can then his kingdom stand?” [Matthew 12:26]

As Augustine of Hippo in AD 430 says of this above verse:

In saying this, he (Jesus) wanted it to be understood from their confession that they had chosen to live in him by not believing in the kingdom of the devil and that the devil could not stand being divided against himself. So, let the Pharisees choose what they want. If Satan could not cast out Satan, they could find nothing to say against the Lord. But if Satan can cast out Satan, let them look out for themselves all the more and let them abandon his kingdom because it cannot stand being divided against itself.

As Glossa Ordinaria in AD 1480 says of the verse:

He (Jesus) holds them therefore in this dilemma. For Christ casts out daemons either by the power of God, or by the Prince of the daemons. If by the power of God, their accusations are malicious; if by the Prince of the daemons, his kingdom is divided, and will not stand, and therefore let them depart out of his kingdom. And this alternative He intimates that they had chosen for themselves when they refused to believe in Him.

Theophylact of Ochrid in AD 1107 says of this verse:

…He (Jesus) defends Himself from their accusation by means of everyday examples and reveals their foolishness. For how is it that demons cast out one another when in fact they strive to assist one another? “Satan” means “the adversary”.

In light of the above, I would like to mention that as Muslims the Qur’an commands us:

فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ ٱلْقُرْءَانَ فَٱسْتَعِذْ بِٱللَّهِ مِنَ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنِ ٱلرَّجِيمِ

Whenever you read the Qur’an seek refuge with Allah from Satan, the accursed.

The Qur’an commands this so that we could appreciate the blessing of the Qur’an only when we try to see it in its true light by seeking Allah’s عزّ وجلّ‎ protection against Satan’s misleading suggestions, and not by raising objections against it. And so by seeking refuge from Satan whenever we recite the Qur’an we pray to cast out Satan’s misleading suggestions but the main thing to take from this is we Muslims seek to cast out Satan himself!

And finally, it should also be said, as Muslims we believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ عليه السلام and how he will show the truth of the religion of Islam and rid himself of the lies that both Christians like Al-Finlandi and Jews have ascribed against him such lies as to when they either refused him of being the Messiah (as the Jews do) or exaggerated Jesus in status to being God Himself and even Gods son (as Al-Finlandi does).   

As one of our earliest creedal statements puts it frankly (translated to English):

We have faith in the signs of the Hour, such as the appearance of the False Messiah (al-Dajjal), and the descent from the heavens of Jesus the son of Mary, upon him be peace… [Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah]

Should Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم be the Anti-Christ or his minister, I wonder who the Anti-Christ we are required to believe in is… especially this same Anti-Christ we believe that Jesus عليه السلام would defeat upon his return?

Al-Finlandi’s Introduction:

There are hundreds of prophecies attributed to Muhammad in the hadith literature, but I want to focus on the two I think are the best case for a probable false prophecy. Vast majority of these other “prophecies” are either extremely vague and generic (i.e.. “There will be a lot of killing”  Bukhari 7062) or are attributed to Muhammad in the early period of Islam, in later Sunni sources (Bukhari, Muslim and other books of hadith), these prophecies allegedly describe events soon after Muhammad’s death, many of them vague, but some more specific (i.e.. the conquest of Jerusalem, which happened in AD 636, worth remembering that Bukhari died in AD 870, 250 years after Muhammad).

In his introduction to his article, Al-Finlandi is correct to mention there are lots of prophecies which are attributed to Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم in hadith literature and I would be willing to grant some of them are vague. However, I’d like to focus on the one example which Al-Finlandi gives as an “extremely vague and generic” prophecy and show you how Al-Finlandi has completely stripped the setting from the hadith which makes the hadith a more specific prophecy then Al-Finlandi would have you to believe. Below I shall quote the hadiths surrounding the prophecy which tells us more about the prophecies setting.

Starting with “Bukhari 7062” in full we read:

1. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Near the establishment of the Hour there will be days during which Religious ignorance will spread, knowledge will be taken away (vanish) and there will be much Al-Harj, and Al-Harj means killing.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 7062, 7063]
2. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Time will pass rapidly, good deeds will decrease, miserliness will be thrown (in the hearts of the people) afflictions will appear and there will be much ‘Al-Harj.” They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is “Al-Harj?” He said, “Killing! Killing!” [Sahih al-Bukhari 7061]
3. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “It is from the conditions of the Last Hour that knowledge would be taken away and ignorance would prevail (upon the world), the liquor would be drunk, and adultery would become rampant.” [Sahih Muslim 2671 a]
4. The Prophet(ﷺ) said, “From among the signs of the Hour are (the following): -1. Religious knowledge will be taken away (by the death of Religious learned men). -2. (Religious) ignorance will prevail. -3. Drinking of Alcoholic drinks (will be quite common). -4. There will be a prevalence of open illegal sexual intercourse.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 80]
5. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The Hour (Last Day) will not be established until (religious) knowledge will be taken away (by the death of religious learned men), earthquakes will be very frequent, time will pass quickly, afflictions will appear, murders will increase, and money will overflow amongst you.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 1036]

From the above five hadiths, we already see a lot more detail given about the surrounding circumstances as to when this mass killing will be commonplace. It would be at a time in this world when time itself will pass rapidly, religious ignorance among people due to the loss of religious knowledge because of the death of religious scholars occurs… Abundance of wealth and greed is in the hearts of many people. There is an increase in promiscuity with illegal sexual intercourse being done publicly, an increase of earthquakes, and consumption of alcoholic drinks.

Furthermore, Sahih al-Bukhari 6808 and Sahih Muslim 2673a even add that people will turn to the ignorant to be their leaders; then these leaders are asked to deliver religious verdicts and they deliver them without knowledge (in the Qur’an or Sunnah), making themselves go astray, and leading others astray as well.

Some of the effects of the increase of the mass killing are also mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari 6808 linked above, for it implies as a result of the killing and turmoil, men will decrease in number while women will increase so much so that, “for fifty women there will only be one man to look after them.”

Another effect of Al-Harj (this mass killing) is alluded to in a long hadith that includes other signs of the Hour:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The Hour will not be established till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger… till a man when passing by a grave of someone will say, ‘Would that I were in his place’ and till the sun rises from the West.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 7121]

That which is highlighted in red tells us in this world where these mass killings will increase, people will pass by graves and wish they were in their place and dead!

With the above details hidden from us by Al-Finlandi you can see why people would assume the example prophecy he shares is “extremely vague and generic”, but when you see the hadiths all put together as you can see above then the hadiths, contrary to what Al-Finlandi would have you believe, are extremely specific and talking about a deteriorating, morally bankrupt, and degenerate world full of irreligiosity, depression, murder, greed, turmoil, and more coming about before the advent of the Hour.

Moving on, for someone like Al-Finlandi to talk about “extremely vague and generic” prophecies is not only odd, it is hypocritical.

If Al-Finlandi directs this criticism to the Bible, there is a book that contains prophecies that deserves the title “extremely vague” and that is the Book of Revelation, for as Wikipedia puts it, “Revelation has a wide variety of interpretations, ranging from the simple historical interpretation, to a prophetic view on what will happen in the future by way of the Will of God and the Woman’s victory on Satan (“symbolic interpretation”), to different end time scenarios (“futurist interpretation”), to the views of critics who deny any spiritual value to Revelation at all, ascribing it to a human-inherited archetype.”[1]

With the Book of Revelation, Al-Finlandi indeed has the “extremely vague” prophecies that he charges against Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

One example would be the following prophecies that Jesus عليه السلام allegedly warn us of coming in the future and is relayed in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21:

