The Najran Pact,

Mobaahelah (Mubahilah)

Part 5

A former christian scholar- Lynette Viviane Burton, known by her new Muslim name, Shifa LV Mustapha, in her renowned book, In Quest of Truth, from Deception to Deliverance- has addressed this distortion regarding the Prophet Ismael (SBUH) beautifully:

The author  draws the reader’s attention to genesis 16 statement 11 in which it is stated that an angel of the Lord said to Hagar -Haajar- (SBUH) who was sitting next to a well: “Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shall call his name, Ishmael (Ismael); because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.” The author then reminds the reader that the name Ishmael means “God Hears”. It is noteworthy to mention that Arabic and Hebrew have many similarities; Ismael is from the root "سمع" meaning to hear.

Here, the author while acknowledging the undeniable fact that it must have been a very great moment for Hagar, points out a few very significant matters: 1) not only had God Himself seen Hagar’s hardships [regarding Sarah’s remarks …], but 2) He had heard her pleas also, and 3) this child, soon to come, was to bear the beautiful name which would forever carry the message “God Hears”. And based on this Biblical statement and subsequent ones the author notes that 4) Hagar must also have been a believer in the God of Abraham.

The author goes on and states: “Then in one of the strangest twists imaginable, the angel of the Lord goes on in verse 12, to tell Hagar further about this son who is to be given the beautiful name “God hears”: “And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him, and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”” The author then mentions that the same verse in the NIV [New International Version of the Bible] gives the wording that he will be “a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility towards all his brothers.”

Expressing her extreme astonishment, the author continues: ““What,” my mother’s heart demands to know, “is the Merciful God doing inflicting further pain on this woman, when His angel has told her that God has heard her misery and that as a result of His Hearing she is to name her son after this very event?  Why would He Who is Most Merciful then proceed to devastate her by telling her that this son will be a wild, stupid man who will never be able to live in harmony?”” Then the author notes a very logical point, she mentions that if this was really what had happened, why would God want such a wild stupid person to carry a name which is so closely associated with Himself?!!!

The author reminds all of us that the maternal love is a gift from Allah to humanity, and that with this Divine gift every mother longs for the very best for her child. Then the author addresses this question: “How then would any mother react to such frightful news sent from the Creator Himself?” The author says that Hagar did not cry out in horror and call upon God to be merciful and retract such a terrible fate for her child, rather as stated in statement 13 of genesis 16 she was delighted!!!

Statement 13 of genesis 16 states: “She [Hagar] gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: ‘You are the God who sees me’ … Therefore the well was called Beer-la-hai-roi, which means, ‘the well of Him that liveth and seeth me’.”

The author points yet to another discrepancy; in previous statements it was said that the angel of the Lord had spoken to Hagar, while in statement 13 it is said that the Lord spoke to Hagar … in any case the author says: “Hagar, it would now appear, according to the Old Testament, was incredibly blessed among the women of this world, for even Sarah did not have the blessing of “seeing” and conversing so directly with God.”

The author then states: “We must also, at this point, question the news passed on to Hagar regarding the nature of Ishmael. Was it really a matter of the faith of Hagar being so strong that she could put aside the terrible pronouncement, or was verse 12, wherein this dreadful decree is recorded, ever part of the original text?  Logically, the contents of verse 13 would only be possible if verse 12 were not in existence. Even so, I am, yet again, struck by the obvious belief and faith of Hagar in God Most Gracious, Most Merciful.”

The last event mentioned in chapter 16 of genesis is the Prophet Ismael’s birth: “And Hagar bare Abram a son and Abram called his son’s name Ishmael.” Therefore, the author states that “according to the biblical text, Hagar must certainly have given Abraham the details of her meeting with the Angel or the Lord, for he complied with the pronouncement regarding the naming of his firstborn.”

The author presents other precise arguments; we invite our friends to refer to her valuable book.

… We therefore see that concealing the identity of the Last Prophet and his Allah Chosen Successors and thus the Last Saviour of humankind (SBUT) has always been on the agenda of Eblis (Iblis, Shaytaan, Satan) and his human and Jin followers. The leaders of jews and christians- tempted and taught by Eblis- through distorting the truth in regard to Hadrat Ismael (SBUH) tried to conceal the identity of Mohammad and Aal of Mohammad (SBUT), the identity of the very Last Prophet and finally the Last Savior of mankind.

Then the jews of Arabia -again obeying Eblis- taught and tempted the two hard working students of Eblis, i.e. AbooBakr (AbuBakr) and ‘Omar (‘Umar); in this regard we cordially invite our friends to read the article: “Watchful Presence of our beloved Mahdi (PBUH)” Part 7, in this site (www.kindfather.com). It is noteworthy to mention that these two’s lineage are also under question; even as stated in sunni documents they are believed to had actually been born of slaves from the area of Abyssinia (Ethiopia, Habashah); in this regard please refer to the article: “Watchful Presence of our beloved Mahdi (PBUH)” Part 2 and its notes, and the article: “Another month of Safar departs while thought-provoking words regarding MARTYRDOM of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUHHP) remain” in this site. In the future Enshaa’Allah we, in other writings, will present more facts related to this issue.

… And indeed the third so-called caliph, ‘Othmaan (‘Uthman) was of the Banu Umayya:

"Uthman was born into the Umayyad clan of Mecca." (Ochsenweld, William; Fisher, Sydney Nettleton (2004). The Middle East: A History (sixth ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.)

Historians have claimed that ‘Uthman was the son of ‘Affaan who was son of Abu al-As son of Umayya.

And as of the rest of so-called muslim rulers, the historians have also claimed that Yazid was son of Mo’aawiyah (Mu’awiah), and Mo’aawiyah was the so called son of AbooSofyaan (AbuSufyan), and AbooSofyaan was son of Harb (Abu ‘Amr), and Harb was so-called son of Umayya. And so on … .

It is also noteworthy to mention that Yazid’s mother was an immoral christian:

Yazid’s Mother: Maysun bint Bajdal al-Kulaibi al-Nasrani. (the sunni ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Ahmad bin Ali; Lisan Al-Mizan: Yazid bin Mu'awiyah)

It is said that the Nasrani (christian) mother of Yazid was extremely beautiful due to which Muawiyah became inclined towards her and married her when he was 52 years old.

But at time of this marriage, she was not a virgin. She had conceived Yazid sleeping with one of her father’s slaves. (Majaales al-Mo’menin, NoorOllah Shooshtari, vol.2, p. 547, as cited in Mehan al-Abraar, translation of Maqtal Behaar al-Anwaar of ‘Allaamah Majlesi, p. 428)

 However it is said that when she conceived Yazid, Muawiyah abandoned her. Hence, Yazid was born in her house in her tribe where she and many other women of immoral character breast-fed him. Yazid grew there. He used to prefer christians to Muslims so much so that for instance for his son Khalid he hired christian teachers.

In addition there are those who report that the slave was Mo’aawiyah’s, for instance Yasin T. al-Jibouri in his book “Karbala and Beyond” writes:

“Maysan had a se xual intercourse with one of Mu'awiyah’s slaves and conceived Yazid by him. Mu'awiyah, in total disregard for Islamic or traditional Arab traditions, claimed Yazid as his son. A testimony to this fact is the well-documented tradition of the Prophet (ﺹ) wherein he said, “The murderer of my [grand]son al-Husain is a bast ard.” This tradition is quoted on p. 156, Vol. 1, of Kanz al-Ummal of [sunni] al-Muttaqi al-Hindi. The stigma of being a bas tard applies actually not only to Yazid but also to both Shimr ibn Thul-Jawshan and Ubaydullah ibn Sa'd, the accomplices …; all of these men were born out of wedlock.”

To be continued …