بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

The $20, 000 challenge by the morally imbecile lot at PYEM Ministry is a reflection of not merely their hatred towards the messengers of God but even their will to stoop down to attack the characters of His representatives on Earth.

Even though making a mention of a blasphemy is not a blasphemy in itself, still I would prefer not to reproduce their filth on my page. You can find all that HERE.[1]

The Hadith in question:

Now the Hadith these people play with goes as;

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: " لَوْ أَنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ إِذَا أَرَادَ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ أَهْلَهُ، فَقَالَ: بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ، اللَّهُمَّ جَنِّبْنَا الشَّيْطَانَ وَجَنِّبِ الشَّيْطَانَ مَا رَزَقْتَنَا، فَإِنَّهُ إِنْ يُقَدَّرْ بَيْنَهُمَا وَلَدٌ فِي ذَلِكَ لَمْ يَضُرُّهُ شَيْطَانٌ أَبَدًا "

Ibn ‘Abbas reported Allah’s Messenger may Allah bless him, as saying: “If anyone who means to have intercourse with his wife says, “In the name of Allah. O Allah, keep us away from the devil and keep the devil away from what Thou has provided us,” should it be ordained that a child be born to them thereby, no devil will ever harm it.” (Sahih Bukhari)

Meaning of the phrase “no devil will ever harm it”:

The key point in this Hadith is the phrase, “no devil will ever harm it.” Scholars have interpreted it in different ways as recorded in Fath al-Bari by Hafiz Ibn Hajr.

However the most correct opinion is that through his life such a child will be immune to most dirty attacks by the devil. In the words of al-Dawudi, “Devil will not turn him from his religion to disbelief.” (Fath al-Bari 9/229) i.e. even if he may err at times he will not fall into disbelief or completely overtaken by the devil.

1- This is testified by the fact that in some reports the wording is;

لَمْ يُسَلَّطْ عَلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ

“Devil will not overpower him.” (Musnad Ahmad Hadith 2597, etc.)

2- In one report the wording is;

فَلَا يُصِيبُهُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَبَدًا

“So the devil will not trouble him ever.” (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 10465)

3- In one narration Hassan al-Basri (d. 110 A.H.) after the mention of supplication said;

فَكَانَ يُرْجَى إِنْ حَمَلَتْ أَوْ تَلَقَّتْ أَنْ يَكُونَ وَلَدًا صَالِحًا

“It is thus hoped that if she delivers he will be a righteous child.” (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 10467 Albani said its chain is Sahih. see discussion in Silsala Da’ifa 12/603)

4- The fact that Hadith narrations explicitly use the word  أَبَدًا i.e. “forever,” implies it is about a lifelong phenomenon and not an instantaneous one.

All these points establish the meaning that we said is the most correct one.

If one says that to a scholar like Ibn Hajr another opinion is the most correct one, then answer is simply that it was a mistake on his part as will become evident from the following lines.

Alleged report from Mujahid:

Now let us come to the alleged report from Imam Mujahid (d. 104 A.H.) that Hafiz Ibn Hajr has quoted in Fath al-Bari and about which the wicked souls at PYEM Ministry are quite excited.

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) in his Tafsir says:

حدثني محمد بن عمارة الأسدي، قال: ثنا سهل بن عامر، قال: ثنا يحيى بن يَعْلَى الأسلميّ عن عثمان بن الأسود، عن مجاهد، قال: إذا جامع الرجل ولم يسمّ، انطوى الجانّ على إحليله فجامع معه

“Muhammad bin ‘Ammara al-Asadi reported to us. He said, Sahl bin ‘Aamir said, Yahya bin Ya’la al-Aslami reported from ‘Usman bin al-Aswad and he from Mujahid who said: “When a man has intercourse and does not say Bismillaah, the Shaytaan wraps himself around his penis and has intercourse along with him.”  (Tafsir al-Tabari 23/65)

The report is weak according to rules of reporting:

The very first thing to note is the fact that it is not proved from Mujahid –may Allah have mercy on him. The chain of narrators has serious issues and makes it fall too below the acceptable level.

Its narrator Sahl bin ‘Aamir [al-Bajali] has been accused of lying by Abu Hatim. Al-Bukhari said he is rejected. (Lisan al-Mizan 3/119)

The narrator Yahya bin Ya’la al-Aslami is without doubt an unreliable narrator. (See Taqrib al-Tahdhib 1/598 No. 7677)

And Muhammad bin ‘Ammarah al-Asadi is Majhul (i.e. with unknown details). See Silsala Da’ifa No. 5777.

Shaykh Albani has discussed the status of this report in detail in his work Silsala Da’ifa (No. 5777) and he comments;

“It is a truncated, weak and dark chain.”

A report in whose chain of authorities we find an unknown narrator, a well known weak narrator and a liar, can never be evidence to any effect, at least not in the House of Islam. And the way Hafiz Ibn Hajr referred to it simply shows he never checked its authenticity. That was a lapse, a huge one!

It contradicts the original Hadith under discussion:

This extremely dubious narration is even against the Hadith under consideration because it makes it appear to refer to particular time of the union between a man and his wife while the Hadith clearly uses the word أَبَدًا i.e. “forever.”

Now there is a report attributed to one of the early scholars which is not only unreliable according to rules of reporting but also does not even go with the words of the Prophet and there is another report from another early scholar (Hassan al-Basri) which is reliable and is even in consonance with the words of the Prophet –may Allah bless him. Which one should be accepted?

Denying the antecedent:

Now let us see what the Hadith says and what it does not.

The Hadith says, “If the name of Allah is pronounced at the time of union between husband and the wife, their child will not be harmed by the devil.”

The Hadith does NOT say, “If the name of Allah is not pronounced at the time of union between husband and the wife, there child will be harmed by the devil.”

So pronouncing the name of Allah will save the child from devil’s attacks but if the name is not pronounced the child may or may not be a affected by devil.

To dogmatically conclude the inverse from a statement –as the PYEM people do- is a logical fallacy known as “Denying the antecedent” or simply the “inverse error.”

What else can you expect from Trinitarians!

Conclusion:

1- The report from Mujahid –may Allah have mercy on him- is not proved from him. It comes through an unknown, an unreliable and a liar narrator. Such a report is no evidence in the House of Islam. It also highlights the fundamental difference between the way Islamic and Christian traditions have come down to the respective adherents today. While we Muslims can check the veracity of reports not only from the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- but from even from the second generation people like Mujahid and Hassan al-Basri, on the Christian side even the gospel narratives can never be checked to any effect.

Himself a Christian apologist, Thomas Hartwell Horne, accepted;
"The accounts left us by the ecclesiastical writers of antiquity, concerning the times when the Gospels were written or published, are so vague, confused, and discordant that they lead us to no solid or certain determination. The oldest of the ancient fathers collected the reports of their own times, and set them down for certain truths; and those who followed adopted their accounts with implicit reverence. Thus traditions, true or false, passed on from one writer to another, without examination, until it became almost too late to examine them to any purpose." (The Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures Vol. IV, Part II, Section II, p. 229 pub. E. Litteli, Philadelphia, 1825)

2- The believers of the most illogical and absurd religious concept of Trinity resort to illogical ways to reach their dirty ends.

3- It is actually their religious tradition to spill out internal wickedness and attack the Prophets. They have only showed their nature in the “challenge.”

It was the same morally imbecile nature that made their elders in the ancient times to concoct blasphemous stories about the incestuous relation between, Prophet Lot -may Allah bless him- and his daughters, and of illicit crave of David for the wife of Uriah, to mention just a couple of instances from the extensive filthy and blasphemous content of the “Holy” Bible. They did not even refrain from putting Parez, the product of incestuous relation between Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who played harlot with him into the genealogy of their alleged god incarnate Jesus , may Allah bless him- the man who was supposed to have no genealogy. And what more, they put all such thoughts into a book they attribute to God –Exalted is Our Lord above all what they say!

Considering what they have done to “their own” prophets and even their god, it is nothing shocking to find them crossing all limits in attacking the Noble Prophet Muhammad (May Allah bless him) –who by virtue of his teachings has affectively frustrated the plans of Satan who perverted the true religion of Christ through his stooge, Paul of Tarsus.

I have answered this because it is cunningly misleading and some of my dear friends asked me to take it upon myself to respond. Otherwise to me, the best answer to these people can be aptly put in the followings words of classical Arab poet al-Mutannabih.

والسيف أبلغ وعّاظ على أمم

“To many people sword is the most eloquent speech.”

Indeed Allah knows the best!

[1] Last accessed on August 24, 2011 -03:25 AM GMT