Mark 13:7-8: “You will hear about wars that are being fought. And you will hear stories about other wars beginning. But do not be afraid. These things must happen before the end comes. Nations will fight against other nations. Kingdoms will fight against other kingdoms. There will be times when there is no food for people to eat. And there will be earthquakes in different places. These things are only the beginning of troubles, like the first pains of a woman giving birth.” [Mark 13:7-8]

Matthew 24:6-8: “You will hear about wars that are being fought. And you will hear stories about other wars beginning. But do not be afraid. These things must happen before the end comes. Nations will fight against other nations. Kingdoms will fight against other kingdoms. There will be times when there is no food for people to eat. And there will be earthquakes in different places. These things are only the beginning of troubles, like the first pains of a woman giving birth.” [Matthew 24:6-8]

Luke 21:10-11: Then Jesus said to them, “Nations will fight against other nations. Kingdoms will fight against other kingdoms. There will be great earthquakes, sicknesses, and other bad things in many places. In some places there will be no food for the people to eat. Terrible things will happen, and amazing things will come from heaven to warn people.” [Luke 21:10-11]

The reason in which these verses themselves can be labeled “generic” is that if read on plainly, all it tells us is that wars will happen with nations fighting one another as if nations never fought one another before. That people will hear of these wars between these unknown nations and that there will be “places” where there is no food for people to eat and great earthquakes in “different places” that will happen but notice how the language in this so-called “inspired word of God” gets more and more generic, for in the passages in Luke it reads, “other bad things (will happen) in many places” and even better! We read that “amazing things will come from heaven to warn people.”

Now before we get onto the first prophecy Al-Finlandi has problems with, it is worth remembering that Al-Finlandi has said “that Bukhari died in AD 870, 250 years after Muhammad.” Yet this did not stop Al-Finlandi from quoting from Bukhari for his first “false prophecy” and in the rest of the article.

And so, if anything should instead be noted, it is that Al-Finlandi is trying to cast doubt about all the “correct prophecies” in Bukhari of which he mentioned one (conquest of Jerusalem) by insinuating that Bukhari made it up or others did after the fact but were this true, I wonder why then would Bukhari even share the first prophecy he claims is false if it did not come true?

Nonetheless, the following detailed responses will deal with this so-called “false prophecy” and in turn the house of cards will fall for the second “false prophecy”.

NO MORE CAESAR AND KHOSRAW & THE ROMAN MAJORITY

Al-Finlandi writes:

 The plain meaning of the text is talking about the seventh century Muslim conquests of Persia and Byzantine territory. I am willing to admit Muhammad was in fact correct about the destruction of Yazdegerd III, and there was no ruler in the Sassanid Empire after him, as the Empire was annexed by the Rashidun Caliphate. However, he was VERY wrong about the death of Heraclius. In the hadith the “Khosraw” (ruler of Persia) is clearly linked with the ruler of Rome (Byzantium, more on this later), as the Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453. If the two are linked, and Yazdegerd III is contrasted with Heraclius, both would have to die and Muhammad thought both Empires would soon be overtaken by Muslims. Corroboration to this is found in the hadith:

“‏ تَغْزُونَ جَزِيرَةَ الْعَرَبِ فَيَفْتَحُهَا اللَّهُ ثُمَّ فَارِسَ فَيَفْتَحُهَا اللَّهُ ثُمَّ تَغْزُونَ الرُّومَ فَيَفْتَحُهَا اللَّهُ ثُمَّ تَغْزُونَ الدَّجَّالَ فَيَفْتَحُهُ اللَّهُ‏”

You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you will attack Persia and He will enable you to conquer it. Then you will attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you will attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him.

– Muslim 2900

A Muslim objection will be that Caesar and Khosraw are not referring to specific people but are just generic titles (which is true to an extent), but in this case the hadith just becomes tautological (“The last Khosraw of the Sassanids will be ruined and there will be no Khosraw after him…) and is hardly a prophecy at all, simply a statement. If the final ruler of a Empire [sic] dies out, the Empire itself dies. Therefore this is either a false prophecy or a tautological statement which is not a prophecy at all. The latter is undesirable because of Muhammad’s supposed eloquence (cf. an-Nasa’i 3089, “I have been sent with concise speech”). In addition, if Muhammad wanted to indicate this was a future ruler, he could have just said في آخر الأيام (in the last days…) or something to that effect, but I’m not aware of any variation in the hadith with such a wording.

Response:

It should be mentioned that in the announcement tweet that Al-Finlandi put up with regards to this article he made, fellow Muslims were quick to respond to his so-called false prophecy claims. On top of that, I also found a response to another Christian who used this very same hadith Al-Finlandi did several years ago in his bid to prove that Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم made a false prophecy. I will collate all the responses I found below:

Refutation #1

Al-Bukhari and Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ‎) said: “When Khosraw is ruined, there will be no Khosraw after him; when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hands is my life, you will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.”

Below follows the earliest (many of them contemporary to Bukhari) scholarly commentaries on the above statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه واله وسلم:

Abu Hatim al-Razi (811–890 AD/189-268 AH) commented on the Prophet’s (ﷺ‎) statement,

“When Khosraw is ruined, there will be no Khosraw after him” means, in his controlled territory which was Iraq; and his (ﷺ‎) statement, “when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him” means in his controlled territory which was Syria. The statement does not mean that no one would be installed as Khosraw or Caesar after the death of both. Actually, these two lands (Syria & Iraq) were conquered, as predicted, and all praise and favour belong to Allah. And Allah knows best.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (1372- 1449 AD/750-870 AH) said in his famous work, Fath al-Bari:

“Khosraw is the title for whoever ruled the Persian Empire while Caesar was the title for whoever ruled the Roman Empire. This statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) raised some questions. The Persian empire lasted till the Caliphate of ‘Uthman (رضي الله عنه) when the last emperor was killed. The Roman Empire met its end in a similar manner. These ambiguities could be cleared by what was meant in the Hadith, which was that Khosrow’s authority shall not abide in Iraq and that Caesar’s authority shall not abide in Syria. This is reported from Al-Shafiʽi (762-820 AD/145-198 AH).

He said, “The Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) was prompted into making this statement by the fact that the Quraish used to come to Iraq and Syria as traders. When they embraced Islam, they feared that they would be prevented from entering these two regions because of their acceptance of Islam. So, the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) made this statement to them in order to relieve their fears and to give them good tidings that Roman and Persian [non-Muslim] control over the two regions (Syria & Iraq) shall come to an end.”

The kingdom of Caesar lasted for some time and he lost only the control of Syria and its surroundings while Khosraw lost his entire kingdom. The wisdom behind this, according to some scholars, is that when the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) letter came to Caesar, he accepted it and almost embraced Islam. As for Khosraw, when the letter of Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) came to him, he tore it and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) prayed to Allah to tear apart his kingdom. And that happened.

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ صَالِحٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَعَثَ بِكِتَابِهِ رَجُلاً، وَأَمَرَهُ أَنْ يَدْفَعَهُ إِلَى عَظِيمِ الْبَحْرَيْنِ، فَدَفَعَهُ عَظِيمُ الْبَحْرَيْنِ إِلَى كِسْرَى، فَلَمَّا قَرَأَهُ مَزَّقَهُ‏.‏ فَحَسِبْتُ أَنَّ ابْنَ الْمُسَيَّبِ قَالَ فَدَعَا عَلَيْهِمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ يُمَزَّقُوا كُلَّ مُمَزَّقٍ‏.‏

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas: “Once Allah’s Apostle gave a letter to a person and ordered him to go and deliver it to the Governor of Bahrain. (He did so) and the Governor of Bahrain sent it to Khosraw, who read that letter and then tore it to pieces. (The sub-narrator Ibn Shihab thinks that Ibn al-Musaiyab said that Allah’s Apostle invoked Allah against them saying, “May Allah tear them into pieces, and disperse them (Khosraw & his empire) all totally.”)”

Imam al-Khattabi (932-1010/310-388 AH) said,

“The meaning of ‘when Caesar is ruined, there will be no Caesar after him’ is that there shall not be any Caesar who would be as powerful and influential as the Caesar of that time. The Caesar then was living in Jerusalem, a city without visitation rights where Christians did not have complete religious rites. No one had ever gone to Rome without having visited the city either publicly or secretly. So, the Caesar of the time was expelled from the city and its treasures were rendered open, and no Caesar ever held control over the city afterwards.“

The image below contains references and the original Arabic from the above scholars and more who agree that Muhammad (ﷺ) was right when he said there would be no Caesar after Caesar since it was only about As-Sham as they point out:

Al-Finlandi in his sheer desperation responded to these sayings from the scholar above in this tweet, in which he says: “I’m aware that this is the explanation offered by some. It’s a cope imo because the hadith nowhere mentions الشام or nothing of the sort. The Byzantine Empire has Caesars for 800 years after Heraclius.”

Thankfully, our Muslim brother responds to him by saying: “It is not a cope since the context necessitates it being about Iraq and Ash-Sham as Imam Shafiʽi points out. Muhammad (ﷺ) also says that the Byzantines would still have remaining power left, unlike the Persians. Therefore, the harmonization works.”

The brother then asks him to re-read the screenshots.

Starting to see how he is being proven wrong here, Al-Finlandi responded to the Muslim brother saying, “Ok, interesting reference. To me it still appears contradictory in light of the other hadith (which is fine because I know there are even sahih ahadith which contradict each other). There were “Caesars” after Heraclius. I think it’s better to say this isn’t a prophecy at all tbh.”

The same brother noticed how he was trying to run away from his conclusions and told him in response, “I’m sorry but I’m afraid this won’t cut it. I can quote you even more Hadiths that FURTHER indicate that the context was about As-Sham & Iraq not being ruled by Caesar and Khosraw anymore. It is unfair to ignore the context. I do not do this to your traditions.”

As a way of saving face, Al-Finlandi responded by saying to the brother with the following:

“Please, by all means! I’ll be glad to amend my conclusion if so. I was only aware of the comments of al-Shafi’i and Ibn Hajar prior to writing, I was not aware of this hadith.”

Coming up with the goods as requested by Al-Finlandi, our Muslim brother responded with, “The Prophet (ﷺ) here uses the defeat of Khosrow as a way of responding to someone who was worried about the safety of the Arabian Peninsula (i.e., the Hijaz region). Caesar’s defeat is mentioned in the same sense as Khosrow’s elsewhere. Shafiʽi seemed to pick up on this, hence limiting it to Iraq & Ash-Sham. Al-Hira here is in reference to Iraq. I urge you to look it up.

On top of this, it also does not help your interpretation that Muhammad (ﷺ) was fully aware that Byzantium would survive as I mentioned before, which puts a lot more oomph behind this interpretation.”

Refutation #2

Another brother takes on Al-Finlandi and below I will share his comments which deal with the charge of tautology wrongly put forth by Al-Finlandi.

You can find his tweets at @PoirotOf and if you would like to follow the person whose response I have shared above you can follow him @VegitoWrath. May Allah reward these two for exposing Al-Finlandi and his desperation in his attempt to win people to his falsehood.

And so, to take from our brother Poirot who comments the following:

“The hadith as Al-Finlandi mention has two variants, one is mentioned in the conditional sense and the other in verbal form. Although Al-Finlandi does not pay any importance to the variants it is important since it will show there is no necessary commitments to any individuals to carry out the destruction of the Byzantines or Sassanids. The two forms are below: 

إذا هلك

هلك كسرى

The conditional form of the hadith is more well attested, and it is easy to understand the other form as implying it. This is in the sense of the ayah below

أَتَى أَمْرُ اللَّهِ فَلَا تَسْتَعْجِلُوهُ

Seeing as we should take this hadith in the context of its conditional form. I will next mention that the narration is in the context of the Sassanid and Byzantine empires and the titles reflect this, and so, it will read in another way as, ‘if and when the time comes when you destroy the Sassanid and the Byzantine Empire…’ And so there are no necessary commitments to individuals LITERALLY.

Secondly, seeing that it is in the context of Muslim conquests this claim of a tautology is just silly, to be honest. A Prophet in Medina promising his followers that the two largest empires will be destroyed at their hands in subsequent generations, something that itself came true? That is hardly a tautology at all!

Due to the fact that there is no time commitment with the conditional phrase, that is why it is formed that way. ‘If and when you do this…’ It is also obvious that this happened over time with both empires. Both the titles with their authority did not get resurrected once this happened. Meaning should we take the hadith to be in its verbal form (referring to Syria and Iraq alone) or even its conditional form (referring to how Muslims will destroy both the Sassanids and the Byzantine Empires) the hadith is correct.

And that is why it is worth pointing out that from the two ways of looking at it, Imam Shafiʽi’s position is not the only one. And that it is more complicated than this. There are other positions, including that by the famous Shiekh of al-Tahawi Ahmad bin Abi ‘Imran who reads in roughly the same way as shared above. See this link for more details.

And if the prophecy is literally true on this reading I shared then it ironically addresses the next hadith!”

SO MUCH FOR THE HADITH ABOUT THE HOUR BEING ESTABLISHED WHEN THE ROMANS ARE THE MAJORITY OF MANKIND – FOR THE REASONS WE ARE TOLD.

And so, as we witnessed the utter failure of Al-Finlandi, let us remind ourselves of how he viewed this article before he posted it and how he thought he struck a gold mine with his hadith.

Rather, what he deemed false came true, yet he did not know it.

 وَقُلْ جَاءَ الْحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ الْبَاطِلُ ۚ إِنَّ الْبَاطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقًا

And proclaim: “The Truth has come, and falsehood has vanished. Surely falsehood is ever bound to vanish.”

Refutation #3

For the sake of a tri-unity of responses, I shall link an article from another brother who has responded to Al-Finlandi, where he deals with the second hadith Al-Finlandi brought in more detail: True Prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).

I should also pre-emptively note that some may point to parts of Syria or Iraq that were “recaptured” temporarily by the Byzantines soon after the Muslims liberated it. If I told those people who may bring up this contention, that if parts of the UK or the country they live in were occupied soon after they had been captured, would they who had occupied those parts have considered they occupied the entire land of the country? Of course not. If someone owned a part of something they can not go around saying they owned the entire thing. A wheel of a car doesn’t make the car, and so too does a part of the land not equal the entire land.

What remains is that the prophecy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه واله وسلم ended up true and those who wish to deny this by coming up with such absurd responses (and trust me I’ve seen them) only show how far they are going to deny that which is self-evident.

As I began responding to Al-Finlandi’s introduction (besides the two Bible quotes he gives) I shall end this article with a comment on it. As some notable brothers have pointed out and as I’ve alluded to in my rebuttal to his introduction, not only are those silly remarks about the date of the narration in relation to the date of Bukhari  obtuse, but as Zakir Hussain puts it:

“Al-Finlandi should also remember how Bible scholars claim Daniel has even prophecies AFTER THE FACT and one of the ways in which they date the book is by looking at what point the book gets prophecies… wrong.

Will Al-Finlandi reject Daniel?”

And as “Qur’an and Bible Blog” (Mr. Q) adds: “Not only are the “prophecies” in Daniel written after the fact, but the author also still made a major false prophecy.”

To find out what that false prophecy is, I recommend you read his article refuting another Christian missionary, Sam Shamoun on Surah al-Fath: The “Whack-a-Scam” Series: The Alleged “False Prophecy” in Surah Al-Fath

And that’s all from me: السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation