Saturday, 11 May 2013

A REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIMS IN THE BOOK "Israel and the Prophecies of the Holy Qur’an" – by Ali Akbar

There are numerous claims held by Muslims against Christianity written by different authors and I thought it would be a thing of duty to give response to some of them. They are as follows:

1.     Israel and the Prophecies of the Holy Qur’an – by Ali Akbar
2.     Should you believe in Trinity?- By the WTBT$
3.     The already refuted claim of contradictions in the Bible by Ally Shabbir in a nutshell
4.     The alleged “x rated” pornography in the Bible by Osama Abdallah, e.t.c.

Firstly, I do believe that there are many religions in the world today and even though I believe, as a Christian, that Christ Jesus is the only way to salvation, I still cannot say that a religion is better than another because that is left for the Almighty God to decide.
            These books listed above carry numerous claims against the entirety of Christianity and in order to debunk Christianity, these Authors contradict themselves or what they believe in, misquote sources and add words to a misunderstood aspect of Christianity so that the reader develops a very strong hatred for Christianity and if possible, the followers of the doctrine.
            I will first and foremost, be addressing the book “Israel and the prophecies of the Holy Qur’an” by Ali Akbar. I felt so disappointed after reading this book that in fact, I felt that the name he gave the book was a mistake; he, instead, should have named the book: “Debunking Christianity” if not, what does the name “Israel and the prophecies of the Holy Qur’an” have to do with debunking Christianity? Why those attacks on Christianity? If a Christian says anything against Islam, they [Muslims] immediately give the person a name- “Islamophobic bigot”- not minding the fact that they do the same criticism to others. This man [Ali Akbar] focused solely on trying to debunk Christianity and in most instances, he, misunderstanding what he was trying to refute, condemns a particular belief [Trinity] as polytheism even though in actual sense, it is strict monotheism.
            On page 155 he said:
“I would like to request my Muslim brothers and Sisters not to look upon this book as a fairy tale and discard it but read it again and again WITH A TRUE ISLAMIC MIND...” Why should the Muslim readers read it over and over again with an “Islamic mind” and expect them to know the truth? You [Muslims] accuse Christian apologists of “bigotry” i.e. not wanting to listen to other people’s opinion- when you even urge them to read in a biased “Islamic mind”. Why not with a “true unbiased mind” and see if many of the readers will not note your blatant errors... I hope Mr. Ali would read this book – especially this chapter- and see the very refutation he never taught existed!

            He said Christianity was in fact spread by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, some 325 years after the death of Jesus. He went forth WITH A CROSS IN ONE HAND AND A SWORD IN THE OTHER TO CONVERT PEOPLE TO CHRISTIANITY...” He also said in the same page “CHRISTIANITY WAS SPREAD BY THE SWORD not Islam as they would have people believe” [Page 106- Appendix]
            Since Mr. Ali does not believe in a single word in the Bible [even though he used it in trying to prove his prophet- Chapter 1] so I would be using much of history and little of the Bible. He said “Christianity was spread by the sword and not Islam as they [Christians] would have people believe” which explains the “Cross in one hand and sword in another hand” stuff he was saying. Usually, I’m not an Anti Islam person or a person that is concerned about attacking Islam but for the Sake of the claim he made and the readers out there, I’ll first of all, prove that true Christianity was never spread by the sword and I’ll turn the table round by showing Mr. Ali that Islam was indeed the one with the sword not Christianity.

Christians, in the past, were a set of hated people who were heavily persecutes [along with some Jews] and Christianity was, in fact, given a name in ancient Rome- Superstito [Meaning, the superstition] and underwent trials for not worshiping and offering public sacrifices to their gods.

Cornelius Tacitus [55-120 A.D.], “the greatest historian” of the ancient Rome:
            “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero[the Roman Emperor from around 64 A.D.] fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite TORTURE on a class HATED for their abominations CALLED CHRISTIANS by the populace. Christus [Jesus Christ], whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [Crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition [obviously, he was talking of the resurrection which he discredited as superstition even though the Jews {at that time or perhaps, some now} admit[ted] that his tomb was indeed empty—and so created the rumour that the disciples stole the body from the tomb], thus checked for the moment again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil [the Resurrection, which he regards as superstition, is what he refers to as “evil”], but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and became popular [can Mr. Ali see how Christianity became popular through the resurrection? Was anyone with cross in one hand and sword in the other as he claims?]. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty, then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to THEIR DEATHS. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired...” In fact, if Mr. Ali were a person with feelings in his heart, he would surely realize that Christianity [as the Bible reveals] was indeed founded upon persecution – Starting from the execution of Jesus. [NOTE: This man {Cornelius Tacitus} was in NO WAY a Christian and from the way he wrote this note, he obviously did not have an ounce of consideration for Christianity and there is a saying that goes “If the defender and the prosecutor agree over an issue, that issue is most likely to be true”]

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillias, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian [117-138 A.D.]:
“... After the great fire at Rome [during Nero’s reign]... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new mischievous religious belief” [can Mr. Ali see that Christianity was indeed preached and spread before the birth of Constantine?]

Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:
“you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any rule which can be applied as fixed standard in all cases of nature. No search should be made for these people when they are denounced and found guilty must be punished, with the restriction, however, that the party DENIES HIMSELF TO BE A CHRISTIAN AND SHALL GIVE PROOF THAT HE IS NOT (that is, BY ADORING OUR gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion...” [I still fail to understand how Christianity was spread by the sword when they were, instead, considered as hated heretics. It is obvious that Christianity was indeed widespread during this period and was “incurring some suspicions” – as Emperor Trajan puts it.]

Now let’s look at the spread of Islam:
I really hate to do this. I hate it when I say such things about another religion, but, this is something I think I must do to turn Mr. Ali’s point to the very refutation that he wouldn’t want to see (see Wikipedia: Spread of Islam and count how many times it uses the words "conquest", "war" and so on).

Here's a little something by Samuel Green:

How did Islam first spread from Mecca to the whole of Arabia? In our world today there seems to be three answers to this question.

  1. Some say it spread through the beauty of Muhammad's teaching and example.
  2. Others say that Muhammad spread Islam by the sword.
  3. Finally, others will say that they don't know how Islam spread.
This article provides a brief survey of the different methods Muhammad used to spread Islam. The survey only consults established Islamic historical sources.
Teaching Islam and Reciting the Qur'an
When Muhammad first began to teach about Islam he did so privately and publicly in Mecca.

People began to accept Islam, both men and women, in large numbers until the fame of it was spread throughout Mecca, and it began to be talked about. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 117)
When the Apostle openly displayed Islam as God ordered him his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy, except those whom God had protected by Islam from such evil, but they were a despised minority. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 118)
Narrated Ibn Abbas: When the news of the advent of the Prophet reached Abu Dhar, he said to his brother, "Ride to this valley and bring me the news of this man (i.e. the Prophet) who claims to be a Prophet receiving information from the Heaven. Listen to him and then come to me." His brother set out till he met the Prophet and listened to his speech and returned to Abu Dhar and said to him, "I have seen him exhorting people to virtues and his speech was not like poetry." Abu Dhar said, "You have not satisfied me as to what I wanted." So, he took his journey-food and a water-skin full of water and set out till he reached Mecca, where he went to the Mosque looking for the Prophet, ... He then listened to the speech of the Prophet and embraced Islam on that very spot. (Bukhari: vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 724, Khan)
Muhammad also taught publicly at Arabian markets.

(A)t one of the fairs (markets); and while he (Muhammad) was offering himself to the Arab tribes as was his wont he met at al-'Aqaba a number of the Khazraj whom God intended to benefit. ... (W)hen the apostle met them he learned by inquiry that they were of the Khazraj and allies of the Jews. He invited them to sit with him and expounded to them Islam and recited the Quran to them. Now God had prepared the way for Islam in that they lived side by side with the Jews who were people of the scriptures and knowledge, while they themselves were polytheists and idolaters. They had raided them in their district and whenever bad feeling arose the Jews used to say to them, "A prophet will be sent soon. His day is at hand. We shall follow him and kill you by his aid as 'Ad and Iram perished." So when they heard the apostle's message they said one to another: "This is the very prophet of whom the Jews warned us. Don't let them get to him before us!" Thereupon they accepted his teaching and became Muslims. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 197-198)
Muhammad taught at the resting places for pilgrims on their way to Mecca.

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, remained concealed at Makkah in the first three years of his commission to prophethood. In the fourth year he declared it and invited the people to embrace Islam, continuing it for ten years. In every season (of pilgrimage) he used to approach the pilgrims at their halting places,`Ukaz, Majannah and Dhu al-Majaz, and asked them to protect him so that he might convey to the people the message of his Lord, and in return they would get a place in paradise. But he did not find anyone to support him or respond to his appeal. ... None of the Arabian tribes responded to him. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, pp. 249-251)
Through the method of private and public teaching Muhammad spread Islam. A minority of people accepted him this way. They were not compelled but were impressed by his teaching and accepted him freely. In Mecca, his followers were a "despised minority". The vast majority of the Arabian tribes did not accept him.
Warfare on Non-Muslims
Some of the tribes in the city of Medinah (Yathrib) did accept Muhammad and he moved there for protection. There he began to rule and formed an army. Muhammad began to raid those around him.

Narrated Jabir: The Prophet sent us as an army unit of three hundred warriors under the command of Abu 'Ubaida to ambush a caravan of the Quraish. ... (Bukhari: vol. 7, bk 67, no. 402, Khan)
Muhammad was also involved in defensive and offensive battles. The Arabian tribes who had previously rejected Muhammad were now asked again to submit to him. For most of the tribes this was done by sending a military delegation. Before Muhammad's armies would attack a tribe they would invite them to accept Islam first:

The Apostle of Allah, sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid with four hundred Muslims to Banu al-Harith ... He ordered him to invite them to Islam three times before fighting. ... They accepted what he had called them to. He stayed among them to teach them Islam, its regulations, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of His Prophet. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, p. 399)
... Ali and Ibn al-Musaffa said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) sent us on an expedition. When we reached the place of attack, I galloped my horse and outstripped my companions, and the people of that locality received me with a great noise. I said to them: Say "There is no god but Allah," and you will be protected. They said this. My companions blamed me, saying: You deprived us of the booty. When we came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), they told him what I had done. So he called me, appreciating what I had done, and said: Allah has recorded for you so and so (a reward) for every man of them. (Abu-Dawud: bk. 41, no. 5062, Hasan)
Anas b. Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah used to attack the enemy when it was dawn. He would listen to the Adhan (Islamic call to prayer); so if he heard an Adhan, he stopped, otherwise made an attack. (Muslim: bk. 4, no. 745, Siddiqui)
Muhammad said that he was commanded by Allah to spread Islam this way:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 24, Khan)
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth ... It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse. (Qur'an 9:29-33, Arberry)
It was easy to become Muhammad's enemy. If you did not acknowledge him as your ruler and prophet then you were his enemy. Those who joined Muhammad joined the fight against those who did not accept Muhammad's religion:

Surad Ibn `Abd Allah al-Azdi arrived with about thirteen to nineteen members of his people in a deputation to the Apostle of Allah ... The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, appointed him (Surad) amir of those of his people who had embraced Islam, and enjoined him to wage war against the polytheists of the tribe of Yaman, who were living in the adjoining territories. He set out and alighted at Jurash which was a strongly fortified city and where the tribes of Yaman had taken shelter. He (Surad) invited them to embrace Islam but they declined. He besieged them for a month and used to raid their animals and seize them. Then he retreated to a mountain, called Shakar. They thought that he had fled, and came out to pursue him. He arrayed his forces, and attacked them. Muslims put them to the sword as they liked. They seized twenty of their horses and fought them all day long. The people of Jurash had sent two men to the Apostle of Allah, who were waiting for an opportunity to meet him. The Apostle of Allah, Allah bless him, informed them of this combat and the victory of Surad. The two men came to their people and informed them of the circumstances, along with other incidents. So a deputation of them set out, and they waited on the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and embraced Islam. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, pp. 397-398)
This time of conquest was a great source of pride to Muhammad and his Companions. Many poems were composed to celebrate their victories. Here is a section of a poem that Ka'b b. Malik composed before the Islamic conquest of Al-Ta'if.

If you offer peace we will accept it
And make you partners (with us) in peace and war.
If you refuse we will fight you doggedly. ...
We shall fight as long as we live
Till you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
We will fight not caring whom we meet
Whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. ...
And we cut off their noses and ears
With our fine polished Indian swords,
Driving them violently before us to the command of God and Islam,
Until religion is established, just and straight. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 587-588)
These battles were not self-defence, they were offensive battles whose aim was to spread the Islamic empire and the rule of Muhammad. This was missionary warfare and violent jihad.
Throughout this period of warfare, Muhammad's teaching was still very important. He inspired his soldiers to fight with the promise of paradise. For those who fought there was the promise of forgiveness, status, virgins, expensive clothes, watered gardens with abundant fruit, rivers of wine, milk and honey, slave boys and beautiful houses. Consider these verses from the Qur'an:

O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success. (Qur'an 61:10-12, Al-Hilali & Khan)
This is the similitude of Paradise which the godfearing have been promised: therein are rivers of water unstaling, rivers of milk unchanging in flavour, and rivers of wine -- a delight to the drinkers, rivers, too, of honey purified; and therein for them is every fruit, and forgiveness from their Lord (Qur'an 47:15, Arberry)
Lo! those who kept their duty will be in a place secure amid gardens and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one another. Even so (it will be). And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. (Qur'an 44:51-54, Pickthall)
Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing. (Qur'an 78:31-33, Arberry)
Perfectly We formed them, perfect, and We made them spotless virgins, chastely amorous, like of age for the Companions of the Right. (Qur'an 56:34-35, Arberry)
And there go round, waiting on them menservants of their own, as they were hidden pearls. (Qur'an 52:24, Pickthall)
There wait on them immortal youths. (Qur'an 56:17, 76:19, Pickthall)
Those Muslims who did not fight for Muhammad were not equal in status to those who did:

Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; (Qur'an 4:95, Al-Hilali & Khan)
These promises of Muhammad inspired the Muslims to give their lives towards the spread of the Islamic empire. Consider the example of `Umayr b. al-Humam:

Then the apostle went forth to the people and incited them saying, "By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage advancing not retreating but God will cause him to enter Paradise." `Umayr b. al-Humam brother of B. Salima was eating some dates which he had in his hand. "Fine, Fine!" said he, "is there nothing between me and my entering Paradise save to be killed by these men?" He flung the dates from his hand, seized his sword, and fought against them till he was slain. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 300)
Thus warfare and the preaching of paradise were important methods that Muhammad used to spread Islam. Muhammad did not send out preachers and evangelists instead he sent out armies.
Warfare on Muslims
Muhammad's use of warfare was not just aimed at non-Muslims. On some occasions he called for war on Muslims. This was part of the way he strengthened the hold of Islam on the early Muslims community.

O you who believe! Observe your duty to Allah, and give up what remains (due to you) from usury (interest), if you are (in truth) believers. And if you do not, then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger. And if you repent, then you have your principal (without interest). Wrong not, and you shall not be wronged. (Qur'an 2:278-279, Pickthall)
The context of the above verses is that some Muslims wanted to get the interest that was still owed to them before they became Muslims. They are warned that if they seek this interest then Allah and Muhammad will make war on them. We see a similar command in 9:73.

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. (Qur'an 9:73, Pitckthall)
The context here is that Muhammad is calling the Muslims to Jihad. Some of the Muslim tribes do not want to fight, therefore, they are called hypocrites and Muhammad is to fight against them until they join the Jihad. Muhammad had their mosque burnt down.

The owners of the mosque of opposition had come to the apostle as he was preparing for (to attack) Tabuk, saying, "We have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for nights of bad weather, and we should like you to come to us and pray for us there." He said that he was on the point of travelling, and was preoccupied ... and that when he came back if God willed he would come to them and pray for them in it. When he stopped in Dhu Awan news of the mosque came to him, and he summoned Malik b. al-Dukhshum ... and Ma'n b. `Adiy ... and told them to go to the mosque of those evil men and destroy and burn it. ... and then the two of them ran into the mosque where its people were and burned and destroyed it and the people ran away from it. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 609)
In sura 33 Muslims are again called hypocrites and threatened with war if they continue to question Muhammad's moral and military judgement.

If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge you on against them, then they will be your neighbours in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter. (Qur'an 33:60-61, Pitckthall)
In sura 49 Muhammad is commanded to fight Muslims until they "return unto the ordinance of Allah".

And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable. (Qur'an 49:9, Pickthall)
In sura 66 those Muslims who questioned what Muhammad was doing are called hypocrites and were to be treated harshly.

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end. (Qur'an 66:9, Pickthall)
Muhammad commanded the true Muslims to make war on those Muslims who did not stop using alcohol.

Narrated Daylam al-Himyari: I asked the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! we live in a cold land in which we do heavy work and we make a liquor from wheat to get strength from it for our work and to stand the cold of our country. He asked: Is it intoxicating? I replied: Yes. He said: You must avoid it. I said: The people will not abandon it. He said: If they do not abandon it, fight with them. (Abu Dawood: bk 26, no. 3675, Hasan)
To conclude, Muhammad used warfare on Muslims who questioned him or did not follow the laws he gave. They were called hypocrites. In this way Muhammad strengthened and spread the influence on Islam on the newly converted tribes.
Money and Gifts
Warfare was not always the best option for Muhammad. As he gained wealth he also used money and gifts to spread Islam.

Narrated Anas: The Prophet gathered some people of Ansar and said, "The People of Quraish are still close to their Pre-lslamic period of ignorance and have suffered a lot, and I want to help them and attract their hearts (by giving them the war booty). ... (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 59, no. 623, Khan)
Narrated Abu Said: Ali sent a piece of gold to the Prophet who distributed it among four persons: Al-Aqra' bin Habis Al-Hanzali from the tribe of Mujashi, 'Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, Zaid At-Ta'i who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Nahban, and 'Alqama bin Ulatha Al-'Amir who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Kilab. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, "He (i.e. the Prophet) gives the chief of Najd and does not give us." The Prophet said, "I give them so as to attract their hearts (to Islam)." (Bukhari: vol. 4, bk. 55, no. 558, Khan)
The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. On hearing this Malik came out ... and rode off to join the apostle ... He (Muhammad) gave him back his family and property and gave him a hundred camels. He became an excellent Muslim. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 593)
After Muhammad had conquered Mecca he ordered the alms money (zakat) be used for certain purposes. One of these purposes was to encourage people to embrace Islam:

The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled (to Islam). (Qur'an 9:60, Pickthall)
Commenting on "those whose hearts are to be reconciled", Ibn Kathir writes:

There are those who are given alms to embrace Islam. For instance, the Prophet of Allah gave something to Safwan bin Umayyah ... (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, p. 455)
... Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave one hundred camels to Safwan b. Umayya. He again gave him one hundred camels, and then again gave him one hundred camels. Sa'id b. Musayyib said that Safwan told him: (By Allah) Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave me what he gave me (and my state of mind at that time was) that he was the most detested person amongst people in my eyes. But he continued giving to me until now he is the dearest of people to me. (Muslim: bk. 30, no. 5730, Siddiqui)
Thus sometimes Muhammad used money and gifts to spread Islam.
Some tribes did not respond to warfare or money. Ibn Ishaq records how Muhammad used the fear and intimidation generated from assassinations to convert a tribe:

Abu `Afak ... showed his disaffection when the apostle (Muhammad) killed al-Harith b. Samit ... The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. `Umayr, ... went forth and killed him. ... (`Asma d. Marwan) was of B. Umayya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. ... When the apostle heard what she had said, he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he (Muhammad) said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her," ... The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of (tribe of) Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 675-676)
Thus, sometimes Muhammad used the method of assassination to convert a tribe to Islam.
Sometimes Muhammad did not use compulsion to spread Islam.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error. (Qur'an 2:256, Yusuf Ali)
The apostle sent out troops in the district around Mecca inviting men to God: he did not order them to fight. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 561)
But on other occasions he did use and approve of compulsion.

He (Muhammad) said: "Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn't it time that you recognize that I am God's apostle?" He answered, "As to that I still have some doubt." I (Abbas) said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 547)
Abu Bakr said: "You asked me for the best advice that I could give you, and I will tell you. God sent Muhammad with this religion and he strove for it until men accepted it voluntary or by force." (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 668-669)
... When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 59, no. 643, Khan)
Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Bukhari: vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17, Khan)
Thus on some occasions Muhammad used and approved of compulsion to spread and keep people in Islam.
Muhammad needed a lot of money to finance the expansion of his religion and empire. One of the richest cities in the region was the Jewish city of Khaybar. The Jews there did not accept Muhammad as a prophet or his claim to rule over them. After Muhammad had conquered Khaybar we read what he did to get their riches to finance his jihad.

Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure (of Kaybar), ... was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came ... to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515)
Thus Muhammad sometimes used torture to finance the spread of his religion and empire.
Destroying the Ka'bas and Shrines
The Ka'ba in Mecca was not the only ka'ba in Arabia. There were other ka'bas and shrines that the Arabs would make pilgrimage to during the year. Muhammad spread Islam by destroying these other ka'bas and making the Islamic worship at Mecca the only option for the Arabs.

Jarir bin 'Abdullah narrated: There was a house called Dhul-Khalasa in the Pre-lslamic Period and it was also called Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya. Allah's Apostle said to me, "Will you relieve me from Dhul-Khalasa?" So I left for it with 150 cavalrymen from the tribe of Ahmas and then we destroyed it and killed whoever we found there. Then we came to the Prophet and informed him about it. He invoked good upon us and upon the tribe of Ahmas. (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 160, Khan)
Then the apostle sent Khalid to al-`Uzza which was in Nakhla. It was a temple which this tribe of Quraysh and Kinana and all Mudar used to venerate. ... When Khalid arrived he destroyed her and returned to the apostle. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 565)
Destroying Independent Mosques
Muhammad commissioned the construction of many mosques. However, on one occasion an independent group built a mosque and invited Muhammad to it. These Muslims did not want to fight in Muhammad's Jihad. Muhammad had their mosque destroyed.

The owners of the mosque of opposition had come to the apostle as he was preparing for (to attack) Tabuk, saying, "We have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for nights of bad weather, and we should like you to come to us and pray for us there." He said that he was on the point of travelling, and was preoccupied ... and that when he came back if God willed he would come to them and pray for them in it. When he stopped in Dhu Awan news of the mosque came to him, and he summoned Malik b. al-Dukhshum ... and Ma'n b. `Adiy ... and told them to go to the mosque of those evil men and destroy and burn it. ... and then the two of them ran into the mosque where its people were and burned and destroyed it and the people ran away from it. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 609)
Thus Muhammad spread his Islam by making his mosques the only option.
Rejecting Other Prophets
At the same time that Muhammad was claiming to be a prophet there were men from other tribes who claimed to be prophets too. These men and their tribes accepted Muhammad as a prophet but Muhammad did not accept these men as prophets. During this time these tribes had two prophets: Muhammad plus their own.
During his life Muhammad as not able to kill these other prophets but when he died his followers killed them. This will be shown in section 5. Thus Islam spread by making Muhammad the only option for a prophet.
Muhammad spread Islam by making the transition from the pre-Islamic religion to Islam easy. He did this by making very few changes to it. The idols were removed and people now had to submit to him, but nearly all of the other practices remained the same. In practice Islam is very similar to the pre-Islamic religion. Here are a few examples.
Muhammad initially continued the pre-Islamic time for fasting:

Narrated 'Aisha: 'Ashura' (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of Quraish used to fast in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance. The Prophet also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Medina, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura. (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 172, Khan)
As-Safa and Al-Marwa
The pre-Islamic religion also had a special walk that was done between the mountains of Safa and Marwa in Mecca. Muhammad continued this practice too. Again, some of the early Muslims were uncomfortable with this and thought that this pagan practice should be stopped. Later Muhammad transformed the meaning of these mountains to be "symbols of Allah":

Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Did you use to dislike to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa?" He said, "Yes, as it was of the ceremonies of the days of the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance, till Allah revealed: 'Verily! (The two mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who performs the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, or performs 'Umra, to perform Tawaf between them.'" (2.158) (Bukhari: vol. 2, bk. 26, no. 710, Khan)
The Black Stone
The pre-Islamic religion was animistic with special attention to sacred stones.

Narrated Abu Raja Al-Utaridi: We used to worship stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter, but if we could not get a stone then we would collect some earth (i.e. soil) and then bring a sheep and milk that sheep over it, and perform the Tawaf around it. ... (Bukhari: vol. 5, bk. 59, no. 661, Khan)
The most sacred stone in the pre-Islamic religion was the Black Stone. It was part of the Ka'ba in Mecca. Even though the worship of stones is animistic Muhammad continued this practice. Some of the early reformer Muslims found this very uncomfortable.

Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said: "Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, 'By Allah! I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching (and kissing) you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you.' Then he kissed it and said, 'There is no reason for us to do Ramal (a special style of walking) (in Tawaf) except that we wanted to show off before the pagans, and now Allah has destroyed them.' 'Umar added, '(Nevertheless), the Prophet did that and we do not want to leave it (i.e. Ramal).'" (Bukhar: vol. 2, bk. 26, no. 675, Khan)
But for the majority of the early Muslims being able to continue their previous practice of venerating the Black Stone made it easy for them to accept Islam and so Islam spread.
Incantations were part of the animistic pre-Islamic religion. Muhammad allowed this practice to continue as long as the incantations were transformed to be Islamic:

'Auf b. Malik Ashja'i reported We practised incantation in the pre-Islamic days and we said: Allah's Messenger, what is your opinion about it? He said: Let me know your incantation and said: There is no harm in the incantation which does not smack of polytheism. (Muslim: bk. 26, no. 5457, Siddiqui)
Thus Muhammad spread Islam by making an easy transition from the pre-Islamic religion to Islam. He did this by retaining most of the animistic pre-Islamic practices.

Narrated 'Aisha: Whenever Allah's Apostle ordered the Muslims to do something, he used to order them deeds which were easy for them to do ... (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 19, Khan)
Animistic Blessings
Many hadiths record that Muhammad and his followers believed that substances from his body had special powers to bless people. This is a pre-Islamic animistic belief. The early Muslims venerated Muhammad's saliva, ablution water, sweat, hair and possibly even his urine (1, 2).

... (I)f he (Muhammad) spat, the spittle would fall in the hand of one of them (i.e. the Prophet's companions) who would rub it on his face and skin ... (Bukhari: vol. 3, bk. 50, no. 891, Khan)
Narrated Mahmud bin Ar-Rabi': I remember Allah's Apostle and also the mouthful of water which he took from a bucket in our house and ejected (spat on me). ... (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 12, no. 801, Khan)
Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I saw Allah's Apostle in a red leather tent and I saw Bilal taking the remaining water with which the Prophet had performed ablution. I saw the people taking the utilized water impatiently and whoever got some of it rubbed it on his body and those who could not get any took the moisture from the others' hands. ... (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 8, no. 373, Khan)
Narrated Abu Hazim: ... A man among his companions, seeing him (Muhammad) wearing it (a sheet), said, "O Allah's Apostle! Please give it to me to wear." The Prophet said, "Yes." (and gave him that sheet). ... That man said, "I just wanted to have its blessings as the Prophet had put it on, so I hoped that I might be shrouded in it." (Bukhari: vol. 8, bk. 73, no. 62, Khan)
Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) came to the house of Umm Sulaim and slept in her bed while she was away from her house. ... She came and found him sweating and his sweat falling on the leather cloth spread on her bed. She opened her scent-bag and began to fill the bottles with it. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) was startled and woke up and said: Umm Sulaim, what are you doing? She said: Allah's Messenger, we seek blessings for our children through it. Thereupon he said: You have done something right. (Muslim: bk. 30, no. 5762, Siddique)
Abu Bakr reported: (Muhammad called for) the barber and, pointing towards the right side of his head, said: (Start from) here, and then distributed his hair among those who were near him. (Muslims: bk. 7, no. 2992, Siddique)
Muhammad continued the practice of venerating the marabout (holy man) with himself being the object of veneration. This practice is often mistakenly said to be "folk Islam" and not genuine Islam, however, Muhammad clearly accepted his veneration. This was part of the way Muhammad spread Islam.
Venerated in Prayer
Though Muhammad is dead he is venerated and addressed in the Islamic prayer (salaat).

As Salaamu 'alaika ayyuhan nabiyyu wa rahmatul laahi wa barakaatuh
Greetings to you, O Prophet, and the mercy and blessings of Allah. (Salaat)
Venerating saints/marabouts was a pre-Islamic practice that Muhammad continued with himself. This made Islam easy for his followers and helped to spread it.

(Immediately after the death of Muhammad) The situation that Abu Bakr faced on assuming the caliphate was very grim. Many tribes apostatised from Islam and refused to pay Zakat. Many false prophets rose throughout the length and breadth of Arabia, and many people offered allegiance to them. The argument that weighed with them was that a living prophet was to be preferred to one who was dead. (Prof. Masud ul-Hasan, The History of Islam, vol. 1, p. 97)
The following is a summary of Prof. Hasan's account of the wars against these apostate Arab tribes.
The Arab tribes around Medina were prepared to stay Muslim but they did not want to pay the Zakat (tax) to the Islamic authorities. These tribes tried to attack Medina but were repelled. Abu Bakr chased and conquered them and took their land.
Abu Bakr then turned his attention to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, much of which had now chosen to leave Islam.
To the north of Medina was the tribe of Asad. They followed their prophet Taleaha. The Muslim forces marched against them and defeated them at Buzakha. They then returned to Islam.
Next the Muslim forces marched to the tribe of Fazara and fought at Zafar. The Muslims won and the defeated tribe offered submission and was readmitted to Islam.
The tribe of Sulaim were attacked by the Muslim forces and defeated. Their leader Abu Shajra was captured and taken to Medina were he accepted Islam.
The Muslims force marched against the tribe of Tamim. This tribe offered no resistance nor did they offer submission. Their leader was killed and his wife married by the Islamic general, Khalid. The tribe then accepted Islam.
The tribe of Hanifa was led by the prophet Musaylima. The Muslims fought hard against this tribe and finally won though they suffered a great number of casualties. Once Musaylima was killed and the tribe subdued they accepted Islam.
After this battle Abu Bakr sent an army to Bahrain. In Bahrain a new king had come to power and he rejected Islam. There was much internal fighting. The Muslims tried to conquer them but were not successful until reinforcements arrived. Having been defeated, the people of Bahrain repented and were admitted to the fold of Islam.
In Oman, Laquit ibn Malik was the prophet. A Muslim force was sent against him. Laquit and ten thousand of his followers were killed. Then the people of Oman reconverted to Islam.
In Mahrah there was civil war with the death of Muhammad. The Muslims sided with the weaker party and fought with them. When this region was conquered the people of Mahrah repented, and were reconverted to Islam.
In Yemen there was a prophet called Aswad Ansi. He had a large following. The Muslim forces marched against them, defeated them and killed Aswad. Once defeated, this region returned to Islam.
At Hadramaut the people resisted Islamic rule. The Muslim forces conquered them and they were readmitted to the fold of Islam.

The apostasy campaigns began in August 632 C.E. and these operations were over by February 633 C.E. Within the short space of six months, Abu Bakr succeeded in exterminating apostasy and winning back all the tribes in Arabia to the fold of Islam. (Prof. Masud ul-Hasan, The History of Islam, vol. 1, p. 102)
Thus when Muhammad died the Islamic empire fragmented and many of the Arab tribes left Islam. They did this for various reasons. Some didn't want to pay tax to Mecca/Medinah, others wanted to follow their own prophet for they did not see Muhammad as the final prophet. Muhammad's companions compelled these tribes to return to Islam. This is how Islam spread and established itself in Arabia.
How did Muhammad spread Islam? As this survey demonstrates he used many methods. These included teaching Islam, reciting the Qur'an, warfare, money and gifts, assassinations, compulsion, torture, removing other religious options and incorporating much of the pre-Islamic religion into Islam. After Muhammad's death his companions continued some of these methods. It is wrong to exaggerate any one of these methods; Muhammad used all of them to spread Islam.
Sulaiman Abu Dawud, Sunan Abu-Dawud (translator: Prof. Ahmad Hasan).
Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali & Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Translation of the meanings of the Noble Qur'an in the English Language Madinah: King Fahd Complex. 1419 A.H.
Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (translator: Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan).
Prof. Masud-ul-Hasan, The History of Islam, Delhi: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 2002, 2 volumes.
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (translator: A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged), Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000, 10 volumes.
Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, (translator: S. Moinul Haq) New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2 volumes, no date.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim (translator: Abdul Hamid Siddique).
Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an, Delhi: Crescent Publishing House, 1985.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning Of The Holy Quran, Maryland, U.S: Amana Publications, 2004.

Ali makes it sound like Christianity was spread around the fourth century by Constantine which is another utter error he made. He is perhaps, unaware of the spread of Christianity or is just trying to be deceitful to his readers...

Here's what the Wikipedia says:

The history of Christianity concerns the Christian religion, its followers and the Church with its various denominations, from the first century to the present.

Christianity emerged in the Levant (now Palestine and Israel) in the mid-1st century AD. Christianity spread initially from Jerusalem throughout the Near East, into places such as Syria, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Asia Minor, Jordan and Egypt. In the 4th century it was successively adopted as the state religion by Armenia in 301, Georgia in 319,[1][2] the Aksumite Empire in 325,[3][4] and the Roman Empire in 380. It became common to all of Europe in the Middle Ages and expanded throughout the world during Europe's Age of Exploration from the Renaissance onwards to become the world's largest religion.[5] Today there are 2 billion Christians, one third of humanity.[6] Christianity divided into the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church in the Great Schism of 1054. The Protestant Reformation split the Catholic Church into many different denominations. (Emphasis mine) It goes on to say:

During its early history, Christianity grew from a 1st-century Jewish following to a religion that existed across the entire Greco-Roman world and beyond.

Early Christianity may be divided into 2 distinct phases: the apostolic period, when the first apostles were alive and led the Church, and the post-apostolic period, when an early episcopal structure developed, and persecution was periodically intense. The Roman persecution of Christians ended in AD 313 under the reign of Constantine the Great, who in 325 prompted the First Council of Nicaea, the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils. 

From the above, we see that Mr. Ali was utterly wrong in that silly claim and if he was actually thinking that Christianity was indeed spread around 325 A.D by Constantine the Great, then he surely has mistaken Roman Catholicism for true Christianity and I think he really needs to do more, independent research.
            As a young boy of 17- still very much a learner- I do not believe in biased learning. A person learning in a biased way is no more different from a person who is still an illiterate [Fact not insult]. Therefore, I urge Mr. Ali to make a better research next time because these claims are ridiculous!
            There is a popular saying amongst Muslims and Mormons- “Jesus was never a Christian, Therefore, Christianity is false”... This statement is made by people who do not even know the meaning of the word “Christian”. What does the word “Christian” stand for? It stands for “being Christ-like”, “following Christ”, “Representing Christ”, e.t.c. It is foolish to ask “was Jesus a Christian?” when you know fully well that Jesus could not have been a follower of Jesus could he? No of course! Therefore, that is not a proof but ignorance... Christianity coined from what the disciples were called during the times they preached the message that was given to them by Jesus Christ himself. Acts 11:26 says “...The disciples were called Christians in Antioch” because they were the followers of Christ, his teaching and his example. Christianity [the followership not the name] started when Jesus said to two fishermen “Come with me and I will teach you how to catch people”- and they followed him at once [Matthew 4:19]... They “followed him”- Followed who? Christ! Therefore, they were followers of Christ, in other words, Christians!. Christianity is all about “Catching people”- bringing them out of the fire into salvation it is not a religion where you MUST pay homage or do pilgrimage to a certain place, grow goatees, e.t.c. It teaches that the REAL homage, pilgrimage, worship and friendship you can have with God is in your heart that is why Apostle Paul regarded true circumcision as “circumcision of the heart” i.e. repentance, new life, being dead to sin and alive to new righteousness. He never discredited the normal circumcision rite as many misunderstand him to have done.
            Mr. Ali went further to attack the Christmas as “birth day of the Eastern son-god Mithra, who was Persian-born and said to be of virgin birth”. Who told you [Ali] that Christmas was a Christian doctrine? Have you ever heard a Pastor say “If you don’t celebrate Christmas, you will go to hell”? Of course, we openly admit that Christmas had a pagan origin but it was/is never a necessity in Christianity. In fact, this same Ali who made it clear that the “Mithra” was said to be of virgin birth believes [as the Muslim Qur’an says] that Jesus was actually of virgin birth- Q.3:45- and as a Muslim, he would not say that the virgin birth aspect of the story applies to Jesus and in other words, saying that it was of pagan origin would he? He surely wouldn’t! So why the pagan-Christian talk? You said in Page 132 “If Christian dignitaries are questioned concerning the similarities between Christianity and the above-mentioned son-gods and the Hindu Trinity, their answer will be the same as always, that Satan introduced the religion of Jesus Christ to the ancient pagan idolaters before the advent of Jesus on this earth to confuse the whole truth...” Oh! If that answer is not convincing, then what would be your answer if you are questioned about the virgin birth of Jesus being similar that of the Persian-born Mithra since your own hand writes “birth day of the Eastern son-god Mithra, who was Persian-born and said to be of virgin birth? I would like to know how you would defend it if it is raised against your own Qur’an that agrees with the fact that Jesus was of virgin birth [Q.3:45]. You hold on to the “son-god” and “Christmas” aspect of the story as pagan but ignore the ‘virgin birth’ aspect of it because calling it pagan would be same as calling your beloved prophet a liar and not from God. Therefore it is left for you to either choose all or leave all AND DON’T BE BIASED!
            Mr. Ali said again “the prophet Jesus, who was a Jew, held Saturday as the Sabbath Day, but present-day Christians hold it on Sunday, as do the followers of pagan religions” Oh Ali! Why contradict your Qur’an this way? I’ll answer your claim word-by-word. [1] “Prophet Jesus was a Jew” how do you explain the verse in you Qur’an that says that he was a Muslim? Your own hadith says “They [Isa and the Mahdi] will break the Cross [Christians] and kill the swine [Jews]” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 7039) would he kill the “swine” that followed the religion he followed? You accept the part of the Bible that says that he was a born Jew but EVEN YOU and your religion rejects that he practised Judaism but says that he practised Islam? What’s the reason for this blatant contradiction? You Muslims do not take Saturday [Sabbath] as your holy day do you? But you just said that he held Saturday as the Sabbath Day and in Islam, there is in fact NO SABBATH since Allah did not rest after the creation [on the seventh day]. How do you explain how Jesus was both a Jew and a Muslim at the same time? Was he a fake Jew and true Muslim OR true Jew and fake Muslim??? These are the things people do to their beliefs- they debunk it in attempt to debunk another.
             Sabbath is still on Saturday; never changed, never will change. Sunday is the continuous celebration or service of the resurrection NOT A NEW SABBATH! [2] “But present-day Christians hold it on Sunday, as do the followers of pagan religions” What pagan religions? Does it make Islam pagan if I start up a pagan religion today and take its holy day to be Friday? Having resemblance in practise does not mean anything at all. Are you aware that every day [Sunday to Saturday- Roman dates] had/has a god behind its naming which means this gods were worshipped on these days since it was dedicated to them?- Is Friday not among them? If we hold the same logic Mr. Ali holds [that resemblance with a pagan religion makes it pagan], then EVERY religion on earth today will be pagan. And since, I’m pretty sure that Mr. Ali disagrees to this silly logic, then why stick to the ‘pagan talk”? – You to your religion, me to mine [that’s what the Qur’an says- Q.109:6]
            In the same page, Mr. Ali said “Mary is worshipped and called Mother of God” then he made reference to the Buddhist temple having idols and compared them to the Roman Catholic Church generalizing it as Christianity. He also said “Hindus look upon the water of Jumna as holy water... Christians look upon the water of river Jordan as holy water...”
            My simple response is: Ali made a blatant error [I would not say he lied] in saying that Catholics worship Mary and those “images” or “idol” [as he prefers to call them] are not being worshipped but being revered just as Muslims revere Al hajar Al aswad [the black stone attached to ka’aba] and both the Catholics and the Muslims kiss their stuffs. Any difference? No of course! It’s still reverence-reverence and since he calls the images “idols”, then I will call it idolatry-idolatry! Can you [Ali] see how much hurt you are causing to you beloved religion? Just as you give reverence to Al hajar Al aswad, Catholics give reverence [not worship] to the images in their churches... Should we call one, idolatry and ignore the other? No! Leave theirs alone and yours will be free [NOTE: catholics worship only God].
            Concerning the Hindu holy water, Jumna and River Jordan, My answer to you is. [1] To this very day, a large number of pagans who grow goatees to at least, a fist length as a custom in their religion existed/exist on earth and Mullahs do the same in Islam. Are you pagans as they were/are? [Answer that]. [2] You know fully well that before the advent of Muhammad, the Ka’aba in Mecca was filled with about 360 idols [worshipped as gods] and hajj was well practised among these pagans to please their deities i.e. the circumambulation of the ka’aba and al hajar al aswad was one of the idols that in habited the ka’aba [in other words, worshipped]. Does this mean that your religion is a continuation of these pagan practices and since Al hajj is one of the main pillars of Islam, does this make Islam more pagan than those that take Jordan as holy water- which is not even a necessity?
            He said “a large number of deaths and resurrections coincided with the Christian Easter day” could you please give us an example? Oh! I can see you going to that Atheist that said “Jesus did not exist”, “His virgin birth is pagan”, “His record has no place in history”, e.t.c. I’m I right? Since he, in the same utterance, said all these words, should we believe what he believed? OK! Let’s go on and believe what he believed and tell me if you own Islamic doctrine will not be affected. Are you also aware that history holds that some of the Indians fasted when the moon was out and ended the fasting with a feast on sighting the moon before the advent of Muhammad- which coincides with the Ramadan so much that the months are even around the same time (see post: Ramadan pagan origin and it's roots)? Does this mean that Ramadan is also pagan?  Easter (the date) is pagan! Christmas (the date) is pagan! Is that what you want to hear? Oh yes! They are pagan because they are not Christian doctrines! Is Ramadan pagan also? I’m sure you do not reject the fact that even though you don’t accept the death and resurrection, you do not reject the virgin birth, do you?
            I laughed really hard when I read the Hindu-Christian comparison he made in his page 131-132 and of course, it is about the “Trinity issue”. It  has been made clear that the two are in no way the same NOT EVEN THE NUMBER THREE that these critics hold on to... Hindus worship Brahman in infini-unity NOT Trinity and in fact, there is no religion in the world that does not have a counterfeit [even the Unitarians have loads of them – before and after existence]. So as we all have noticed, Mr. Ali did his research with an “Islamic mind” and not with an unbiased mind so “Mr. Ali, if you are reading this book, I really urge you to do more research. And this time, not with an “Islamic mind” but with a mind that is not sentimental and I promise that you will find out the truth for yourself and not these absurdities I’m seeing in your book”...h


            A sudden hoax came up from amongst the Anti Trinitarians and even some Trinitarians [followers of YHWH] concerning the Hindu deity and the supposed similarity to YHWH. Most Anti Trinitarians especially Mr Abdallah Osama [the gentleman who runs] made real fun of YHWH’s Trinity in one of his posts calling it in short words, pagan-inherited and even went so far to call Trinitarian Christians “pagan Trinitarian Christians [attacking the believers not the doctrine]” in one of his posts and there are many other Anti Trinitarians who do the same to the Trinitarian doctrine. This hoax has led many weak believers in the Holy Trinity into apostasy and has made the Anti Trinitarians more mischievous in their evil act.

            The idea that the Hindu “trinity” was being inserted into Christianity and in other words, calling Christianity pagan displays nothing but stark ignorance of what the true Trinitarian doctrine teaches. These Anti Trinitarians fail to note that before Christianity, Islam, Arianism, and so on, there were pagans who believed in strict Unitarian monotheism and did not believe in Trinity. What would you call me if I point to Islam, Judaism and other Unitarian beliefs as pagan just because of the resemblance in belief? A fool right? Well, that is what you are for calling Trinitarian Christians pagan because of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity [Regardless of the Twinities {Two in one}, Quadrinities {Four in one} and so on but looking for the pagan “trinities”].
            A question one really needs to ask these Anti Trinitarians is “What does the doctrine of Trinity teach?”... The Hindus themselves know and say that Brahman’s “trinity” is far different from YHWH Trinity. The Table below lists the differences between YHWH’s Trinity and Brahman’s so called Trinity:
Name, Meaning and substance
YHWH Elohim [The LORD God] is ONE [Echad, unified] {Deuteronomy 6:4}. The oneness is seen in three divine persons {personas}. Therefore, YHWH’s Trinity can be defined as ONE God [oneness in substance] that exists in three different forms or persons [The Father, Son and Holy Ghost] without difference in plan or agreement. And note: there is no other god with/beside him [Deuteronomy 32:39] e.g. they, as ONE [Isaiah 44:24] are the creator - Revelations 10:6, John 1:3 and Job 33:4. And in unity, these THREE Personas of YHWH make up one God.
Brahman’s expression is shown in three main and distinct gods alongside all other numerous subordinate gods [difference in substance] –tritheism and rank polytheism in the guise of monotheism- these three main gods are: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva [different names from YHWH’s]. Brahma is creator, Vishnu is preserver while Shiva is destroyer – neither Vishnu nor Shiva was involved in the ‘creation’. And even if they- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva- come together in unity, they still do not from the complete Brahman because Brahman is also seen in other smaller deities than they.
YHWH is one- no other god is true [Isaiah 45:18] - This is strict monotheism. 1 John 5:7 [KJV] says the three [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] are one – this is Trinity. Therefore, Monotheism in unity – Trinity in unity
Brahman can be said to be one – revealed in three main gods alongside several others – i.e. the Hindus worship more gods apart from the three main gods and even say that their numerous gods are all expressions of one Brahman. IS THIS TRINITY? This has graduated from unified tritheism [three gods] into infini-unity [many gods in one] NOT trinity and is in other words, Rank polytheism in unity.
YHWH the Father has the same form with YHWH the Son and the YHWH the Holy Spirit in entity and image just as they [as ONE] made man to be like them- Gen 1:26-27 - [in unity] – Soul, body and spirit [1 Thessalonians 5:23]
Brahman is impersonal. Brahma, the ‘creator’ has FIVE heads, four arms and perhaps two legs, Vishnu; the ‘preserver’ has four arms likewise Shiva, the ‘destroyer’. It is crystal clear that Brahman did not ‘make’ the Hindus to be like him [Brahma, the ‘creator’] or else, the Hindus would be nothing but Monsters [having Five heads and four arms]
Carved/not carved
YHWH Elohim gave an explicit order “do not make for yourselves images of anything in heaven or on earth or in the water above the earth. Do not bow down to worship them...” [Exodus 20:4-5] therefore, trying to get him carved will result to disobedience since carving him is a sin. Therefore Christians worship YHWH Elohim in faith.
Brahman of course cannot even speak, hear or give orders [because he is impersonal] so the Hindus carved his expressions in extreme monstrosity in order to be close to him and see him [seeing is believing –the heathens say]. Therefore, the Hindus worship Brahman at sight and not in faith
            He said again “The drinking and eating of bread and Holy Communion is another practice of the Christians, and the wine and the bread symbolizes the blood and flesh of Jesus (Allah forbid.)” Does this man even know the meaning of that event? He takes every word in the Bible word-for-word as if he were reading a story book. Jesus is described as the “word of God” in John 1:1-14 and when Jesus said “my Flesh and my Blood”, he did not literally mean his physical body even though he used the word “is” [“esti” in Greek]. It, of course symbolizes the “sharing of the word”, “eating of the word”- Just as Ezekiel ate the scroll God gave him in Ezekiel 3:1-2, he [Jesus] gave Himself- the word of God- to the disciples to “eat and drink” as Ezekiel did and when he said “DO THIS IN THE MEMORY OF ME”, He meant “share the word to others to “eat” after he had left the Earth” [Matthew 28:19] all this events are very symbolic. So when he said “Allah forbid”, he was least aware that he was saying “Allah forbid that the word of God be shared” in other words, calling Allah the Anti Christ! So he has once again, out of misunderstanding, uttered a foolish statement.
            He said “There is nothing in this verse [Matthew 28:19-20] which confirms the Doctrine of Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co equal and co-eternal...” Go to the chapter of Trinity and get the instant refutation to this claim. He said again “...Another verse, “These three are one” (1 John 5:7) is recognized as spurious and is the addition of a copyist inserted long after John’s time...” Mr. Ali, do I need to quote Q.2:111 for you to know that you have to provide proof (see post: Johannes Comma and here)? Go to the Trinity chapter and see the refutation to the claim. He continues “Another text in support of this theory may be noted briefly here. This is:
            “‘When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the word was. The word, then, was with God at the beginning’ (John 1:1-2). This verse is translated differently. According to the translators of the centenary Bible it should read:
            “In the beginning was the Word. The word was near God, and the Word was a divine being. He was in the beginning near God”. This translation is substantially different, and does not give the least support to the Doctrine of Trinity...” Now we see how Mr. Ali poses as both a Qur’an and a Bible expert here. He quotes a Centenary Bible translation and fails to tell us the true source of this quotation. Take a look at the refutation to this silly, unscholarly argument:
            Firstly, I know Mr. Ali probably only knows English, Arabic and his local dialect so I’ll write out the Greek word used in this verse which is more than just a century old: “...Theos en ho Logos” which translates as “the Word was God” not “God was the word” [the verb “en” shows that ho Logos is the subject] and in fact, Mr. Ali showed dishonesty in writing “ should read” when he knew fully well that among the centenary translations, this one he quoted was one among the few that had it this way. Why did he choose to quote this particular one that no single reputable scholar seems to agree with? Of course! It was to suit his purpose. If Mr. Ali were an unbiased thinking person, he would see that in that translation, the words “the word was near God” was repeated twice in the same quotation and makes the whole thing sound like a tautology... Let’s take a look at what the Early Church Fathers believed:
             Ignatius: Bishop of Antioch [c. 105 A.D.]:
God was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life [1:58] continue in initiate union with JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD [1:68] I pray for you happiness forever in OUR GOD, JESUS CHRIST [1:96]
            Justin Martyr [150 A.D.]:
He deserves to be WORSHIPPED AS GOD AND AS CHRIST [1:229] For Christ is King, Priest, GOD, LORD, Angel [Meaning – Messenger in Hebrew] and Man [1:221] The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the First begotten Word of God IS EVEN GOD [1:184]
            Irenaeus: Bishop of Lyons [c. 185 A.D.]:
... Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, GOD, LORD, KING ETERNAL, and the INCARNATE WORD [1:449] GOD, then WAS MADE MAN and the Lord Himself save us [1:451] He IS GOD for His name IMMANUEL indicates this [1:452] Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the Living, WHO SPOKE TO MOSES... [1:467]
            Clement of Alexandria [c. 195 A.D.]:
He [Jesus] is God in the form of Man... THE WORD WHO IS GOD, Who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand. And with the Form of God, HE IS GOD [2:210]
Tertullian Carthage [c. 213 A.D.]- the first to coin the word “Trinity” (Latin- Trinitas, the cognate of Greek- Triados)
“...In whom THE TRINITY [Trinitas], of the ONE DIVINITY: FATHER, SON AND HE HOLY SPIRIT” [4:99 cf. Against Praxeas] This opened the ears of CHRIST OUR GOD [3:715, cf. IBID]
            [ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson 1885-1887; Reprint, 10 Vols. Peabody, MA. Hendrickson, 1994]
        From the above, it is interesting to see that Mr. Ali and other Anti Trinitarians are nowhere to be found concerning whether the Early Christian Church Fathers taught the doctrine of Trinity and some of them most likely had been with some of the disciples [e.g. Ignatius] and being with them even quoting what John wrote i.e. Jesus [the Word] is God. This means that Jesus actually taught them so and all Muslim are wrong in saying that the Bible has been corrupted because what we see from these quotations is what we have today. So let me quote other Bible translations and Greek scholars to further open the eyes of Mr. Ali Akbar:


Douay - "and the Word was God".
Rotherham - "and the Word was God".
King James Version - "the Word was God".
Jerusalem Bible - "and the Word was God".
The New Life Testament - "the Word was God".
The Berkley Version - "and the Word was God".
New Translation (Darby) - "the Word was God".
Modern King James Version - "the Word was God".
Revised Standard Version - "and the Word was God".
American Standard Version - "and the Word was God".
The New International Version - "the Word was God".
Numeric English New Testament - "the Word was God".
The New American Standard Bible - "and the Word was God".
The New Testament in Basic English - "and the Word was God".
Young's Literal Translation of the Bible - "and the Word was God".
The New Testament in Modern Speech (Weymouth) - "and the Word was God".
The New Testament in Modern English (Montgomer) - "and the Word was God".
The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips "that word, was with God, and was God".


A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 Theos en ho Logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.
E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for Theos en ho Logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.
C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho Theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.
C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of - Theos en ho Logos will be that the ousia of ho Logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated Theos... That is the ousia of ho Theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.
Henry Alford: "… the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in Theos en, Theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that. He was very God. So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681
Randolph 0. Yeager: "The article with Logos shows that to Logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that Theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of Theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God… The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

            Are your eyes opened now Mr. Ali? Or do you still want more proofs that Jesus is God and indeed taught so??? Please do more research and this time, make it vast not “Islamic minded”.
            Mr. Ali again goes further to talk concerning the corruption of the Bible, and then he quotes a verse in the Qur’an that says “Woe! Then to those who write the Book with there hands and say: This is from Allah” [Q.2:79]. I still do not know how this very verse says that the Bible has been corrupted or not from God. In fact, Mr. Ali made a fool of himself when he wrote that that same “corrupted” book which is not from Allah prophesied the coming of Muhammad [alongside some other scriptures belonging to religions he later regarded as pagans]. What sort of hypocrisy is this? You use a scripture when it suits your purpose and when it is no longer useful, you condemn it as “not from Allah”.  That’s very funny. Now, let us assume this verse was actually talking about the corruption of the Bible. Your Qur’an says "And dispute ye not with the people of the book [Christians and Jews] but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you." [Q.29:46] what came down to the people of the book? From where did it come down? From men above? If Q.2:79 were referring to the corruption of the Bible [which you believe that Muhammad came to the world to replace], then why would Muhammad tell you to believe in something already corrupted (since the manuscript used today predates Muhammad's period)? Doesn’t your own Qur’an say: "There is none that can alter the words of Allah" [Q.6:34] (and according to you, the "tawrat" and "injil" were once Allah's words)? If Muhammad was referring to the corruption of the Bible in that very verse you quoted, then you have just created a fatal contradiction in your Qur’an.
            In the chapter one of his book titled “The Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) Foretold in Ancient Scriptures”, the first verse in the Bible he made reference to as “a prophecy of his Prophet” was Deuteronomy 18:15-18 which says [quoting the one he used]: “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet FROM THE MIDST OF THEE, OF THY BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO THEE; unto him shall ye harken. According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of assembly, saying, let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me. They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO THEE and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him” he then went on to say “our prophet is evidently foretold...” then was referring to the among their brethrenas the Ishmaelites... This is absolute nonsense! He was very well able to see “among thy brethren” but not able to see from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto thee” from the midst of who? Of course it is from the midst of the people he [by God’s guidance] led out of Egypt- the Israelite. Was Muhammad an Israelite? Of course not! Jesus even confirmed it that it was Him that Moses talked about –Luke 24:44 therefore, this argument is refuted! Mr. Ali went further to give the very refutation to his argument, he said “in promising to raise up a prophet, God tells Moses “I will raise up a prophet from among their brethren.” But, according to Deuteronomy 34:10, there did not arise a Prophet since from among Israel who was like unto Moses. There can be no doubt about the fact that the promised prophet must have been Muhammad...”. This man just brought out the very verse that even refuted his argument that is why somehow, he did not quote the verse to the reader so that his reader will stand convinced that since he quoted other verses in the Bible, therefore, he could not have been wrong. Deuteronomy 34:10 does not say that “there will never be a Prophet like Moses from Israel” this man loves to misquote that is why he refused to quote what the verse actually said. What does it say? It says “THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a Prophet in Israel like Moses; the LORD spoke with him FACE-TO-FACE...” I’m very sure Mr. Ali has seen where the refutation is. The verse said “THERE HAS NEVER BEEN” not “THERE WILL NEVER BE” and of course; it was saying that the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled at that time. DID MUHAMMAD EVER SPEAK TO ALLAH FACE TO FACE OR HAS MUHAMMAD EVER SEEN GOD? 

Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 93, Number 477:
Narrated Masruq:

'Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar, for Allah says: 'No vision can grasp Him.' (6.103) And if anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for Allah says: "None has the knowledge of the Unseen but Allah."

Bukhari: Volume 6, Book 60, Number 378:
Narrated Masruq:

I said to 'Aisha, "O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?" Aisha said, "What you have said makes my hair stand on end ! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three things, he is a liar: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, is a liar." Then Aisha recited the Verse:

'No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous Well-Acquainted with all things.' (6.103) 'It is not fitting for a human being that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.' (42.51) 'Aisha further said, "And whoever tells you that the Prophet knows what is going to happen tomorrow, is a liar." She then recited:

'No soul can know what it will earn tomorrow.' (31.34) She added: "And whoever tell you that he concealed (some of Allah's orders), is a liar." Then she recited: 'O Apostle! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord..' (5.67) 'Aisha added. "But the Prophet saw Gabriel in his true form twice."

This is very clear and obvious that Muhammad was not like Moses but instead was even, from this description, less than Moses. Jesus, on the other hand, has seen God [the Father] - John 1:18 [and made him know during his incarnation-John 1:14 and 1 Timothy 3:16] and even greater than Moses – Hebrews 3:1-6 it is very clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of that Prophecy. He reads “Another prophecy of prophet Isaiah... “He saw two riders, one of them was a rider upon an ass, and the other a rider upon a camel, he harkened diligently with much heed” it was Isaiah who saw the riders in a vision. IN OUR OPINION the above passage is the faithful rendering of the original Hebrew. In the English Bible, however, it is translated thus: “he saw chariot of asses and a chariot of camels, e.t.c.” the vulgate has it as follows: “he saw a chariot of two horsemen, a rider upon an ass and a rider upon a camel, e.t.c” [quoting Isaiah 21:7]...the rider upon the ass is Jesus Christ because he so made entry into Jerusalem and the rider of the camel is meant the prophet of Arabia,... the prophet Muhammad (peace be unto him!) entered into the Holy City riding on a camel and ten thousand of his followers behind him” This is the kind of person I like to refute! First and foremost, he quoted the whole verse out of complete context and thank God he said IN HIS OPINION, that the Hebrew he quoted was the original so I do not have to give that much shut. Had he said that it was the actual original, then my response would have been disgraceful to him. This very verse is neither a Prophecy of Jesus nor of Muhammad but the attack of Babylon. Let’s take the whole chapter 21 of Isaiah bit-by-bit my comments are in [ ]:
                        ANALYSING ISAIAH 21:
1.     THIS IS THE MESSAGE ABOUT BABYLONIA: [why Babylonia? I don’t know... Let’s read on] Like a whirlwind sweeping across the desert, disaster will come from a terrifying land.
2.     I have seen the vision of betrayal and destruction. ARMY OF ELAM ATTACK! [Army of Elam? Why Elam?] Army of Media, lay siege to the cities! [This sounds like a literal war to me] God will put an end to the suffering which Babylon has caused.
3.     What I saw and heard in the vision has filled me with terror and pain, pain like that of a woman in labour.
4.     My head is spinning, and I am trembling in fear. I have been longing for evening to come, but it brought me nothing but terror [I still don’t understand why Isaiah would be terrified if he was actually seeing the coming of two Prophets except if he was seeing war coming AND if Babylon symbolized sin in this passage, then why was Isaiah terrified at seeing its destruction?].
5.     In the vision a banquet is ready: rugs are spread for the guests to sit on. They are eating and drinking. Suddenly the command rings out “officers prepare your shield!” [This looks like they are waiting for some guests who are to come at the same time, aren’t they?]
6.     Then the LORD said to me “Go and post a sentry, and tell him to report what HE SEES [Hmn! It’s A MAN who is to report what he sees and of course, he would not see one and wait for some 570 years to see another, would he?]
7.     If he sees riders on horsebacks, tow by two, and riders on donkey and camels, he is to OBSERVE THEM careful [He is not to observe one then wait for 570 years to observe another. Why?]...{Emphasis and caps mine}

Here's a little something from Answering Islam team:

Isaiah 21:

13   The burden upon Arabia. 
     In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, 
     O ye travelling companies of Dedanim.
14   The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him 
     that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.
15   For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, 
     and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.
16   For thus hath the LORD said unto me, Within a year, according to the
     years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail:
17   And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the
     children of Kedar, shall be diminished: 
     for the LORD God of Israel hath spoken it.
Before I answer to some of the details of the Muslim argument included below, let me urge you to read the wider context of this passage. This is part of the general announcement of God's punishment on several nations, which is listed in the chapters 13-24 of the Prophet Isaiah. It is certainly not impossible to have a "positive" prophecy in the midst of the oracles of judgment, but the whole context does for sure not make that our expectation when we read through this whole sequence. Nor do the words in this prophecy really look any different from all the "Judgment of God on the nations" oracles that come before and after this specific text. Let me first give you this text in an easier to read modern translation. I would recommend you to get maybe the NIV [New International Version] translation if you indeed are interested to do more reading in the Bible. I also am not a native speaker of English, and the KJV you are using is by now very archaic language [since this translation was done in 1611 if I remember right].
Isaiah 21:

13   An oracle concerning Arabia: 
     You caravans of Dedanites, who camp in the thickets of Arabia,
14   bring water for the thirsty; 
     you who live in Tema, bring food for the fugitives.
15   They flee from the sword, from the drawn sword, 
     from the bent bow and from the heat of battle.
16   This is what the Lord says to me: 
     "Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, 
     all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end.
17   The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar, will be few." 
     The LORD, the God of Israel, has spoken.
The Muslim argument is indented in the following.
    1. Here Isaiah is saying that Arabia is the site of this Prophecy or incident, (Muhamad appeared in Arabia). Arabia is a clear name for present day Arabia.
No problem with that. The problem is, that this is not a passage about a prophet who will appear. There is no person singled out for special mentioning. Yes it is about Arabia, and about the fact that the Assyrians (?) will attack the Northern Arabian tribes and will destroy their pomp and reduces their army to a small band. Sargon, king of Assyria is mentioned in 20:1 and most of the judgements described in these chapters are fulfilled in Sargon's military advancements. And in 715 B.C. Sargon also attacked the Northern Arabian tribes. This is probably the background / fulfillment to the prophecy.
    2. The prophecy speaks of " him that fled " (We know that Muhamad fled from Mecca to Medina when the Pagan`s hostilities were very serious and the Prophet and his followers were in great danger). The Bible mentions Tema as a part of that prophecy. According to a Bible dictionary, Tema is an Area close to a city called Medina in the Arabian Penninsula, see J. Hasting dictionary of the Bible.
Yes, Tema is in Northen Arabia, but, if God wanted to make a clear prophecy about Muhammad, why did he not mention Yathrib [the name of the city of Medina before Muhammad]? I wonder why he did NOT say Yathrib if he really meant Yathrib? It would have been just as easy to say Yathrib as it was to say Tema.
Also, all these prophecies give the clear impression of near judgment, and don't seem to be talking about something 1300 years away. Isaiah was speaking as a prophet about 740-681 B.C. and these prophecies seem to be spoken around 720 B.C. plus minus a number of years.
    3. "fled from drawn swords" (Muhamad fled from Mecca while his house was sourrounded by his deadly enemies who stood there, drawn swords in hand. The striking thing is that the exact situation of the Pagan meccan surrounding the prophet`s house has happened. This is a recorded and undisputed history. This Event or incedent was the beginning of what it was known as Hejra where the Muslim calender starts).
Well, there is the phrase of "They flee ... from the heat of the battle" in verse 15. Although Muhammad and his companions did flee from Mekka to Medina, because their life was threatened, there was no battle at this time. Their fear was assassination, but not a raging battle.
    4. " whithin a year... all the glory of Kedar will fail... The mighty men of Kedar shall diminish" This prophecy was fulfilled in the Battle of Badr which occurred within a year from the flight of Muhamad from Mecca to Medina,and in which battle the Quraish of Mecca / Kedar. [Kedar is the son of Ishmael ] sustained a crushing defeat, most of their mighty men fell. The information that I have provide about that Period of Islamic history is a documented historical facts tha appears in books witten by Western, non-mulsim, and muslim writers. I am assuming that you have a knowledge about that period of Islamic history because its associated with the subject that your web site deals with.
Is Kedar = Quraish? I am not so sure about that. And though the Mekkan's were mainly Quraish as it seems, still, it was the opposition to Muhammad that was defeated, not Quraish as such. Mekka and the Quraish tribe as the custodians of Mekka were blossoming again soon after it was claimed for the Muslims, something that doesn't have any affinity to this prophecy either.
    Please tell me what is the Bible view of that prophecy and how was it was fulfilled in history. Who were the people who fullfied it and what historical books that can support your answer. I am searching for historical recorded facts that I can compare the other point of view to that was question.
I don't have all the dictionaries here I might want to look up on this. The footnotes in my Bible and the small commentary I have suggest that the Assyrians under Sargon were defeating not only the Northern Arab tribes around 715 B.C. but most of this wider area of the Middle East. And that totally fits the whole series of prophecies given in Isaiah 13-24.
If you would want to apply it to something else, then there would need to be strong similarities identifying the prophecy with this other incident and that is just not given.
There is not stress on "him who fled" in this prophecy, it is just "a fugitive" as Young's literal translation has it.
It doesn't give the right destination of Medina, in fact it isn't about any specific journey from point A to point B, it is about flight of an army from the stronger army and that it happens in Northern Arabia and the people of Tema [modern Teyman] are supposed to provide the fugitives with food. Was that something they did for Muhammad? Not something that I heard of either.
Okay, that is about all I can say at this point. Anybody with more knowledge is invited to provide more details.
A more detailed discussion of this text.

It is very clear that this is not a Prophecy of Jesus or Muhammad but of something that took place long before their advent. It is true that the term “Babylonia” could be symbolic like that of the Book of Revelation but the book of Revelation explained the meaning of what it was actually saying and my comment at the end of verse four explains better. Babylonia, in this passage, is the Babylonia city itself. When the city of Babylon was destroyed, history records that the Army of Elam, Media, Persia [perhaps], Greece, e.t.c. were involved in its destruction, in other words, fulfilling the prophecy. In the banquet, we see that are spread for the guest [of verse 7] to sit on when they arrive [this debunks the entirety of Mr. Ali’s claim because this verse is talking about an event that will take place at once and is not saying that one will happen and another will be subsequent]. Even the verse 7 of the one he says is, IN HIS OPINION, the original says that the sentry “SAW them” in other words, at the same time! Jesus and Muhammad did not come at the same time of course and the siege talked about it verse 2 refutes it all. Was Jesus a warrior or what? I don’t know about Muhammad but of course, Jesus never raised a sword to kill anyone during his time on earth but was in fact beaten which is even a reverse of the case of the above passage. It can be claimed that the verse above is symbolical but the truth is that, from a careful study of the Bible, from Isaiah to Jeremiah, one would notice that both of them talked mostly about the capture of Jerusalem and the fall of Babylon even though there were instances where Jesus was prophesied. Therefore, argument refuted!
He went on to talk about the already refuted “Comforter issue” of Muhammad in the same page. Go to my dialogue with Ibrahim in the chapter of “the Holy Spirit” and see the exact refutation to this allegation.
After all the Bible “prophecy” allegations, Mr. Ali then moved further to other scriptures such as the Sutras [Buddhist scripture], the Vedas [Hindu scriptures] and e.t.c. I’m not interested in trying to give any argument over those ones [I am not an Anti Islam person so the refutation {or no refutation} stays with the owners of the scriptures not me]. But wait a minute Mr. Ali, did you not call the Hindus and Buddhists idol worshippers i.e. pagans or heathens? Now I see you saying that your prophet was prophesied in their scriptures. Do you mean that your prophet was prophesied in a pagan scripture?
[NOTE: He made mention of the Torah {Jewish scriptures} which I did not talk about because it is part of the Bible i.e. the Old Testament]
I’m very sure that by now Mr. Ali and other readers are better convinced that your prophet, Muhammad is nowhere in the Bible so you can shift those false assumptions to other scriptures but as for the Bible, there is no place for you. I’m sorry.

1 comment:

  1. This "Mr Ali"you refer to died a few years back whom is my great grandfather i do not like the way you speak of him in this post and would appreciate it if you removed it out of respect and its Mr Akbar as Ali is his first name if you were smart you would have noticed his name on the book Ali Akbar not Akbar Ali