Is Mohammad (pbuh) Deified? [Part – 5]

Is Mohammad (pbuh) Deified?

More refutations to the cliché hoax of Mohammad’s (pbuh) deification

Part – 5 

Question Mark

In part – 4 we responded to the misuses of the Pure Words of Pure Allah (SWT), by doing so we considered all the so called “proofs” which Shamoun had to offer. In this part, which is the final part in the series, we would conclude by looking at the series as a whole and glean how Shamoun failed to establish the alleged divine conjoining of Allah (SWT) and Mohammad (peace be upon him).

Recapitulation and Conclusion

There is not a second belief system on the face of Earth which can show lamp to Muslims about their strict monotheism, however, because Shamoun objected to it we analyzed his argument and found how:

  1. When he appealed to the Du’a made in daily devotion, it backfired against him to further establish that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is not deified in Islam. He mingled two different concepts of praying to and praying for to attack straw – man.


  1. Tawassul also, did not helped him, since:

i)        Requesting to a live and pious human being for prayer to God does not tantamount to any sort of deification.


ii)      However, when Shamoun appealed to Uthman Bin Hunayf Hadith, that is, praying through Prophet (peace be upon him) when he was dead, then we saw the following multiple problems with this argument:

a)      Even on the face of the subject Hadith (Uthman Bin Hunayf (RAA)) it cannot be proven that Prophet (peace be upon him) was deified since, only Allah (SWT) was prayed in the Hadith.


b)      We saw how the subject Hadith contradicted plain teachings of Qur’an.


c)      We also observed how the subject Hadith contradicted (i) stronger Hadiths from (ii) Higher and Senior companions.


d)     Subject Hadith had internal incoherence and contradiction with regards to the known character of Uthman ibn Affan (RAA).


e)      The presence of forgetful Shabeeb ibn Sa’eed Al – Makkee and lying Ibn Wahb shed more doubts on the acceptability of the subject Hadith. Hadith Master, Al – Bukhari also concurred with the non – acceptance from Shabeeb on the same grounds and criterions.


f)       Moreover, when reports on the same matter came from more reliable narrators they did not had the attached story to them and contradicted subject Hadith.


g)      The principal compiler of the Hadith, namely, Imam Tabaranee himself did not include and authenticate it in his higher book – “Al – Kabeer”.


  1. An appeal to “Foot goes to sleep” argument also did not avail much to Shamoun because:

a)      He utterly missed the point that remembering or mentioning name of a beloved does provide psychological relief out of pain or shifts attention away from pain/uneasiness; this does not tantamount to deification.


b)      Ibn Umar’s companion suggested him to remember “man”, and not a Deity, and thus, Ibn Umar rightly remembered – Mohammad (peace be upon him), a human being, a man.


c)      Furthermore, in the chain of narrators we had Abu Ishaaq as – Sabee’ee who was a forgetful narrator and narrated the Hadith after his memory deteriorated and he began to forget. And, as per ruling, Hadiths from forgetful narrators are not acceptable.


  1. Shamoun could not conjoin Allah (SWT) and Prophet (peace be upon him) on the following grounds:

a)      He appealed to Qur’an 9:24, however, he forget to take into account:

(i)     Even Struggling in the way of Allah (SWT) is to be loved above all other allurements.


(ii)   Mohammad (peace be upon him) is to be loved above all other relationships and allurements, not because he is God – Almighty, but because he is God – Almighty’s ambassador on earth. His advices, rulings, orders etc are to be loved above all other options. Verily, in such a scenario, loving him i.e., obeying his injunctions above all other things will not make him co – equal with God.


(iii)  In the subject verse, no capacity of love for individual protagonists was mentioned. Thus, it cannot be claimed that Allah (SWT) and Prophet (peace be upon him) was to be given same degree of love.


(iv) We also saw how absurd it would be to claim conjoining of Allah (SWT) and Prophet (peace be upon him) once we know the context of the subject verse.


b)      Shamoun tried through Qur’an 4:56 to conjoin Allah (SWT) and Prophet (peace be upon him). However, here also he did not consider the following facts:


(i)      We have to fully submit to his injunctions because his injunctions are not his but Allah’s (SWT). Hence it cannot be argued that he is deified.


(ii)   We saw that Mohammad (peace be upon him) is not the only prophetic figure in Qur’an who is to be fully submitted to for his decisions. Earlier prophets (peace be upon them) also had the same authority. Thus, alluding that Shamoun has completely misunderstood the concept of submitting to Prophet’s (peace be upon him) arbitrations, decisions, rulings etc pertaining to Islam.


(iii)  Even in Bible we found figures, prophets and even mere mortals who were made to be submitted for their decisions. If Shamoun would be consistent then he should conjoin them with Father AND Son AND Ghost.



b)      Shamoun could not understand, when he appealed to Qur’an 3:31-32 that by following Prophet (peace be upon him):


(i)     we keep ourselves away from all sorts of sin, including worshipping stocks, stones and deified men; thereby we receive love and forgiveness of Allah (SWT) thus there is no conjoining between the two or deification of Prophet (peace be upon him).


(ii)   In an appeal to Qur’an 3:31-32, he used H  ddHypocrites and misunderstanding Jews:

  • The fact that Shamoun appealed to Hypocrites and mischievous Jews, self explains the strength of his argument.


  • Even an appeal, not to Muslims, but to mischievous Jews and Hypocrites could not help Shamoun’s argument since the very claim which Hypocrites and Jews were making (in the Tafseer) was utterly refuted by Prophet (peace be upon him) in a Sahih Hadith (not in Tafseer) when he exhorted not to exaggerate him in praise as Jesus (peace be upon him) was exaggerated in praise.


(iii)  Shamoun used a Tafseer to support his claim on Qur’an 3:31-32. Nevertheless, he did not pay care to the following points:

  • Prophet (peace be upon him) did not demand worship and/or devotion.
  • Prophet (peace be upon him) demanded respect and veneration which is not devotion and worship. Respect and veneration to a veritable prophet carries more weight, pith and purpose than worship tendered to futile stocks and stones. Thus, his demand for respect for himself was worthwhile.
  • There were numerous grounds for doubting and rejecting the Tafseer which Shamoun did not consider.


  1. Finally, Shamoun claimed that Qur’an 48:8-9 blasphemes Allah (SWT) when it states that Muslims are to assist Him or it deifies Prophet (peace be upon him) by stating to glorify him. However, little that he realized that by assisting Allah (SWT) the verse meant assisting His religion, His cause, His Prophet(s) (peace be upon him) etc thus, there is no blasphemy in it.


We analyzed all the arguments which Shamoun had and found none to stand firm on close analysis. Therefore, we invite Shamoun to come up with better and more substantial arguments the next time he attempts at Islam so that we can have a more concrete discussion otherwise it’s just too easy. Until then, we find peace in that –Mohammad (peace be upon him) is only a Prophet of God, who is neither deified nor worshipped in Islam and Allah (SWT) is our only God whom we worship.



  • All Emphasize wherever not found in original, is ours.
  • All Qur’anic quotations, unless otherwise mentioned, are taken from Yusuf Ali Translation, Al – Alim CD-ROM Version.
  • All Biblical quotations, unless otherwise mentioned, are taken from King James Version, E-Sword Version.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Loton  On October 30, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    A thorough refutation! I personally do not deem it worthwhile to respond to the confused blasphemies of the failed missionary Sam Shamoun but possibly only for the enlightenment of some few non-Muslims who may be misled by this pathetic man. One could very easily figure out the utter misguidiance of Shamoun if one remembers that Shamoun is never a scholar on Islam – he has no qualification whatsoever to make him worthy of notice about anything Islamic. In all of his rantings against Islam, he never has a support from Muslim mainstream scholarship, not even from mainstream non-Muslim scholarship on Islam. Besides, all of his ignorant arguments in his website (Answering Islam) have been adequately addressed in various Muslim and even non-Muslim sites, yet he still cling obdurately to his ignorant arguments. What a desperate missionary!

    • qmarkmark  On October 31, 2012 at 9:32 pm


      I basically respond to Shamoun because there are a hand ful of Christians who believe that he has got some real “proofs” to “expose” Islam.

      In the mean time I always know that he can hardly produce anything except from the half baked “apocryphas” of Islam. For instance, he would portray as if Ibn Ishaq was either God or prophet and Muslims MUST believe it. Lay, emotional Christians see an Arabized name “Ibn Ishaaq” and fall for it to be an authentic Islamic “source”.

      These are some of his modus-operandi.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: