360 Joints or the IGNORANCE of Jochan Katz & Osama Abdallah

Is it About 360 “Joints” or it is About Sadaqa صدقه?

 

By: Shahid Bin Waheed شاهد بن وحيد

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمدلله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء وسيدالمرسلين نبينا محمد صل ا لله عليه وعلى آله واصحابه وازواجه اجمعين - امابعد

Thanks to be Allaah, Sustainer of the Universe, and blessing and salutation to be the most distinguish of the Messengers and foremost among the Prophets, our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allaah be on him and on his wives, children and Companions.

 

Long time ago Murtadd Osama Abdallah wrote a brief absurd article by misquoting the English translation of a Hadeeth حديث while making some highflying claims way out of proportion. As that article became the laughingstock, it also gave an opening to Abraha Jochan Katz of website “answering-islam” to attack Murtadd Osama Abdallah, but when Abraha Jochan Katz attacked the Hadeeth حديث, Prophet Muhammad صلی الله عليه وسلم and Islaam using his usual forgeries, shills’ while concealing his functional illiteracy about Islaam, he asked for this refutation. In this refutation, I will inSha Allaah trash these two Kuffar and will prove them to be forgers, liars and ignorant, again.

 

Murtadd Osama Abdallah quoted the erroneous English translation of Hadeeth حديث that I reproduced below:

 

"Aisha reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Every one of the children of Adam has been created with three hundred and sixty joints; so he who declares the Glory of Allah, praises Allah, declares Allah to be One, Glorifies Allah, and seeks forgiveness from Allah, and removes stone, or thorn, or bone from people's path, and enjoins what is good and forbids from evil, to the number of those three hundred and sixty-four, will walk that day having removed himself from Hell. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Zakat (Kitab Al-Zakat), Book 005, Number 2199)"

 

Murtadd Osama Abdallah is ignorant of Islaam and Arabic, he possess no quality and capacity beside copy and paste English translations of Glorious Qur’aan and Hadeeth then injecting his absurd and idiotic claims. Had he bothered to read the Hadeeth حديث in question being objective, he would have noticed an obvious scrivener’s error that I have highlighted in yellow above. Let us look at the original Hadeeth حديث,

 

Sahih Muslim

Analysis(classification): Marfu

SADAQA INCLUDES ALL TYPES OF GOOD ACTS

حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو تَوْبَةَ الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَةُ يَعْنِي ابْنَ سَلَّامٍ عَنْ زَيْدٍ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا سَلَّامٍ يَقُولُ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ فَرُّوخَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَائِشَةَ تَقُولُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِنَّهُ خُلِقَ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ عَلَى سِتِّينَ وَثَلَاثِ مِائَةِ مَفْصِلٍ فَمَنْ كَبَّرَ اللَّهَ وَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَهَلَّلَ اللَّهَ وَسَبَّحَ اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ اللَّهَ وَعَزَلَ حَجَرًا عَنْ طَرِيقِ النَّاسِ أَوْ شَوْكَةً أَوْ عَظْمًا عَنْ طَرِيقِ النَّاسِ وَأَمَرَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ نَهَى عَنْ مُنْكَرٍ عَدَدَ تِلْكَ السِّتِّينَ وَالثَّلَاثِ مِائَةِ السُّلَامَى فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي يَوْمَئِذٍ وَقَدْ زَحْزَحَ نَفْسَهُ عَنْ النَّارِ قَالَ أَبُو تَوْبَةَ وَرُبَّمَا قَالَ يُمْسِي و حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الدَّارِمِيُّ أَخْبَرَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَسَّانَ حَدَّثَنِي مُعَاوِيَةُ أَخْبَرَنِي أَخِي زَيْدٌ بِهَذَا الْإِسْنَادِ مِثْلَهُ غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ أَوْ أَمَرَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ وَقَالَ فَإِنَّهُ يُمْسِي يَوْمَئِذٍ و حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ نَافِعٍ الْعَبْدِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ كَثِيرٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيٌّ يَعْنِي ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ سَلَّامٍ عَنْ جَدِّهِ أَبِي سَلَّامٍ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ فَرُّوخَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَائِشَةَ تَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خُلِقَ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ بِنَحْوِ حَدِيثِ مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنْ زَيْدٍ وَقَالَ فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي يَوْمَئِذٍ

[1007] 'A'isha رضى الله عنها narrated that the Allaah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said:  “Allaah has created in every man 360 joints, so whoever declares the magnificence of Allaah, praises Allaah, declares Allaah to be One, Glorifies Allaah, and seeks forgiveness from Allaah, and removes stone, or thorn, or bone from people's path, and enjoins what is good and forbids what is evil, to the number of those three hundred and sixty joints, will walk that day having removed himself from Hell.” Abu Taubah said: “will enter the evening” (i.e. ‘enter into evening’ instead of ‘walk’).

 

The number {of Joints} in Arabic is in green text and is the same. Also, we get further confirmation that the number is 360 by use of عَدَدَ تِلْكَ (to the number of those) removing every shadow of doubt and/or any discrepancy in number. If it were 364 (three hundred sixty-four) then in Arabic it would have stated like اَرُبَعَةُ السِّتِّينَ وَالثَّلَاثِ مِائَةِ , but we know that there is no اَرُبَعَةُ  for four {4} in original Hadeeth حديث I have cited above. Let me quote other Ahadeeth, which are also mentioned by Murtadd Osama Abdallah.

 

Sahih Muslim

Analysis (classification): Marfu

SADAQA INCLUDES ALL TYPES OF GOOD ACTS

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا مَهْدِيُّ بْنُ مَيْمُونٍ حَدَّثَنَا وَاصِلٌ مَوْلَى أَبِي عُيَيْنَةَ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ عُقَيْلٍ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ يَعْمَرَ عَنْ أَبِي الْأَسْوَدِ الدِّيلِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ أَنَّ نَاسًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالُوا لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ذَهَبَ أَهْلُ الدُّثُورِ بِالْأُجُورِ يُصَلُّونَ كَمَا نُصَلِّي وَيَصُومُونَ كَمَا نَصُومُ وَيَتَصَدَّقُونَ بِفُضُولِ أَمْوَالِهِمْ قَالَ أَوَ لَيْسَ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ مَا تَصَّدَّقُونَ إِنَّ بِكُلِّ تَسْبِيحَةٍ صَدَقَةً وَكُلِّ تَكْبِيرَةٍ صَدَقَةً وَكُلِّ تَحْمِيدَةٍ صَدَقَةً وَكُلِّ تَهْلِيلَةٍ صَدَقَةً وَأَمْرٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ صَدَقَةٌ وَنَهْيٌ عَنْ مُنْكَرٍ صَدَقَةٌ وَفِي بُضْعِ أَحَدِكُمْ صَدَقَةٌ قَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَيَأتِي أَحَدُنَا شَهْوَتَهُ وَيَكُونُ لَهُ فِيهَا أَجْرٌ قَالَ أَرَأَيْتُمْ لَوْ وَضَعَهَا فِي حَرَامٍ أَكَانَ عَلَيْهِ فِيهَا وِزْرٌ فَكَذَلِكَ إِذَا وَضَعَهَا فِي الْحَلَالِ كَانَ لَهُ أَجْرًا

[1006] Abu Dharr reported: Some of the people of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (SAW) said to him: Messenger of Allah, the rich have taken (all the) rewards. They observe prayer as we do; they keep the fasts as we keep, and they give charity out of their surplus riches. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: Has not prescribed for you (a course) by which you can (also) do charity? In every declaration of the glorification of Allah (i.e. saying Subhan Allah) there is a charity. In every Takbir (i.e. saying Allah-o-Akbar) is a charity. In every praise of His (saying al-Hamdu Lillah) is a Charity. In every declaration that He is One (La ilaha ill-Allah) is a charity. Enjoining of good is a charity. In every forbidding of what is evil is a charity, and in man's sexual intercourse (with his wife) there is a charity. They (the Companions) said: Messenger of Allah is there reward for that who satisfies his sexual passion among us? He said: Do you see, if he were to devote it to something forbidden, would it not be a sin on his part-? Similarly, if he were to devote it to something lawful, he should have a reward for it.

 

Sunan Abu Dawud: Chapter 1881

REMOVING A HARMFUL THING FROM THE ROAD

 

[5222] Abu Buraidah said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: A human being has three hundred and sixty joints for each of which he must give alms. The people asked him: Who is capable of doing this? He replied: It may be mucus in the mosque which you bury, and something which you remove from the road; but if you do not find such, two rak'ahs in the forenoon will be sufficient for you.

 

[5223] Abu Dharr reported the Prophet (may peace be upon him) as saying: In the morning alms are due from every bone in man's fingers and toes. Salutation to everyone he meets is alms; enjoining good is alms; forbidding what is disreputable is alms; removing what is harmful from the road is alms; having sexual intercourse with his wife is alms. The people asked: He fulfils his desire, Apostle of Allah; is it alms? He replied: Tell me if he fulfilled his desire where he had no right, would he commit a sin? He then said: Two rak’ahs, which one prays in the forenoon, serve instead of all that.

 

Readers may notice that both Ahadeeth احاديث are classified as Marfu, which means that this isnad اسناد of the Hadeeth حديث goes back to the Prophet Muhammad صلی الله عليه وسلم though it might be broken somewhere.

 

Abraha Jochan Katz with his usual little regard for truth as reflected in a pattern of consistently lying and conning his readers without any objectivity and/or exploring the original sources along with the rules, wrote:

 

Confusion and contradiction: Did Muhammad speak about joints or about bones?

Let's have another look at the first hadith quoted by O. Abdallah as basis for his claim of Muhammad's statement being scientifically true. In the following we quote first the original Arabic version, and then give the translation in which we are going to highlight two important words:

 

إنه ‏ ‏خلق كل إنسان من بني ‏ ‏آدم ‏ ‏على ستين وثلاث مائة ‏ ‏مفصل ‏ ‏فمن كبر الله وحمد الله وهلل الله وسبح الله واستغفر الله وعزل حجرا عن طريق الناس أو شوكة أو عظما عن طريق الناس وأمر بمعروف أو نهى عن منكر عدد تلك الستين والثلاث مائة ‏ ‏السلامى ‏ ‏فإنه يمشي يومئذ وقد زحزح نفسه عن النار

 

Every one of the children of Adam has been created with three hundred and sixty mefsal; so he who declares the Glory of Allah, praises Allah, declares Allah to be One, glorifies Allah, and seeks forgiveness from Allah, and removes stone, or thorn, or bone from people's path, and enjoins what is good and forbids from evil, to the number of those three hundred and sixty salama, will walk that day having removed himself from Hell. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith Number 2199; emphasis ours)

 

Comparing our rendering of this hadith with the official Muslim translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui (see above), we observe that Siddiqui left the word salama simply untranslated (whether intentionally or unintentionally). However, for our discussion this word is rather important.

What are the meanings of the two words mefsal and salama? The Arabic-English online dictionary at ajeeb.com provides the following meanings:

mefsal:

[a number of different meanings in other contexts that are not relevant here]
in the context of human anatomy: knuckle, articulation, joint

salama:    

digital bone, phalange, phalanx

Some of the words in the second entry may not be familiar to readers who are not native English speakers. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines "digit" as "a finger or toe", and states that in the context of anatomy or zoology "phalange" is a synonym of "phalanx" and both denote "any of the bones of the fingers or toes".

 

Abraha Jochan Katz has done a better job by attempting to explore the original sources compare to the outright stupidity of Murtadd Osama Abdallah, but his impaired abstract thinking and his lack of insight into the science of Hadeeth حديث are the cause of his impaired judgment, though he claims to have help from an Iraqi Christian. Nonetheless, let us first examine the Arabic word مَفْصِلٍ that has been translated as joints. The question that begs for answer/s is that why Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz have assumed that مَفْصِلٍ is referring to human anatomy i.e. joint and what is the basis of this conclusion? Let me quote the very source Abraha Jochan Katz has used to draw his erroneous conclusion,

مفصل

 

 

تَفْصِيلِيّ , مُسْهَب , مُسْتَفِيض

comprehensive, verbose, wordy, large, lengthy, long-winded, outspread, circumstantial, in-depth, elaborated, elaborate, full-dress, ample

مُفَصَّل
صـــــفـــــــة

 

مُفَصَّلًا

minutely, elaborately, circumstantially

 

مُفَصِّلُ ( المَلابِس ) : مَنْ يَقُوم بِتَفْصِيلِهَا

Dressmaker, tailor , costumer

مُفَصِّل
اســــــــــــم

 

مِفْصَل , مُلْتَقَى كُلّ عَظْمَيْن فِي الْجَسَد

Joint

مِفْصَل
اســــــــــــم

 

مَفْصِل , مُلْتَقَى كُلّ عَظْمَيْن فِي الْجَسَد

knuckle, articulation, joint

مفْصِل
اســــــــــــم

 

Let us also examine what the dictionary say about the word “Joints?”

 

joint (joint) n. Abbr. jnt., jt. 1.a. A place or part at which two or more things are joined. b. A way in which two or more things are joined: a mortise-and-tenon joint; flexible joints. 2. Anatomy. a. A point of articulation between two or more bones, especially such a connection that allows motion. b. A point in the exoskeleton of an invertebrate at which movable parts join, as along the leg of an arthropod. 3. Botany. An articulation on a fruit or stem, such as the node of a grass stem. 4. Geology. A fracture or crack in a rock mass along which no appreciable movement has occurred. 5. A large cut of meat for roasting. 6. Slang. a. A cheap or disreputable gathering place: “The tavern is . . . just a joint with Formica tables, a vinyl floor, lights over the mirrors” (Scott Turow). b. A building or dwelling. c. A prison. Often used with the. 7. Slang. A marijuana cigarette. 8. Vulgar. Slang. A penis. --joint adj. Abbr. jnt., jt. 1. Shared by or common to two or more: our joint presence; a joint income-tax return. 2. Sharing with another or others: a joint tenant. 3. Formed or characterized by cooperation or united action: joint military maneuvers. 4. Involving both houses of a legislature: a joint session of Congress. 5. Law. Regarded as one legal body; united in identity of interest or liability. 6. Mathematics. Involving two or more variables. --joint tr.v. joint·ed, joint·ing, joints. 1. To combine or attach with a joint or joints: securely jointed the sides of the drawer. 2. To provide or construct with joints: joint a boom on a crane. 3. To separate (meat) at the joints. --idiom. out of joint. 1. Dislocated, as a bone. 2. Informal. a. Not harmonious; inconsistent. b. Out of order; inauspicious or unsatisfactory. c. In bad spirits or humor; out of sorts. [Middle English, from Old French, from past participle of joindre, to join. See JOIN.]

 

Now the readers can see that there are multiple meanings of the word in question i.e. مَفْصِلٍ that has been translated as joints in Arabic and English. Therefore, without proper knowledge, understanding and education of Islaam one can’t simply make absurd claims, which have been made by Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz. In the original Hadeeth حديث in Arabic the word mefsal مفصل is a noun according to Abraha Jochan Katz, which is not true. This will also mean that the alleged Iraqi Christian is also ignorant of his own mother tongue, if Abraha Jochan Katz really has that alleged Iraqi Christian.

 

حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو تَوْبَةَ الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَةُ يَعْنِي ابْنَ سَلَّامٍ عَنْ زَيْدٍ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا سَلَّامٍ يَقُولُ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ فَرُّوخَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَائِشَةَ تَقُولُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِنَّهُ خُلِقَ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ عَلَى سِتِّينَ وَثَلَاثِ مِائَةِ مَفْصِلٍ فَمَنْ كَبَّرَ اللَّهَ وَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَهَلَّلَ اللَّهَ وَسَبَّحَ اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ اللَّهَ وَعَزَلَ حَجَرًا عَنْ طَرِيقِ النَّاسِ أَوْ شَوْكَةً أَوْ عَظْمًا عَنْ طَرِيقِ النَّاسِ وَأَمَرَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ نَهَى عَنْ مُنْكَرٍ عَدَدَ تِلْكَ السِّتِّينَ وَالثَّلَاثِ مِائَةِ السُّلَامَى فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي يَوْمَئِذٍ وَقَدْ زَحْزَحَ نَفْسَهُ عَنْ النَّارِ قَالَ أَبُو تَوْبَةَ وَرُبَّمَا قَالَ يُمْسِي و حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الدَّارِمِيُّ أَخْبَرَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَسَّانَ حَدَّثَنِي مُعَاوِيَةُ أَخْبَرَنِي أَخِي زَيْدٌ بِهَذَا الْإِسْنَادِ مِثْلَهُ غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ أَوْ أَمَرَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ وَقَالَ فَإِنَّهُ يُمْسِي يَوْمَئِذٍ و حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ نَافِعٍ الْعَبْدِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ كَثِيرٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيٌّ يَعْنِي ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ سَلَّامٍ عَنْ جَدِّهِ أَبِي سَلَّامٍ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ فَرُّوخَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَائِشَةَ تَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خُلِقَ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ بِنَحْوِ حَدِيثِ مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنْ زَيْدٍ وَقَالَ فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي يَوْمَئِذٍ

[1007] 'A'isha رضى الله عنها narrated that the Allaah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said:  “Allaah has created in every man 360 joints, so whoever declares the magnificence of Allaah, praises Allaah, declares Allaah to be One, Glorifies Allaah, and seeks forgiveness from Allaah, and removes stone, or thorn, or bone from people's path, and enjoins what is good and forbids what is evil, to the number of those three hundred and sixty joints, will walk that day having removed himself from Hell.” Abu Taubah said: “will enter the evening” (i.e. ‘enter into evening’ instead of ‘walk’).

 

The readers must know that:

 

1.      In the above Hadeeth حديث the word مفصل is an adjective [as-sifatu اَلصِّفَةُ] that qualifies a noun, thus, سِتِّينَ وَثَلَاثِ مِائَةِ مَفْصِلٍ is an adjective phrase with incomplete construction and having no complete sense. Irony of the claims made by Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz is that both have tried to make sense out of it.

2.      The first part of an adjective phrase is a noun, it is called prescribed al-mausufu اَلمَوصُوفُ and the second part is an adjective اَلصِّفَةُ. Thus, سِتِّينَ وَثَلَاثِ مِائَةِ is اَلمَوصُوفُ and مَفْصِلٍ is the اَلصِّفَةُ in the Hadeeth حديث.

3.      A meaningful word in Arabic is called كلِمَةٌ (kalimatun) and it is of three types: (1) Noun {ismun} اِسُمٌ (2) Verb {fi’lun} فِعُلٌ (3) Particle {harfun} حَرُفٌ. A noun is not dependent on any other word for indicating its meaning and does not have any of the three tenses. Abraha Jochan Katz has erroneously and/or fraudulently told us that the word مفصل is a noun.

4.        A noun in Arabic is either indefinite or definite. If a noun does not indicate some specific person, place or thing, it is called “Indefinite or Common Noun” like كِتَابٌ (kitabun) a book (may be any book) or رَجُلٌ (rajulun) a man (may be any man). However, if a noun denotes to some specific person, place or thing, it is called “Definite or Proper Noun” such as شَاهِدٌ  (Shahidun) Shahid, name of a particular man. One way to make a noun definite is to prefix the definite article (al) اَلُ to it and to omit its nunation. We will discuss about this later in this refutation.

 

Cognitive deficits of Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz with impaired judgment lead us to recognize the need of increase literacy skills for Arabic language and Islaamic education for everyone, especially these two bumbling buffoons. Was it their poor attention span or they are simply two stupid to notice to context and the location of the Hadeeth حديث in Sahih Muslim and/or other books? This is about time that Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz must recognize their obsessive thoughts are the products of their own minds and their repetitive and intentional behaviors that are done in response to their obsessive thoughts and/or according to eccentric rules requires them to take medications like Anafranil, Prozac or Effexor to contain their obsessive-compulsive behaviors. Nonetheless, the spiritual confusion of both individuals {Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz} is obvious.

 

What these ignoramuses' don’t know?

 

The Hadeeth حديث is found in “The Book of Zakat” كتاب الزكاة, and the entire context and/or text does not indicates any medicinal and/or anatomical and/or biological relationship beside the emphasis on Sadaqah صَدَقةٌ [charity] and the obvious confusion and ignorance of Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz. At this point let me CHECKMATE Abraha Jochan Katz by citing one example from Christian Bible out of dozens, as we read in Matthew 7,

7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

 

The Matthew 7:6 will lead us to demand the answers of the following questions:

 

  1. We don’t find in the entire Bible any tradition and/or command of giving something holy to the dogs that are now prohibited, thus, scientifically it is not only absurd but also inconceivable to human mind.
  2. Again, we don’t find in the entire Bible any tradition and/or command to cast the pearls before swine, leading swine to trample the pearls, therefore, scientifically it does not adds up that swine may be fashion conscience knowing the use of pearl or in a rage to reject swine will trample the pearl under their feet. We don’t even find any explicit or implicit evidence outside the Bible to support this most unscientific and most bizarre theory.
  3. Adding to the above two we also don’t find any connections in the above two scenarios and/or scientific evidence that swine will turn again and rend {you}?
  4. Mind you, Abraha Jochan Katz, that I can trash this verse Matthew 7:6 worst than you erroneously did to the Hadeeth حديث, including trashing your sham god Jesus a child born out of wedlock, I think in dictionary such child is called bastard, but I am confident that you got my drift.

 

Islaamic Shariah has rules of elucidation and interpretation, which address and/or govern the meanings of the words and texts. We have textual meaning, suggestive meaning, required meaning, the obverse meaning and the rules dealing with the clash of meanings. This continues on to the kinds of lucid words and texts i.e. (1) Obvious (2) Contextual (3) Construed and (4) invariable and much more. I would suggest readers should consult the dictionary while reading this article/refutation for correct understanding. In order to avoid unnecessary length and complete account of Shariah rules I will curtail my refutation to the very point addressing the Hadeeth حديث.

 

Clash of Texts

 

If obvious and contextual texts come into clash, contextual text would be preferable; since it conveys the sense intended. In the event of a conflict between contextual and construed texts, the latter would be preferred; for it’s meaning is evident and admits no interpretation. However, if invariable texts come into clash with construed one, the former would claim preference inasmuch as the sense of the invariable one is more emphatic than that of the construed text. Now let us read the Hadeeth حديث again and try to understand according to the rules of Shariah,

 

حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو تَوْبَةَ الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَةُ يَعْنِي ابْنَ سَلَّامٍ عَنْ زَيْدٍ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا سَلَّامٍ يَقُولُ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ فَرُّوخَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَائِشَةَ تَقُولُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِنَّهُ خُلِقَ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ عَلَى سِتِّينَ وَثَلَاثِ مِائَةِ مَفْصِلٍ فَمَنْ كَبَّرَ اللَّهَ وَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَهَلَّلَ اللَّهَ وَسَبَّحَ اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ اللَّهَ وَعَزَلَ حَجَرًا عَنْ طَرِيقِ النَّاسِ أَوْ شَوْكَةً أَوْ عَظْمًا عَنْ طَرِيقِ النَّاسِ وَأَمَرَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ نَهَى عَنْ مُنْكَرٍ عَدَدَ تِلْكَ السِّتِّينَ وَالثَّلَاثِ مِائَةِ السُّلَامَى فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي يَوْمَئِذٍ وَقَدْ زَحْزَحَ نَفْسَهُ عَنْ النَّارِ قَالَ أَبُو تَوْبَةَ وَرُبَّمَا قَالَ يُمْسِي و حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الدَّارِمِيُّ أَخْبَرَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَسَّانَ حَدَّثَنِي مُعَاوِيَةُ أَخْبَرَنِي أَخِي زَيْدٌ بِهَذَا الْإِسْنَادِ مِثْلَهُ غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ أَوْ أَمَرَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ وَقَالَ فَإِنَّهُ يُمْسِي يَوْمَئِذٍ و حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ نَافِعٍ الْعَبْدِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ كَثِيرٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيٌّ يَعْنِي ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ سَلَّامٍ عَنْ جَدِّهِ أَبِي سَلَّامٍ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ فَرُّوخَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَائِشَةَ تَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خُلِقَ كُلُّ إِنْسَانٍ بِنَحْوِ حَدِيثِ مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنْ زَيْدٍ وَقَالَ فَإِنَّهُ يَمْشِي يَوْمَئِذٍ

[1007] 'A'isha رضى الله عنها narrated that the Allaah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said:  “Allaah has created in every man 360 joints, so whoever declares the magnificence of Allaah, praises Allaah, declares Allaah to be One, Glorifies Allaah, and seeks forgiveness from Allaah, and removes stone, or thorn, or bone from people's path, and enjoins what is good and forbids what is evil, to the number of those three hundred and sixty joints, will walk that day having removed himself from Hell.” Abu Taubah said: “will enter the evening” (i.e. ‘enter into evening’ instead of ‘walk’).

 

In Shariah Obscure texts is further subdivided into four classes i.e. (1) Equivocal (2) Difficult (3) Concise and (4) The Unknown. Let me explain very briefly to educate the readers, especially the two bumbling buffoons i.e. Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz.

 

  1. In juristic terminology an equivocal word is one, which in spite of conveying an obvious meaning, involves complication and ambiguity, and therefore calls for careful consideration in its application.
  2. A difficult word is one which by its mood and grammatical form does not signify what is actually meant by it, but its meaning can be determined with the help of something extraneous.
  3. A concise word is one whose grammatical form does not indicate the actual meaning; nor is there any literal or circumstantial object of reference that may help in apprehending such meaning. Concise words include all those terms, which are given specific technical meaning by detaching them from their lexical meaning.
  4. A mystic word is that whose grammatical form does not signify what is actually meant by it; nor are there any extraneous probabilities indicative of its meaning and whose significance the law-giver has confined to His/his own knowledge by leaving it unexplained.

 

Thus, for those, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, the above must be a guiding light to understand the Glorious Qur’aan and Sunnah {including Ahadeeth}. Now the myth of the word مَفْصِلٍ can be solved in the light of above explanations.

 

Let me address the nest word السُّلَامَى and impeach Abraha Jochan Katz, who has fabricated a cock-and-bull story out of it. Abraha Jochan Katz has written that I quote:

 

What are the meanings of the two words mefsal and salama? The Arabic-English online dictionary at ajeeb.com provides the following meanings:

mefsal:

[a number of different meanings in other contexts that are not relevant here]
in the context of human anatomy: knuckle, articulation, joint

salama:    

digital bone, phalange, phalanx

Some of the words in the second entry may not be familiar to readers who are not native English speakers. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines "digit" as "a finger or toe", and states that in the context of anatomy or zoology "phalange" is a synonym of "phalanx" and both denote "any of the bones of the fingers or toes".

 

The above explanation in fact, equally applies to both words out of which Abraha Jochan Katz has fabricated a cock-a-hoop. But for the latter word السُّلَامَى Abraha Jochan Katz has changed it to salama without any explanations and citing any Arabic grammar rules etc. As I have already stated above that “one way to make a noun definite is to prefix the definite article (al) اَلُ to it and to omit its nunation.” The letter yaa ىَ is a pronominal suffix of the 1st person singular. The yaa ىَ is sometimes vocalized with “Fatha” (a- vowel) as, مَحياَىَ (my lifetime). Now to the $ 64 question, is the word means what Abraha Jochan Katz has claimed to pull a fast one of his readers or that is something else? According to المورد: قامُوس عَرَبي-إنكليزي words in question means the following:

 

Sulama سُلامَى is the correct word and not exactly what is quoted by Abraha Jochan Katz, it means عَظْمَةُ الإصبَح = phalanx, phalange, digital bone

Mâfsal مَفْصِلٍ (ج: مَفَاصِل Plural Mâfsil) = joint, articulation, knuckle (in order to take literal meanings in plural the Arabic words has to be plural i.e. مَفَاصِل Plural Mâfsil that would mean joints and/or knuckles. Please see the English dictionary for words joint, articulation and knuckle. Abraha Jochan Katz hopelessly failed to tell us that under what rule and/or how the literal meanings of these two words is to be taken to draw literal meaning in the above Hadeeth حديث. And why Islaamic interpretation should be disregarded including disregarding Shariah rules and Arabic grammar rules?

 

In order to perfectly understand this we must explore and comprehend the Shariah rules for common, general and special words. Words fall under three categories according to the meanings they are designed to convey: (1) Common (2) General (3) Special

 

  1. A common word is that which is designed to convey two meanings in different contexts and serves as a substitutes for the sense it signifies, that is to say, it sometimes conveys one meaning and sometimes the others; for instance the word “Qura” applies to both the monthly periods of a woman (the period of menstruation and period of cleanliness {which are different to each other}) Another example is the word “Aedihuma” in the Qur’aanic injunction relating to the imputation of the thief’s hands may mean either the right hand or left hand of a person found guilty of committing the offence of theft. Again, hand means part of human body stretching from fingers’ tips up to the wrist as well as up to the shoulders.
  2. A common word is sometimes shared by lexical and technical Shariah senses. If it is common in lexical meaning and specific connotation of the Shariah, it must be taken in its specific connotation. For example, the dictionary meaning of the word talaq” {divorce} is to do away with bondage, whereas in the Shariah it connotes doing away with bondage of wedlock. Thus, in the Divine decree the above word would be taken to mean breaking matrimonial tie.
  3. If a common word is shared by more than two meanings, it must on the basis of cogent grounds, be taken only in one sense to the exclusion of others. The jurist is supposed to determine that one particular sense by taking into consideration all the probabilities and indications. An example of a common word shared by two dictionary meanings is provided by the letter in this divine injunction: {“ And do not eat of that on which Allaah’s name has not been mentioned and that is most surely a transgression” (6:122)}. In this Ayaah is a common word. It conveys the dictionary meanings of a conjunction as well as of present tense. If one takes it in the sense of present tense, it would mean prohibition of that on which Allaah’s name has been mentioned, as mentioning the name of what is other than Allaah amounts iniquity. If treated as a conjunction it would mean absolutely unlawful, whether the name of what is other than Allaah is mentioned or not. Whatever the number of senses conveyed by a common word, the lawmaker intends only one out of those senses. If it is designed to convey one meaning, the other meaning/s is excluded.

 

Thus, in the Hadeeth حديث the Sadaqa  صَدَقةٌ [charity] is made Wajib وَاجِب on individual Muslims while the words مَفْصِلٍ is used as [as-sifatu اَلصِّفَةُ] and the word السُّلَامَى are concise and/or mystic word or both. Nonetheless, we must examine and/or understand this Hadeeth حديث (and similar Ahadeeth and/or Ayaat) based on the rules of required meaning and/or contextual meaning. A word used in the provision cannot be understood in its true perspective unless the required meaning of provision is clearly apprehended. If we are to accept the idiocy of Murtadd Osama Abdallah and Abraha Jochan Katz than we will have to abandon the required and/or contextual meaning, this is highly unwise and against the Shariah rules. Let me cite one example by quoting Ayaah 4:23Forbidden unto you are your mothers.” In this Ayaah the word ‘hurrimat’ {forbidden} occurring in this injunction, which can be taken in different senses.  But its real meaning cannot be understood unless we take it to mean prohibition of conjugality, and this exactly is the required meaning on the expression hurrimat’ {forbidden} in this Ayaah. The other rule that I have cited above is about,

 

Clash of Texts

 

If obvious and contextual texts come into clash, contextual text would be preferable; since it conveys the sense intended. In the event of a conflict between contextual and construed texts, the latter would be preferred; for it’s meaning is evident and admits no interpretation. However, if invariable texts come into clash with construed one, the former would claim preference inasmuch as the sense of the invariable one is more emphatic than that of the construed text.

 

حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو تَوْبَةَ الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَةُ يَعْنِي ابْنَ سَلَّامٍ عَنْ زَيْدٍ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا سَلَّامٍ يَقُولُ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ فَرُّوخَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَ&