Calendar

May 2013
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 << < > >>
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 


Announce

Who's Online?

Member: 0
Visitors: 2

rss Syndication

Archives

20 May 2013 
The Qur’an: The Mountains are Extra Terrestrial

Islamic scientific blunder


It doesn’t take long for an objective reader of the Qur’an to notice that the entire book is dominated by a theme of repetitions and contradictions. Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the third Caliph, once described the Qur’an as a multi faced book because it can be interpreted in many different ways (1). Ali’s judgement is of exceptional significance because it came from a pious Muslim with undisputed fluency in Arabic. Ali is generally considered as the most ‘intellectual’ of Mohammed’s companions. Mohammed also made a similar confession, in the Qur’an itself, when it was pointed out to him that some of his later verses were contradicting other verses revealed in earlier years (2).

However, the Qur’an still describes itself as the clear book in a number of verses (3), and I must say that there are occasions when the Qur’an lives up to that description. Such unusual clarity in the book, where the general theme is ambiguity, exists in some of the so called ‘scientific verses’. When Mohammed expressed his scientific knowledge in the Qur’an, he often did using a clear and simple language that was comprehensible to all his followers. There are no records at all that the Arabs ever asked for clarification of any of the so called ‘scientific verses’ in the Qur’an. Equally true, there are no records at all that the Arabs ever expressed their disapproval to any of those verses. We can safely draw two conclusions from the above historical evidence:

The first conclusion is that the verses were clear enough that all the Arabs understood them well. There can be no excuse at all for today’s Muslim scholars to twist the language and invent more acceptable meanings.

The second conclusion is that the Arabs accepted the information contained in those verses as common knowledge with nothing new in them. That is why they didn’t ask questions or express their disapproval.

All the above is a clear indication that the Qur’an was in total agreement of the prevailing scientific knowledge in the seventh century Arabia.

The Qur’an’s cosmology
According to the Qur’an, the earth and the mountains are two separate entities, just like the earth and the skies are also two separate entities. The Qur’an asserts that the mountains did not originate from the earth, but were brought from ‘outside’ and then erected on the earth to fix it and stop it from swaying!

The creation and structure of the universe are repeatedly described in the Qur’an in simple language that is easy to understand and difficult to twist, even by the Muslim scholars who twist anything. Unlike the Greek, the seventh century Arabs were far behind in science and discoveries; their knowledge was mainly based on the myths that reached them through the hundreds of religions practiced in Arabia. The ancient mythologies of Mesopotamia, India and Persia were also echoed in Arabia. The Arabs, like many other nations at the time, believed that the world was a massive flat land that was attached to the sky until separated by a god. The Arabs believed that it was Allah, their moon god, who did the separation. The Qur’an confirms this myth in verse Q.21: 30 “Do not the unbeliever’s see that the skies and earth were stitched (retkan) together, and then we separated them ….”. The wording of the verse suggests that the Qur’an was referring to already known information. When somebody says to a group of people “don’t you see that the doors are painted red?” we understand that the group already know the doors are painted red and that the speaker only reminded them with a fact they all agree about.

Verse Q. 21:30 is crucial in Islamic science because it is seriously believed by the so called ‘miracle scientists’ to be the basis of the ‘Islamic big bang theory’ which is not exactly the same as the real Big Bang theory. As it is clear from the verse, the Islamic theory describes an already formed earth that was attached to an already formed sky until both were separated by Allah. That belief is in sharp contrast to the real Big Bang theory, which discusses the birth of the universe before the existence of the earth or the sky. I am afraid that in verse 21:30, the Qur’an only repeats the same old pagan myths that were already in circulation in Arabia; separating the sky from the earth and raising it high up!

To make sure that the ‘Islamic cosmology’ never meets with the infidels’ cosmology, the Qur’an goes into more details and describes the sky, which is only emptiness in the real world, as a solid structure that was raised high up by the almighty Allah who keeps it in place using a system of invisible pillars. “Q.13:2 Allah is He who raised the skies without any pillars that you can see”. To make sure that everybody gets the message clearly, the Qur’an reminds its readers that the sky would fall down on earth if it were not to Allah’s mercy. “(Q.22:65) ..He withholds the sky from falling on the earth except by His permission for Allah is most kind…”

Those invisible pillars, described in verse 13:2, must be resting on the earth, which implies that the earth must be flat. Just in case some people did not get the point, the Qur’an went on describing the earth as flat using all the words in the Arabic language that can possibly mean flat, and still the Muslims don’t get it!

The author of the Qur’an likened the earth to a carpet (Q.71:19) that, when used in the open, requires some stones, or pegs, to secure it against the blowing desert wind. Similarly, the flat earth, which was thought to be floating on water, also required some mechanism to stabilize it. The problem of the Earth’s instability was fixed by erecting massive pegs, called mountains, which Allah dropped on its surface and erected to function as stabilizers. Therefore, the mountains were not part of the earth!

The Qur’an’s geology:
The Qur’an doesn’t agree with our the established knowledge that the mountains are integral parts of the earth that were formed as a result of tectonic forces and have no role at all on the Earth’s stability. Instead, the Qur’an’s declares that the mountains were extraterrestrial objects that were added to the earth, after its creation, to stop its imaginary swaying movement.

In verses 88:18-20, the Qur’an calls people to think of three of Allah’s major creations; the sky, the mountains and the earth. Sura88 is clear evidence that the Qur’an considers the three creations as separate structures. Read this: “Q.88:18-20 And at the sky, how it is raised? And at the mountains, how they are erected? And at the earth, how it is spread out?” It is disgraceful that the writer of the Qur’an, who obviously knew nothing about the nature of those structures, could claim to have created them. Just like a person who knows nothing about computers and still claims to have invented them!

Verse 19:90 claims that even the skies, the earth and the mountains are full of rage because some people claim that Allah had a son. The Qur’an describes the ‘feelings’ of those three structures and doesn’t miss the opportunity to confirm its ignorance about the nature of those creations: “At it the skies are about to crack, the earth about to split, and the mountains about to fall and crumble”

More evidence that the mountains are different from the earth comes in verse Q.13:31 “If there were a Qur’an with which mountains were moved, or the earth cut into pieces…” and in verse Q.18:47: “And the day when we shall cause the mountains to pass away, and you see the earth prominent….”.

Verses 56:4-5 and verse 73:14 describe what will happen to the Earth and the mountains on the Last Day; the earth will be shaken while the mountains will crumble. The different treatment received by each creation is an indication that both were different entities in the mind whoever wrote the Qur’an:

Q.56:4. “.. the earth shall be shaken. 56:5 and the mountains shall be crumbled”
Q. 73: 14. “One day the earth and the mountains will shake, and the mountains will be as a heap of flowing sand”

It is impossible to justify the blunders in the above verses and remain in the area of sanity, but the Muslim scholars would come up with something and claim that the verses contain no errors, but miracles! They would use the same tactics of twisting the language and claiming that Allah didn’t mean what he said.

Well, it seems that Allah did mean what he said because verse Q.15: 19 tells us how the mountains came to the flat earth: Q.15:19 “And the earth we have spread out; and thrown thereon mountains…” therefore, the mountains were dropped on the earth after its creation. Verse 16: 15 goes even further and explains that Allah decided to add the mountains to the earth to stop it from shaking: “And He has thrown down mountains on the earth, lest it should shake with you…”

In case somebody did not hear well, the Qur’an repeats the same information with the same consistency in verses 31:10 and 50:7

31:10. “He created the skies without any pillars that you can see; He thrown down on the Earth Mountains, lest it should shake with you…”

50:7. “And the earth- We have spread it out, and thrown down thereon mountains…”

In verses 70: 8-9, the Qur’an speaks about the mountains in a similar way it speaks about the sky. These two verses describe what will happen to both structures on that same day, which is the Last Day. However, that scientific consistency we praised in the beginning of the article seems to have broken, but we cannot expect the Qur’an to avoid contradictions every time. The sky, according to verse 70:8, will become like molten brass, but the mountains, which were supposed to crumble in verse 56:5, now will become like cotton wool!

70: 9. “And the mountains will be like wool”
77: 8. “Then when the stars become dim”

It is an extraordinary irony that the Muslims read the Qur’an but do not notice any of the above colossal errors. They read appalling blunders like the sky is a solid structure, or roof (Q. 21:32) that has the potential to fall down on the earth without noticing anything wrong there. The Muslims’ brains have been numbed and became insensitive to all those errors; the only word that matters to them is the word ‘awtad’ (pegs), which the Qur’an once used to refer to the mountains (Q.78:7). When some Muslims happened to learn that some the mountains have deep roots underground they quickly remembered the word ‘awtad’ because the pegs are also partly underground. Thousands of articles and books were published about this ‘scientific miracle’ of the Qur’an. Radio and television programmes and scientific conferences were organised to celebrate the discovery. All this without any Muslim scholar ever noticing that the Qur’an also referred to the Pharaohs’ pyramids as ‘awtad’, not once but twice (Q.38:12, Q.89:10).

In the past, the Muslim scholars had no problems in the interpretation of the above verses or any other verses in the Qur’an. They only had to provide a simple and straight forward explanation of the language without any external pressures. It was only in the last century when they realised that the Qur’an, which they long claimed to be the perfect book, was actually at odds with proven scientific knowledge. To pre-empt any criticism to the Qur’an, the Muslim scholars adopted their strategy of ‘attack is the best defence’. By focusing on the ‘miracles’ of the word ‘awtad’, the Muslim scholars succeeded in diverting the attention of the Muslims’ minds and raised the standing of the Qur’an; rather than talking about Qur’anic errors, the Muslim scholars now talk about scientific miracles!

During my preparation of this article, I looked at the available English translations of the above verses and noticed the deliberate deception. I wasn’t surprised; this observation has become a regular pattern whenever I look at the English translations of the Qur’an. In the example of the above verses, the Muslim scholars deceived the readers when they avoided the proper translation of the Arabic word ‘alka’, meaning threw or dropped (the mountains), which they translated as placed or erected (the mountains) to conceal the obvious error.

As an example of extreme deception, one of the verses (73: 14) quoted above reads like this: One day the earth and the mountains will shake, and the mountains will be as a heap of sand”, but some Muslim scholars translated it like this: “The day is coming when the masses and the wealthy tyrants will shake and the leaders will be as a heap of sand” (5)!

Is there any point in debating Muslims when they are so determined to lie?

References:
1. A famous statement by Caliph Ali“The Qur’an is a multi faced book” which means it lends itself to multiple interpretations.
2. Q.3:7
3. 12:1 “these are the Verses of the Clear Book…”, 26: 2  “these are the Verses of the Clear Book…”, 28:2 “these are the Verses of the Clear Book…”
4. Q.71:19 And God has laid the earth for you as a carpet (bisata).
5. Translation by ‘OXP’ seen on islamawakened.com

Source:

IHS
Admin · 1 view · Leave a comment
20 May 2013 
The Sexual Powers of Prophet Muhammad
By Saleem Smith
Read this article


Admin · 1 view · Leave a comment
20 May 2013 
Muhammad and Dogs

Idiosyncrasy at its extreme


Some years back I started to begin my journey of renouncing my faith and love of god. This happened while a good Muslim friend of mine started to relate to me how great Islam is and how I would be rewarded into heaven of being the ashraful maqluqat. This all started when he visited my house for dinner and when he is being greeted at our doorsteps by my dog –roady, he started to say ass-traffullahs… This led to his ranting about how I am not being blessed by angels and that my house is haram for him. He left after a short while and did not take dinner with me… The following when I enquired about his sudden change of attitudes towards me, I was given a big rude Islamic lecture about keeping dogs as pets and what is forbidden in Islam. By now, I was so shocked to find him to be so naďve…? That’s when I started to search for answers on the internet and came upon this website called

 

I wanted to share this with you so here is that wonderful article by Silas…        

MUHAMMAD AND THE DOGS

By Silas

INTRODUCTION

Muhammad made strange and harsh statements about dogs and these edicts affect dogs in a tragic way until this very day…! His teachings may have come from cultural bias, Pagan concepts, or his own imagination, but wherever they came from they led to the cruel treatment of dogs.

None of the statements regarding dogs are found in the Qur’an but they abound in the various collections of Islamic traditions (hadith). These traditions are a primary foundation of Islamic theology and are the basis of many Islamic laws. They render dogs as “impure” and worse. As per Muhammad’s orders, most dogs were to be killed and all dogs of a specific color (black) had to be killed.

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God and as such, his word as to be dearly obeyed. With the teeth of Islam, biting worldwide it is vital that Muhammad’s teachings to be scrutinized to determine if he were a nut or a prophet…???

STATEMENTS FROM THE HADITHS

Below are a number of Hadiths on various aspects involving dogs. All Hadiths are from the Sahih collections of Bukhari[1] and Muslim[2], or the Sunan of Abu Dawud[3]. After the Qur’an, Bukhari’s set of Hadiths are regarded to be the second most important books in Islam, followed closely by the Hadiths of Sahih Muslim. I quote from these sources to prove that these Hadiths are not just a few isolated or unsupported cases. I have sorted Muhammad’s statements concerning dogs into 5 (five) categories. All of these illustrate different facets of his beliefs regarding dogs.

1) KILL THE DOGS

From Bukhari Vol. 4, #540; Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.

From Abu Dawud #2839; “Abd Allah B. Mughaffal reported the apostle of Allah as saying: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.

The Hadith’s note for #2839 says, “The prophet did not order the killing of all the dogs, for some are to be retained for hunting and watching. He ordered to kill the jet-black ones. They might be more mischievous among them”.

From Muslim #3814; “Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah’s messenger ordered the killing of dogs and then said, “What is the trouble with them (the people of Medina? How dogs are nuisances to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds… [and for] for the protection of cultivated land”.

From Muslim #Number 055; “Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? And then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time”.

From Muslim #3813; “Abu Zubair heard Jabir Abdullah saying: Allah’s messenger ordered us to kill dogs and we carried out this order so much so that we also killed the dog roaming with a women from the desert. Then Allah’s apostle forbade their killing. He said: “It is your duty to kill the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes) for it is a devil”.

The note for #3814 says, “The Hadiths gives us an idea why the prophet commanded to kill dogs. There must have been an excess of stray dogs and thus the danger of rabies in the city of Medina and its suburbs. The prophet therefore ordered to kill them. Later on when it was found that his Companions were killing them indiscriminately, he forbade them to do so and told them that only the ferocious beasts, which were a source of danger to life, should be killed. The word “Devil” in the Hadiths clarifies this point. Here devil stands for ferocious”.

HOWEVER, THE REASONING WITHIN THE NOTE ABOVE IS INCORRECT –READ BELOW.

From Muslim #5248; “Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad mood. Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening, Gabriel met him and he said to him: You promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields or big gardens”.

COMMENT
These Hadiths tell the story of Muhammad’s order to kill dogs. Muhammad said he would like to have all dogs killed. He wanted them killed, NOT because packs of dogs were tormenting the citizens of Medina, but rather, because a puppy stopped the mighty angel Gabriel. Muhammad’s solution was to kill the dogs. He first said he wanted all dogs killed but then made exceptions for dogs that are used for farming, hunting, or watching (outside). Further, he ordered that all black dogs be killed and called them “a Satan”.

2) COMMERCE IN DOGS

From Bukhari Vol. 3, #299; Narrated ‘Aun bin Abu Juhaifa: “My father bought a slave who practiced the profession of cupping. (My father broke the slave’s instruments of cupping). I asked my father why he had done so. He replied, “The Prophet forbade the acceptance of the price of a dog or blood, and also forbade the profession of tattooing, getting tattooed and receiving or giving Riba, (usury), and cursed the picture-makers.”

From Bukhari Vol. 3, #482; Narrated Abu Mas’ud Al-Ansari: “Allah’s Apostle regarded illegal the price of a dog, the earnings of a prostitute, and the charges taken by a soothsayer.”

From Muslim #3803; Abu Masud reported that Allah’s messenger forbade the charging of price of the dog and earning of a prostitute and sweets offered to a kahin.

COMMENT
Muhammad believed that money made from the sale of a dog (for other than already mentioned purposes) was considered as evil as the money made from prostitution, witchcraft, or usury. Something about dogs disturbed Muhammad deeply.

3) LOSS OF REWARD OF GOOD WORKS FOR OWNING DOGS

From Bukhari Vol. 3, #515; Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah’s Apostle said, “Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle.” Abu Huraira (in another narration) said from the Prophet, “unless it is used for guarding sheep or farms, or for hunting.” Narrated Abu Hazim from Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “A dog for guarding cattle or for hunting.”"

From Muslim Number 3815: Ibn Umar reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: He who keeps a dog other than that meant for watching the herd or for hunting loses every day out of his deeds equal to two qirat.

From Muslim Number 2062: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: He who attends the funeral till the prayer is offered for (the dead), for him is the reward of one qirat, and he who attends (and stays) till he is buried, for him is the reward of two qirats. It was said: What are the qirats? He said: They are equivalent to two huge mountains. Two other narrators added: Ibn ‘Umar used to pray and then depart (without waiting for the burial of the dead). When the tradition of Abu Huraira reached him, he said:” We have lost many qirats.”

COMMENT
Having a dog as a pet is prohibited in Islam. In fact, if a Muslim keeps a dog as a pet God will take away some heavenly reward for his good deeds! Notice that the amount taken away changed from one to two qirats.

4) DOGS ANNULLING PRAYER

From Bukhari Vol. 1, #490; Narrated ‘Aisha: “The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him.”"

From Muslim Number 1032; Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of ‘Allah said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.

From Abu Dawud Number 0704: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw.

COMMENT
These hadiths state that if a dog passes in front of people praying it annuls their prayer. Annul means, “to reduce to nothing”, or “to make ineffective or inoperative”. If a group of people are praying and a dog walks in-between them and the Kaba (in Mecca), then their prayer is made null.

5) DOGS STOP THE ANGELS

From Bukhari Vol. 4, #448; Narrated Abu Talha: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying; “Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal).”"

From Bukhari Vol. 7, #843; Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet but he delayed and the Prophet got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, “We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog.”"

From Muslim, #5276: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: Angels do not accompany the travelers who have with them a dog and a bell.

From Muslim, #5279: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: “The bell is the musical instrument of Satan.”

COMMENT
The story behind these hadiths was mentioned earlier. A little puppy stopped an angel from entering the house because it was “unclean”. Note that angels do not enter a place with a dog, or accompany people who travel with a dog.

THE TOMES

The tomes also details the same aspects found in the traditions. We’ll start with the Reliance of the Traveler[4] which is a compendium of Shafi’i law.

On filth, page 95; e14.0 FILTH (NAJASA); e.14.1 Filth means: (8) dogs and pigs, or their offspring

On purification, page 98; e14.7 Something that becomes impure by contact (def: below) with something from dogs or swine does not become pure except by being washed seven times, one of which (recommended not to be the last) must be with purifying earth (def: e12.1 (b)) mixed with purifying water, and it must read all of the affected area. One may not substitute something else like soap or glasswort in place of earth.
 
 (n: The contact referred to is restricted, in the Shafi’i school, to contamination by traces of moisture from dogs or swing, whether saliva, urine, anything moist from them, or any of their dry parts that have become moist…)

On trade, page 382: k2.2 It is invalid to transact something that is impure in itself (najasa, def: e141) such as a dog or something affected with filth that cannot be purified (O: by washing), like milk or shortening, though if it can be, like a garment, then it may be transacted.

The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam[5] entry on dogs (Kalb).

Page 215: Kalb (the dog), is also in Islam one of the “unclean beasts” (hence kalb as an abusive word, specially to unbelievers), primarily because its flesh may not be eaten (al-Nawawi ..) and further because, according to the Hadiths, there are several special regulation regarding it. For example dogs render food which they lick impure and render unavailable water intended for ritual purifications…) Vessels, likewise, which have been licked by dogs, require to be cleaned several times including once with sand. In a certain way they render impure the whole room in which they are; for angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog and Muhammad had first to sprinkle the place on which a young dog had lain concealed with purificatory water before Djibril would appear to him….)

Dogs “cut off the salat”, i.e. they make the salat worthless when they come into the immediate vicinity of the man at prayer (Ibn Madja, Ikama, bab 30), and one is all the more inclined to attribute this rule to the impurity of the dog as it also holds for menstruating women. The Arab commentators, however, explain it by saying that the dog frightens the worshipper and distracts him from his devotions (al-Sindi commentary on Ibn Madja as cited above). This is especially true of the black dog, for “he is Satan”). This saying is either to be interpreted literally as meaning that Satan occasionally appears in the form a black dog (cf. Faust) or it only means that black dogs in general are considered particularly dangerous. Dogs in general are considered noxious and should therefore be exterminated (al-Nasa’i, Said wa’l-dhaba’ih, bab 9-14_, but as “Allah does not create anything in which there is not a trace of His wisdom” (al-Sindi, commentary on this passage), this rule is applied only to black dogs.

It is only permitted to keep dogs for hunting, for herding and for watching (al-Nasa’i, op. cit.); whoever keeps a forbidden dog has to forfeit a portion of his possession daily (cf. Babylon. Talmud Shabbath, fol 63: “whoever possesses a dangerous dog keeps good fortune away from his house”). Dealing in dogs on the other hand is strictly forbidden (al-Bukhari, Buyu’ bab 25).

But in spite of its impurity and dangerousness the Arabs are able to appreciate the good qualities and services of the dog. Muhammad himself promises a woman a divine reward for a kindness which she had done a thirsty dog (al-Bukhari, Wudi, bab 33), and al-Kazwini (p. 403) characterizes the dog as “a particularly intelligent, very useful animal, patient in hunger an on the watch, whose cleverness and fidelity are shown in many ways”. …

COMMENT
The tomes echo the hadiths statements. That’s’ because the hadiths statements are theological bedrock for Islam’s denigration of dogs, hence the scholars detail the rulings in their books of jurisprudence or theology. Islam has a formal, establish, legal position that dogs are unclean and it rejects dogs as pets.

OTHER SOURCES
There are many Muslim sites that discuss dog ownership. Real Muslims believe in obeying the Islamic law – the Sharia’h, which states that keeping dogs as pets is not permitted. Below are a few samples.

The Muslim Q&A site Albalgh[6] answers a young Muslim’s question regarding keeping a dog as a pet:

Q.) I am a 15 year old Muslim American and my mother is buying a dog. I heard that if I touch the dog, I cannot pray. Is this true? What should I do?

Similarly Allah Taăla created the dog from among His creation. This does not mean that we should love the dog. It is perhaps the indoctrination of the Western culture that ‘The dog is Man’s best Friend’. The theory that ‘dogs are very dependent on Human affection’ is a myth – again culture and custom has helped to develop this unnatural behavior.

Allah Taăla the Creator of this Universe – having created the dog would surely have known that the dog requires Human affection and love to exist in this world. Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) would have advised us to keep dogs as pets. On the contrary, we are instructed not to keep dogs as pets and ‘love’ them as exemplified by the non-Muslims. Remember our life is structured and bound by the Shariah i.e. The Noble Qurăn and the beautiful example of Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam). Consider these Ahaadith:

… Salaam) said that we, the group of Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or pictures. (Sahih Muslim Hadith no.3928)

In the light of these Ahadiths and other narrations, it is not permissible to keep dogs as pets. The household is deprived of the Mercy of Allah Taăla.

The website Islam-qa[7] addresses a person’s question regarding owning dogs:

Question: What is the ruling on raising dogs in the house?

Answer…It is not permissible for a Muslim to keep a dog, unless he needs this dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops.

Al-Bukhaari (2145) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, a qiraat from his good deeds will be deducted every day, except a dog for farming or herding livestock.”

Muslim (2978) narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever keeps a dog that is not a dog for hunting, herding livestock or farming, two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.”

With regard to keeping dogs, this is haraam and is in fact a major sin, because the one who keeps a dog, except those for which an exception has been made, will have two qiraats deducted from his reward every day.

It is by the wisdom of Allah that like calls to like and evil calls to evil. It is said that the kaafirs, Jews, Christians and communists in the east and the west all keep dogs, Allaah forbid. Each one takes his dog with him and cleans it every day with soap and other cleansing agents. But even if he were to clean it with the water of all the seas in the world and all the soap in the world, it would never become pure! Because its impurity is inherent, and inherent impurity cannot be cleansed except by destroying it and erasing it altogether.

But this is by the wisdom of Allah, and the wisdom of Allah is that like calls to like and evil calls to Shaytaan because this kufr of theirs is by the inspiration of the Shaytaan and the command of the Shaytaan, for the Shaytaan enjoins evil, immorality, kufr and misguidance. So they are slaves to the Shaytaan and to their whims and desires, and they are also evil and love vile things. We ask Allah to guide us and them.

COMMENT
These Muslim sites are only stating what the Sharia’h teaches: You can’t own dogs. The site above says that not only is it not permissible for Muslims to own dogs, but that the dogs must be destroyed. And note that it ends with a denunciation of non-Muslims (kufr) and states that owning dogs comes from the inspiration of Satan and dog owners are slaves to Satan.

TO OBEY OR NOT OBEY MUHAMMAD? –THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Islam has branded the dog as unclean, speaks against owning dogs as pets, and ordered that they be killed. However, some Muslims know the joy of pet ownership and are caught in dichotomies: To kill or not to kill? Unclean or not unclean? To obey Muhammad or disobey Muhammad? That is the question. The Muslims that are honest and rational know that the commands in the hadiths are nonsense. That leaves them with two options: 1) deny the validity of the “authentic traditions” (Sahih Hadiths), or, 2) tailor the anti-dog commands to make them more palatable. We’ll sample a few of their arguments and provide brief responses.

ARGUMENT 1: THE HADITHS ARE FALSE –Variation 1.

One way to deal with the problem is to claim that the anti-dog Hadiths are false. Here is a quote from the Qur’an-Islam blog[8]. The editor wrote:

It is traditional among Muslims all over the world to regard the dog as a dirty animal that when touched would void your wudu (ablution) and give you nagasah (dirty impurity!)

Sadly, this concept comes from fabricated hadiths which claims that the prophet ordered the killing of dogs and gave numerous hadiths that prohibit the keeping of dogs except for hunting and guarding, due to their dirty status!

However, by studying the Qur’an we find no such claims. Nowhere in the Qur’an are dogs prohibited. Consequently, we must dismiss all these hadiths that fabricate lies against the prophet.

And then an article written by Linda Kelly follows the above which supports the wholesomeness of dogs. Kelly refers to the “Seven Sleepers” story in the Qur’an, (that was taken from New Testament Apocrypha), and says that because there was a dog with them, God approved of dogs as companions. She wrote:

Hadiths tells us that angels won’t enter a room where there is a dog. That means that for 309 years that the sleepers were in the cave, no angel ever entered. Yet God says “We turned them….” The use of “we” clearly indicates the participation of angels. There is absolutely no reason to mention the dog as part of this story, except to make it clear to future generation that dogs are permitted to live among people, right “in their midst.” And 18:22 clearly shows that the dog was counted right along with the believers.

ARGUMENT 1: THE HADITH ARE FALSE –Variation 2.

The argument below is similar to the one above. It comes from the website “islamicconcern”. This argument also acknowledges the wholesomeness in dog ownership and the irrationality of the hadiths statements on dogs. This argument quotes from a Muslim professor living and teaching in America, Abou El Fadl. It details his position on dogs:

After a lengthy process of textual research and prayer for divine guidance, he concluded that reports against dogs were passed on through questionable chains of transmissions or contradicted by more favorable reports – for instance, one story of Muhammad praying with his dogs playing nearby.

“Dogs represent my rebellion against ignorance about the basis of actual historical law,” Abou El Fadl says. “They are a symbol of the irrationality of our tradition, the privileging of law over humaneness.”

How, he asks, pointing to Honey, who constantly follows him and nestles at his side, does God “create animals with these natural tendencies and then condemn them as thoroughly reprehensible?”

From Newsweek, April 15, 2002: Take that matter of dogs, for instance. To the literalists, the prohibition against dogs as pets is clearly delineated in one of the hadiths, the traditional accounts of the life and sayings of the prophet Mohammed. In their view, the hadiths and the Koran unambiguously set forth the laws of sharia’h. But, as Abou El Fadl points out, determining which of the tens of thousands of hadiths are authoritative requires both knowledge and critical analysis. One must evaluate the reliability of the sources and assess how consistent the hadiths are with the moral vision of the God who speaks in and through the Koran. In the case of the dog hadiths, Abou El Fadl found it hard to believe that the same God who created such companionable creatures would have his prophet declare them “unclean.”

Investigating the sources, he discovered that the hadiths in question not only derived from an unreliable chain of sources but reflected views far more consistent with pre-Islamic Arab customs and attitudes. What’s more, he says, he found that a hadiths from one of the most trustworthy sources tells how the Prophet himself had prayed in the presence of his playfully cavorting dogs.[9]

RESPONSE
Linda Kelly and Fadl attack the validity of the Sahih Hadiths. Yet in the theology of the Sunni Muslim world, these hadiths classified as completely reliable. They have stood in the hallowed halls of Islamic theology for a thousand years plus. They are foundational to Islam for they command and explain many of Islam’s facets that are omitted or missed by the Qur’an. Devout Muslims would say that Kelly and Fadl have been seduced or deceived away from Islam’s true teaching on dogs and that they are sinning.

Kelly claims that these hadiths contradict the Qur’an. But her argument is based on the assumption that “We” includes angels. God could have turned the sleepers himself. If God can create the world, he can turn sleeping men and angels need not be in the cave.

Fadl points out correctly that the hadiths is often “irrational”. But Fadl hides deceitfully behind a smoke screen. He says, “Determining which of the tens of thousands of hadiths are authoritative requires both knowledge and critical analysis.” In the context of the discussion that’s a laughable statement because the critical analysis has already been done. And the results of this analysis are now, and have been, deeply rooted and well established in Islamic theology. This “critical analysis” has produced the “sahih” collections of hadiths, i.e. Bukhari and Muslim. The other four authentic collections of hadiths are Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and an-Nasi. Five of these collections are available in English and much of them is available on the internet for free. You’ll find that they all agree about the status of dogs. Nobody needs to sift through “tens of thousands of hadiths”. It’s already been done and established for over 1000 years. Fadl is deceptive and misleads a naive and trusting Western audience.

Linda Kelly and Fadl both believe that it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous disobedience to Muhammad, denigrate the hadiths, and bear the whips and scorn of the fundamentalist Muslims, than it is to turn their backs upon man’s best friend. Obviously it’s a dog eat dog world in Islam and these more rational people recognize the value of dogs as pets, so they attack Muhammad’s bizarre statements.

ARGUMENT 2: THE HADITH ARE MISUNDERSTOOD
There are several variations of this argument and an example is below. It is from a site that wrote a response to my original “dog” article. His reasoning is that the dogs Muhammad referred to were hyenas:

Has it occurred to you that the “black dogs” that Prophet Muhammad talked about were what we call today “Hyenas”? Don’t we even call Hyenas “black devils” today as the Prophet peace be upon him called them 1500 years ago???

They’re also sometimes called “Desert Wolfs”. What Silas? I know you’re Middle Eastern! Have you forgotten your region already? Or are you just acting plain stupid to deceive your Western reader and to make Islam look like you?!

Now tell us Silas, why shouldn’t you kill a Hyena, or a Coyote or a Jackal, or even a Wild Dog when you encounter them?

I agree that dogs are helpful and beneficial to humans. That is why he didn’t completely prohibit owning dogs from all aspects. We can still use dogs to benefit us. But petting a dog in a house causes the house to be unclean. Dogs are unclean animals. Their saliva are unclean and disgusting.[10]

RESPONSE
Osama is attempting to modify the hadiths meaning. “Muhammad didn’t mean dogs, he meant hyenas.” The Arabic word for dog is “kalb” and the Arabic word for hyena is “dab” (roughly transliterated). If Muhammad wanted to distinguish between dogs and hyenas he would have used the correct word.

Lets re-visit Abu Dawud, #2839: Abd Allah B. Mughaffal reported the apostle of Allah as saying: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.

The Hadith’s note for #2839 says, “The prophet did not order the killing of all the dogs, for some are to be retained for hunting and watching. He ordered to kill the jet black ones. They might be more mischievous among them”.

Obviously, Muhammad classified together all dogs that did or did not perform jobs and distinguished between them based on their color: black ones were more evil. Think about what Osama implies: Was that a baby hyena puppy in Muhammad’s home, or was it a dog? Were Muslims using hyenas to hunt and watch their flocks? Osama’s argument becomes idiotic once the contexts are taken into account.

Finally, who is right, Fadl or Osama? Is Fadl right in claiming that dog as pets ownership is permitted today? Or is Osama right in saying that dogs are unclean and as pets make the house unclean?

BENEFITS OF DOGS AS PETS
I ask the Muslim readers to view the articles linked below and determine whether or not Muhammad’s statements were rational. Don’t just read the snippets I provide, spend some time and read the entire articles (linked in the Reference section). If you are honest, like Fadl and Kelly, you’ll admit that Muhammad’s statements were superstitious, stupid, and just plain wrong. The studies mentioned below prove the value of owning a dog simply as a pet. They are a sampling of the many available articles stating that pet ownership is very beneficial to humans.

The Siskin Hospital in Tenn. has a “Pet Therapy” program to assist in rehabilitation. They state:

The Pet Therapy Program uses carefully screened dogs and cats as an integral part of physical, speech, recreational and occupational therapies to address treatment goals including improving range of motion, strength and endurance, balance, mobility, and sensation. In addition to the physical benefits of pet therapy, patients form a connection with the animal; reducing stress and building self-esteem through the animals’ unconditional acceptance.[11]

From the BBC: Dog-owners ‘lead healthier lives’. If you want to live a healthier life get a dog, research suggests. The companionship offered by many pets is thought to be good for you, but the benefits of owning a dog outstrip those of cat owners, the study says.

A psychologist from Queen’s University, Belfast, said dog owners tended to have lower blood pressure and cholesterol. Writing in the British Journal of Health Psychology, she says that regular “walkies” may partly explain the difference.

Dr Deborah Wells reviewed dozens of earlier research papers, which looked at the health benefits of pet ownership. She confirmed that pet owners tended in general to be healthier than the average member of the population was. However, her research suggested that dog ownership produced more positive influence than cat ownership. As well as lower blood pressure and cholesterol, she said dog-owners suffered fewer minor ailments and serious medical problems. There was also the suggestion that dogs could aid recovery from serious illnesses such as heart attacks, and act as ‘early warning’ to detect an approaching epileptic seizure. [12]

The Swedish Medical Center in America, Seattle, Washington, lists the benefits of pet ownership[13]:

Why We Benefit From the Company of Animals
There are several benefits to having a pet:
• Companionship and pleasurable activity
• Facilitate exercise, play, and laughter
• Have something to care for and a source of consistency
• Allow feeling of security
• Are a comfort to touch and a pleasure to watch
• Provide a link with reality to enhance emotional stability
• Become a receptive partner in a relationship of mutual trust that promotes self-awareness
• Provide nonjudgmental acceptance and love
• Are an outlet for one’s ancient primate grooming urges
• Improved sense of well-being

Google’s Answers[14] provides benefits to owning a dog as a pet. Below is a brief excerpt:

QUESTION: What are the top ten health benefits of dog ownership? I want measurable physical and mental health benefits such as decreased blood pressure. Not qualitative anecdotes about how they make you feel good.

ANSWER:
- Pet owners have lower blood pressure
- Pet owners have lower blood cholesterol levels
- Pet owners have a higher survival rate after serious illness
- Pet owners have fewer doctors’ visits
- Pet ownership reduces loneliness
- Pet ownership fights depression
- Pet ownership helps us cope with stress
- Pet ownership aids childhood development
- Pet owners enhance family life

Please note that for each category above the doctor cites studies that determined those results.

COMMENT
The benefits of dogs as pets are well established and the evidence is irrefutable. Yet Muhammad, claiming to be a prophet of God, commanded that they be killed and not kept as pets. Either the research evidence is false, or Muhammad was wrong in depriving humanity of a friend and ordering that innocent animals be killed.

BENEFITS OF DOGS AS PETS CONTINUED
Take a look at this video below and tell me that this animal is “unclean” and should be killed. Tell me if this dog is a beneficial pet, an admirable animal, or just another target of Muhammad’s irrationality.



Does this animal deserve to be killed because Muhammad uttered a brutal command? Devout Muslims, true Muslims, must answer “Yes” to that question, because their “prophet” said so.

Do an internet search for real life stories of dogs saving or helping humans. There are many out there. Below are excerpts from a small sample of the benefit, the good, the blessing, that dogs have been to their owners or other people. Remember, if Muhammad’s words were obeyed, these dogs would be dead, or have never existed at all.

1) A story about a pet dog that saved his master’s life during a heart attack: Mark Hanrahan kneels next to his golden retriever, Murphy O’Dawg. The dog woke him up while he was having a heart attack.[15]

2) Selma Hayek’s dog saved her life: Salma said she decided to take a nap at her home in California, not realising there was a gas leak in the house: “I had a headache and went to lie down when Diva woke me up by grabbing my sleeve in her mouth and trying to pull me out of the house. Then I realised the gas was on!”[16]

3) A pet saves the lives of his two elderly owners: Eve and Norman Fertig, who are both 81 years old, were out treating injured birds in the Wildlife Sanctuary on their Alden property on the night of October 12th. They left as the storm intensified but, were soon trapped by falling trees and heavy snow as they tried to walk back to their home. Eve realized they could die in the bitter cold but, fortunately, Shana was with them.
As the cold and snow chilled them both without heavy coats and gloves, Shana started digging under the snow and trees. The dog actually dug a foot wide tunnel about 20 feet to the home.
Shana barked but, the couple hesitated, so they say the dog came back and tugged on Eve’s jacket. She says the 160 pound dog actually pulled her onto its broad back and crawled through the tunnel. Her husband held on as well as they slowly crawled all the way back to their home. They made it back to the back deck, opened their door and fell in to the house exhausted but safe.[17]

Ok, if you are a Muslim, be honest with yourself. Didn’t these pets make an important difference in the lives of their owners? Is there any justification to kill them?

DISCUSSION: THE BIGGER PICTURE
Think about the bigger picture. If Islam had taken over the entire world, what would it have meant? How would that have affected our society, and you?

Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill Snoopy Kill Lassie Kill Rin Tin Tin!
Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill Scooby Doo Kill Pluto Kill the Taco Bell dog!
Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill Dogbert Kill Goofy Kill the 101 Dalmatians!

I am trying to make a point by presenting Muhammad in the light of today. The dogs above are fictional, or they were real dogs representing fictional dogs in Hollywood. Nevertheless, these fictional dogs have affected billions of people’s lives for the better. They have brought us laughter and tears and have taught us about life and love. Those fictional dogs represented the bond between dog and man and humanity has judged the dog to be a beneficial and loving pet. Yet if Muhammad’s word was obeyed they would have never existed. Never!

Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill your pet!

People’s pets have made a positive difference in their lives. Did you own a pet dog? If not, did you know someone who did? If so, I’ll bet that your dog, or the dogs you saw were a blessing, not a curse, to their owners. Were they really the “unclean” animal that deserved to be killed because Muhammad said so?

Too bad Muhammad did not have a pet dog to share life with while he was growing up. If a dog was with him in the cave Hira, it would have helped him fend off the dark spirit that assaulted him. Following that visit Muhammad was often very depressed and attempted suicide many times during the next 3 years or so. (See the article Muhammad’s Suicide Attempts).

QUESTIONS AND TALKING POINTS
Below are some brief questions and thoughts on Muhammad’s statements.

1) Prayer is annulled by a dog. Why should a dog nullify prayer? What difference does it make if the dog is in front of you, or behind you? Jesus taught that God judges the heart, and the outward performance is irrelevant.

2) Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog. Why would an angel be stopped by a puppy if he were on a mission from God? What power does this “unclean” characteristic possess to stop an angel?

3) Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, Why would Allah double the punishment of dog ownership? And, how much exactly is 1 qirat in heavenly currency and what is it needed for? Is it a huge mountain of gold, silver, or diamonds? After all, if Allah is penalizing you for something, the thing he is taking away must have value to the owner.

The points above are some quick thoughts I’ve had about this topic. I’m sure that if you think it through you’ll be able to find additional flaws in Muhammad’s statements.

CHALLENGE TO THE MUSLIM
You have to take Muhammad at his word. Don’t deceive yourself like Fadl and Kelly and pretend that Muhammad didn’t say to kill the dogs. Take a stand. Either obey Muhammad, or admit that Muhammad was wrong and was a wacko. If he were false, then leave him. Don’t put your eternal fate in the hands of an abusive, deluded, false prophet.

CONCLUSION
Muhammad’s bizarre beliefs regarding dogs were irrational, superstitious, and very cruel. I am thankful that Western countries have laws that protect pets and animals and make killing dogs, as Muhammad commanded, a crime. I hope that Muslims will obey the law. Muhammad’s absurd beliefs are now part and parcel of established Islamic dogma. Muslims who intend to obey Muhammad and obey the Sharia’h must kill their dogs. Any rationalization for disobeying the Sharia and owning a pet dog is going to be punished by Allah. There are no intelligent or logical foundations supporting Muhammad’s beliefs, rather they go against modern medicine, modern science, and practical experience. Muhammad’s order is a blight, not a blessing. Muhammad’s superstitious belief, coupled with his brutality, bring out the worst in men. Muhammad is to be rejected for he is a curse upon humanity. Consider Jesus. He did not teach to kill animals because of their species or color. Christ’s teachings were based upon faith, love, and obedience to God. When Christ taught prayer, He taught that God judges the heart, not the form or outward appearance. When Christ taught about heaven, and its rewards, He did not state that owning an animal would cost you your good works. Christ’s message was simple: love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself…

Maranatha,
Silas; Rev A: 8-3-98, Rev B: 9/3/01, Rev C: 25 Jan, 2007

Further reading: Muhammad and the Animals

This article first appeared here:

REFERENCES
[1] Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan
[2] Muslim, Abu’l-Husain, “Sahih Muslim”, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1971, translated by A. Siddiqi
[3] Abu Dawud, Suliman, “Sunan”, al-Madina, New Delhi, 1985, translated by A. Hasan
[4] Misri, Ahmad, “Reliance of the Traveler”, Amana, Beltsville, MD, 1994
[5] Gibb, H.A.R., Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill, Netherlands
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

Source:

IHS
Admin · 1 view · Leave a comment
20 Apr 2013 
Blinded by Hate?

by Rafael Princ MA

This is a response to Ibn Anwar and his article ‘The teachings of Jesus and the Bible(s) that are not taught in your church’ (*) where he tries to ‘prove’ that Jesus taught hate instead of love. This article is aimed to expose and refute this so-called Islamic apologist. We will show that this individual is indeed ‘blinded by hate’ towards the true teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.



He doesn’t stand alone in his blinding hatred towards the Christian faith as we can see in the comments this article received.

Army of Jesus is Islam said:
August 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Selamu alaykum,
I must say that this one of the best works presented in great contrast by brother (ibn Anwar) great work …

Let’s investigate this ‘great work’ and show how this person lacks basic Biblical understanding and historical context.

Most of the answers given below are already made available by different Christian scholars and apologists. Because we aren’t about to invent the wheel for a second time, we will just post the available answers with some additions from our side.

Ibn Anwar writes:

Christian polemic: The teachings of Jesus are based on love!

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

My Response:

Ibn Anwar tries to demonstrate, by quoting Luke 14:26, that our Lord preached hate instead of love. Yet the only thing he demonstrated is his clear ignorance of Biblical exegesis and the historical usage of the word ‘miseo’ (hate).

In his article, Does Luke 14:26 teach literal hate?, J.P. Holding writes:

Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "... [T]o us Orientals the only word which can express any cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships.

Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. To seal this matter completely, let's look at some parallel materials which prove our point. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:

And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Here, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. Let it be added that if Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. (See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)

Now here is another example from Jesus, Luke 16:13:

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Such extremes of feeling would be atypical, but the extremes are not meant to be taken literally; the point is that one master will get more dedicated labor than the other. (Source)

In fact, a parallel account of the teaching in Luke 14:26 is given in Matthew 10:37:

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

When Matthew paraphrases the words of Jesus in this passage, he makes sure that the range and intent of the utterance in seen in its SEMITIC LIGHT. In other words, he preserves less of the ambiguity of the original saying of Jesus in order to make sure that the correct nuance is made explicit. In so doing, he shows us the Semitic idea of 'lower preference' is recognized as the intended meaning behind miseo in this passage.

Ibn Anwar argues:

And Jesus illustrates the above love in his treatment of his own mother.

"Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call himA crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!" (Mark 3:31-34)

Is that how you honour, respect and love your parent? If your mother came looking for you and have walked all the way from her place to yours and appears on your doorstep and her presence is announced to you would you ignore her and instead look at your close friends and ask out loud with your mother there waiting for you, "Who is my mother?" and then you say your friends are your mother? Can a rational and loving son ever do such a thing seriously? One would not expect a loving and respectful son to do something so silly. One would expect a loving son to graciously welcome the mother into the house and perhaps offer her a foot massage after the walk she has taken. And you know what? The passage ends there! It does not say that Jesus invited her mother into the house and gave her a fruit punch or a cup of tea. The message is clearly disrespect. Undoubtedly we have a passage wherein Jesus calls for honouring parents as the law dictates in the Old Testament and we also have Colossians 3:20 saying that children must obey their parents. These passages however do not change the fact that Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 teach people to dishonour and disrespect their parents. Both set of opposing passages cannot be true unless you have schizophrenia. The conflicting passages are contradictions. Nevertheless Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 are strengthened …

My Response:
Ibn Anwar admits that there are explicit verses in the Bible that are opposing his views regarding this issue. Nevertheless he holds to this position (i.e. Jesus taught to hate) because of the verses he provides. So when we will refute his misunderstanding of these passages (as we done with Luke 14:26 so far) he is left with no other choice than to concede to those ‘opposing’ verses.

Now let us proceed to the raised objection. It becomes unboundedly clear that this so co called Islamic apologist has no idea about the context or the exegesis of this verse.

Because J.P. Holding has already successfully addressed the ‘argument’, we will quote his work.

Mark's report of this incident, which Tulbure [the name of the sceptic whose argument is discussed by Holding] ignores in this context and does not connect to this narrative, says that the family came because "went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself." (Mark 3:21) The word "lay hold" is krateo and signifies taking hold fast (as in taking by the hand), or seizing by strength -- it is the same word used of those who came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:57). "Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives' behaviour that would shame the family" in ancient times, even as today [Keener commentary on Matthew, 370].

Jesus' mother and brothers – but not his sisters -- this was no "friendly family outing" but the head of the household arriving with the "goon squad" to pick up the wayward brother -- showing up and declaring openly that he was mad, and wanting to seize and hide him, sounds like the "disrespect" had its origins in another place." (Source)

No earthly relationship can have higher priority than that of one’s relationship with God. Putting God first means putting Him ahead of family. So it become obvious that Jesus didn’t intend to be rude or inappropriate. He was just pointing out that the bond between believers will supersede that of ‘natural’ family.

Ibn Anwar couldn’t possible object to this, because the Qur’an is very clear on this issue.

Parents and children are not to obey each other if either party warships other than God.

029.008 YUSUFALI: We have enjoined on man kindness to parents: but if they (either of them) strive (to force) thee to join with Me (in worship) anything of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not. Ye have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did

Do not be intimate with the unbelievers; they will hate you and ruin you.

003.118 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

For Muslims, real friends are God, His apostle (Muhammad) and the fellowship of pious and charitable believers.

005.055 YUSUFALI: Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).

Ibn Anwar continues:

Nevertheless Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 are strengthened by two other passages from Jesus.

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

These passages are explicit in showing that the Biblical Jesus was adamant to break the family unit. No wonder if we go to many Christian societies today we find that their children have no respect for their parents at all. In fact, in America and such places it is considered culturally TABOO to stay with one’s parents after high school.

My Response:

The verses quoted above have nothing to do with Christian families not respecting each other. They speak about the division that the Word (Hebrews 4:12) will bring. Some will accept the Word (i.e. Jesus), other won’t. So the division will be between the believers and unbelievers. Jesus was just foretelling what his word will bring forth, namely tension between those that are willing to do good and repent, and those who don’t want to change there evil ways. However, Jesus nowhere tells believers to break with their families.

Let us address Matthew 10:34 in its proper context, i.e. Matthew 10:22-40

22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. 23 "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes. 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25 "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!
26 "Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent ? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. 32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.10:33 "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. 34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. 40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

We note from verses 22-25, that it is the diciples (believers) that will be opposed and hated because of the Name (Jesus Christ) they follow. The intense hatred of the unbelievers towards the Messiah will be directed towards the people that choose to follow him. It is them that will reject the sincere seekers and followers of the Messiah and that will lead towards division even between family members.

The raised points concerning certain alleged taboos (in American society) are irrelevant to our discussion of the meaning of Jesus’ words.

Besides a clear lack of understanding the Muslim author also demonstrates his use of double standards. The Qur’an itself is guilty of the objection raised by Ibn Anwar.

Allah is commanding the Muslims to separate themselves from their blood relatives if they choose to reject Islam. This will cause division between families, a division between ‘’believers’’ and unbelievers, a division comparable to that described in the Holy Bible. However, notice that it was the action of the disbelievers who rejected the true believers and followers of Christ and then that resulted in division. Yet in the Qur’an the Muslims are being commanded to take initiative to break family bonds (when family members choose not to accept Islam).

Unbelieving father, brothers are not protectors; believers should not be friendly with them...

009.023 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

The believers should not take even their fathers, brothers, or sons as friends if they resist God and Muhammad:

058.022 YUSUFALI: Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity.

Don’t be friendly with the disbelievers; they are God’s enemies.

060.013 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves.

Will Ibn Anwar reject his Qur’an for being guilty of the objection he had raised?

Ibn Anwar continues:

Now, when we put the passages together the ones that preach family breakdown clearly win out against the solitary passage attributed to Jesus about honouring one’s parents. It’s 4 (Luke 14:26, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 12:49-53, Matthew 10:34-39) versus a small section in Matthew 19:19 which says, "honour your father and mother". The four very explicit and quite elaborate passages win!

Thus, according to the Bible(s) the teaching of Jesus is founded on HATE as Luke 14:26 clearly conveys.

My Response:

The only thing that seems to have won is Ibn Anwar’s ignorance in regard to the true teaching of the Holy Bible. His points have been answered and refuted. His conclusion is based on a false understanding of Scripture in its historical context. This has been clearly documented in this article.

Ibn Answar claims:

In fact, Jesus taught that those who will not accept him as king must be slain.

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’" (Luke 19:27)

What Christian commentators have understood from this text is that after the ‘period of grace’ has ended Jesus will return to wage war against those who refuse him and call for their deaths. As Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary says, "bring hither, &c.-(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ." [1]

Let’s have a look at the passage they have asked us to compare with Luke 19:27.

"Then Samuel said, "Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites." Agag came to him confidently, thinking, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women." And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal." (1 Samuel 32-33)

The same is mentioned by Matthew Henry in his commentary, "Bring them hither, to have their frivolous pleas overruled, and to receive sentence according to their merits. Bring them, and slay them before me, as Agag before Samuel."

"19:27. In contrast with the two servants who had axpected the king’s return, the enemies of the king were put to the death in the king’s presence. The analogy of this parable was clear to Jesus’ hearers. Jesus was going away to receive a kingship." [2]

What the above means is that Jesus will kill or order the killing of those who do not recognise him as king just like the analogy in Luke 19 shows.

The commentator Adam Clarke differs from other Christian commentaries in that he proposes the slaying mentioned by Jesus should occur shortly after Jesus said those words in verse 27.

"Those mine enemies… bring hither. The Jews, whom I shall shortly slay by the sword of the Romans." [3]

The same fate will befall those who do not accept Jesus. They will be utterly killed. What peace is the Christian missionary trying to offer?

The point of Luke 19:27 is quite clear in conveying the picture of death and destruction of those who do not accept Jesus. Where is the peace?

My response:

Let’s post Luke 19 in its entirety and derive the interpretation from the text rather than forcing our own thoughts upon the text. By doing so, we will expose the double standards and his ignorance regarding Biblical exegesis of this particuler neophyte in Islamic polemics.

19:1 He entered Jericho and was passing through.
19:2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich.
19:3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable * because of the crowd, for he was small in stature.
19:4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way.
19:5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house."
19:6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.
19:7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."
19:8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
19:11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
19:12 So He said, "A nobleman, * went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.
19:13 "And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this until * I come back.'
19:14 "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'
19:15 "When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.
19:16 "The first appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'
19:17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'
19:18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'
19:19 "And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
19:20 "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;
19:21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'
19:22 "He *said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow ?
19:23 'Then why * did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest ?'
19:24 "Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'
19:25 "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'
19:26 "I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
19:27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
19:28 After He had said these things, He was going on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
19:29 When He approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the mount that is called Olivet, He sent two of the disciples,
19:30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you; there, as you enter, you will find a colt tied on which no one * yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
19:31 "If anyone asks you, 'Why * are you untying it?' you shall say, 'The Lord has need of it.' "
19:32 So those who were sent went away and found it just as He had told them.
19:33 As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, "Why are you untying the colt ?"
19:34 They said, "The Lord has need of it."
19:35 They brought it to Jesus, and they threw their coats on the colt and put Jesus on it.
19:36 As He was going, they were spreading their coats on the road.
19:37 As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen,
19:38 shouting: "BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest !"
19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke Your disciples."
19:40 But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"
19:41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,
19:42 saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace ! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.
19:43 "For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,
19:44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because * you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
19:45 Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
19:46 saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."
19:47 And He was teaching daily * in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him,
19:48 and they could not find anything that they might do, for all the people were hanging on to every word He said.

The following explanation is taken from the "Answering Deedat Blog":

We notice first and foremost, that the words spoken in verse 27 are those in a parable (verse 11). Hence, Jesus is not commanding His disciples there and then to slay the people before Him. As much as this neophyte wants to show Jesus committing violence in the gospels, he cannot do so. In fact, Jesus says emphatically that He came to save that which was lost.

Then Muslim will object and say "But the master is surely referring to Jesus Christ Himself" to which I would agree, however, this is referring to the end times, not the time of Jesus’ disciples.

Verse 11 tells us, that people supposed that the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. Jesus speaks this parable to correct them. Note verse 41 talks about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. He then goes on to give a prophetic utterance in verse 43, speaking of the times when violence would come upon them. "For the days will come", show that He was obviously speaking of the future, not the present. This matches the prophecies in Revelation concerning the end times when the antichrist will make war against the Lamb (Jesus).

"These will wage war against the Lamb , and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." Revelation 17:14.

Those who make war with Christ in Revelation 17:14 correspond to the enemies in Luke 19:27, those who hated Him in verse 14. What we see is an example of such persons who hate Jesus and do not desire for Him to reign over them in Luke 19:47.

As we can see, by allowing the text to be read in its entirety, the notion that Jesus is slaying people in the gospels is duly refuted. On the contrary He is weeping over Jerusalem and coming to them in the form of a slave to save them who are lost. (Source)

It should be mentioned that a Muslim has no position to condemn the battle of Armageddon as unnecessary violence by Jesus for two simple reasons:

1. It is the enemies of Christ who initiate the war (Rev 17:14).
2. Islam itself teaches a violent end-times scenario as well:

To substantiate point 2 above, we quote:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657)

Acoording to the ruling of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368) from The Reliance of the Traveller, the classic Shafi manual of Islamic jurisprudence:

"... the time and the place for [the poll tax] is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace)1

And the Islam Q&A website quotes in one of their fatwas:

Imaam Ahmad narrated that Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The Dajjaal will emerge at a time when religious commitment is low and knowledge has decreased… Then ‘Eesa ibn Maryam will descend just before dawn and will call people, saying, ‘O people, what is stopping you from coming out against this evil liar?’ They will say, ‘This man is a jinn’, then they will set out. When they reach ‘Eesa ibn Maryam, the time for prayer will come the iqqamah will be given, and it will be said to him, ‘Go forward (to lead the prayer), O Spirit of Allaah.’ He will say, ‘Let your imaam go forward and lead you in prayer.’ When they have prayed fajr, they will go out to meet him (the Dajjaal) and when they see the liar, he will start to dissolve like salt in water. ‘Eesa will go to him and kill him. Even the trees and rocks will call out, ‘O Spirit of Allaah, here is a Jew!’ And none of those who followed him will be left, they will all be killed." (Hadeeth no. 14426). (Source)

So we see that on that day (the second coming of the Messiah) the only religion that will be accepted is Islam. Eesa (Jesus) will abolish all other religions and kill the ones that oppose him and side with the Dajjaal (i.e. the Jews).

Muhammad Ali Ibn Zubair, author of The Signs of Qiyama (Judgment Day) states:

Dajjal appears. His followers, the Yahudis, will number 70,000 … [Then] Hadrat Isa (honorable Jesus) kills the Dajjal at the Gate of Hudd, near an Israeli airport, in the valley of "Ifiq." The final war between the Yahudi’s will ensue, and the Muslims will be victorious.2

Will Ibn anwar reject his Qur’an because it is quilty of his raised objection, namely a violent end times scenario?

Ibn Anwar stated:

Christian polemic: Love your enemies, but don’t invite them into your house!

Do you know why Christian missionaries love to darken your doorstep rather than inviting you to their own homes? In fact, those Christians who do invite Muslims or people of other religion into their abodes MUST STOP! This practice is expressly prohibited by their sacred text.

"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." (2 John 1:9-10)

My response:

Again a false assumption based on his misunderstanding of Biblical Scripture. The verse adresses false teachers and not unbelievers in general.

If anyone comes to you and does not BRING this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." (2 John 1:10)

Note that the verse is very explicit. It talks about someone BRINGING another teaching than that of Christ.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

receive him not into [your] house;

neither into the house of God, suffer him not to preach there; nor into your own house, give him no entertainment there: false teachers always tried to creep into houses, where they served their own turn every way, both by feeding their bellies, and spreading their pernicious doctrines; and therefore such should: be avoided, both publicly and privately; their ministry should not be attended on in the church, or house of God; and they should not be entertained in private houses, and much less caressed: (Source)

So this verse doesn’t prohibit us from inviting Muslims to our house, yet it forbids giving false teachers entertainment.

It should be mentioned (again) that a Muslim has no position to condemn such teaching cause Islam itself teaches the very same thing that this Islamic polemicist objects to.

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (S. 5:51 Yusuf Ali)

Tafsir Al Jalalayn states :

O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as patrons, affiliating with them or showing them affection; they are patrons of each other, being united in disbelief. Whoever amongst you affiliates with them, he is one of them, counted with them. God does not guide the folk who do wrong, by affiliating with disbelievers. (Source)

You will be considered an unbeliever when you affiliate with non-Muslims. So forget about inviting them to your home!!

Will Ibn Anwar now reject the Qur’an for not meeting his standards?

Ibn Anwar further states:

Christian polemic: Muslim law is barbaric! Why do you chop off people’s hands for stealing?

What these Christians fail to realise is that their own teacher teaches amputation.

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:30)

The same message is repeated in Matthew 18:8,

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire."

We see the same message again in Mark 9:43,

"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire"

You should even gouge your eye out!

"So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell." (Matthew 5:29)

These laws are too heavy for the henpecked and emasculated Christians romanticised by so called humanitarianism that they have altogether abrogated these laws from Jesus by saying that they are mere parables and metaphores not meant to be taken literally. The Christians really need to be consistent with themselves. In the exact same passage we find those verses so loved by Christians that they cannot miss a day without quoting them namely, verses 39 and 44. One says "if someone strikes you on the right cheek, give him the other also" and the other says "love your enemies". These two are taken to mean literal but those verses prior to them should not? This is laughable. The fact is Jesus taught those things literally. Just because Christians do not have the stomach to follow his words to the letter does not render them moot. The Christians need to start listening to Jesus and pluck their eyes out for all the sins they have committed!

My response:

This Muslim author is really getting desperate in trying to discredit the Holy Bible. Even simple logic says that what Jesus is commanding is not a literal action. Why? Would the loss of one eye or one hand prevent lustful look or thought via the other hand or eye? Of course, not, because the problem is not the eye or the hand. They are morally neutral instruments.

As Paul writes to the Romans:

Therefore do not let sin reign (command to stop a practice already occurring) in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting (stop an action which is already occurring) the members of your body (eyes, hands, ears, etc) to sin (refers to the old sin nature still latent in believers) as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. (Romans 6:12; 6:13; 6:14)

Peter gives similar advice ...

Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain (continually hold yourself away from = present tense, middle voice) from fleshly lusts, which wage war (present tense = continually carry on a military campaign, not just one skirmish but fleshly lusts are personified as a rebel commander carrying out a long-term guerilla campaign with the intend to capture, enslave and destroy) against the soul. (1 Peter 2:11)

And this is exactly how it has been understood by Christians and Biblical scholars over time. For a overview of scholars and their commentaries concerning this topic please visit this page.

Yet again, it is clearly shown that most Muslim apologists lack basic understanding of the Christian Scripture. Where necessary, we will continue refuting their deceptive and ignorant arguments.

JESUS IS LORD!

Footnotes
1 The Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, a Classic Manuel of Islamic Sacred Law, Translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller, (Amana Publications, Beltsville Maryland, revised 1994) p. 603.
2 Muhammad Ali Ibn Zubair, The Signs of Qiyama, translated by M. Afzal Hoosein Elias, online here.

Sources:

IHS
Admin · 13 views · Leave a comment
20 Apr 2013 
Is there Jihad in the Old Testament?

By Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D.

I received this email from Rajib H. who wrote the following letter to me. One of the problems in the letter is quoting a verse in the Old Testament without any context. Someone has said something like quoting a verse out of context is a pretext for mis-understanding. So it is here. Surely the death of anyone anywhere who is not an evil person is a sad thought. For evil people there is little remorse over their demise. Life is a gift of Yahweh and this life is to be respected. Murder of innocent people is an insult to Yahweh who made humans in his image. So let’s read the email and see what can be said about it.

From: Rajib H. (rajib_h…@yahoo.com)
Greeting to brothers and sisters, i think that you should know who started jihad, massacared, genocide. so that here are a list of biblical verses who deal with counter intiutiveness.
Joshua 11:10-11, 6:21, 10:25-28
Judges 1:17, 3:28-29
All these things has orderd by the God of the bible to make massacared and genocide on innocent earliest dwellers with the strict order to kill every man, women and even childrens. Tesfaye you may see these veres and say to me as many christians does by saying '' this was not about religion but this was about territory(land) unlike you muslims do'' But the truth is just look at the following verses which shows these killings (massacards) has been done for the sake of religions or faith not for territory(land).
Exodus 32:27-29, 22:19-20

Dear Rajib H.

You are claiming that jihad began in the Old Testament. I suppose that the first thing we must define is jihad itself. What is jihad? The term is not in the Old Testament. However, it is found in the Muslim culture. The concept of fighting is an important idea in the Qur’an. Check the following:
 
 “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (8:39 Hilali-Khan translation, also in the following quotations)
 
 “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (8:67)
 
 “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)
 
 “It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).” (9:33)
 
 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.” (2:216)
 
 “So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,” (47:4)

Mohammed was the model of jihad participating in a number of battles and planning others.

The respected biographer, Muhammad bin Ishaq, one of Islam’s greatest scholars wrote about Mohammed’s call to jihad and the battles he planned and fought. (The Life of Mohammed, by Mohammed bin Ishaq, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 1967, pp. 281-490)

The same prescription is given in the traditions about Mohammed:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25)

What are the effects of this teaching in the Qur’an and the hadiths? Under the leaders who succeeded Mohammed the Muslims continued what Mohammed had done in Arabia. About three years after Mohammed died, Damascus fell, Antioch fell the next year, and two years later, in 638, Jerusalem fell. By 642 all of Egypt had fallen and the conquest continued for years to come until the Muslims were stopped at the battle of Tours in AD 732. Not only did the conquest move west but also east. The slaughter was horrible. Everywhere people were killed, enslaved, women raped, and there was destruction of nations and cities. In terms of lives lost the estimate has been made that 270 million people have been killed by the Muslims since the time of Mohammed (see here).

Jihad has been practiced against people of all kinds of nations, all kinds of belief system, and for 1400 years. It is still going on in modern times against anyone who is a non-Muslim.

Hopefully, we now know what Jihad is in the Muslim sense.

Now we must turn to the story of the Bible to see if there is any kind of jihad there. You claim that it is not about land, but about religion. If you will read the verses below you will discover that it is about land in the very beginning of the story of Abraham in which Yahweh promised the land. In your statement, you have overlooked the history of the Old Testament. You must read the whole story. Let’s begin with Abraham and what Yahweh promised him. We will have to look at the whole chapter:

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great." But Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" And Abram said, "Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir." And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: "This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir." And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess." But he said, "O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites." (Gen. 15:1-21 ESV)

If you care to think about this passage you can find a background to the passages you quoted without regard to any context. Abraham’s offspring would be in Egypt all that time as pilgrims then would be enslaved before being liberated by Yahweh. All this time would amount to over 400 years. This is the patience of Yahweh concerning people who sinned greatly against his holiness. A variety of idolatries were practiced, even human sacrifice to Molech, temple prostitution in the worship of Baal, and many other sins.

Does 400 years seem like impatience? There seems to come a time when judgment must fall and Yahweh is the one doing the judgment. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah the time came. In the case of the inhabitants of Canaan the time came. The pronouncement of judgment is seen in the following passage.
 
“When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out, you shall not bow down to their gods nor serve them, nor do as they do, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces. You shall serve the LORD your God, and he will bless your bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from among you.” (Exodus 23:23-25)

If you care to consider these verses, there are limitations on the judgment. It is restricted to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites. No one else!! There is no reference to Babylon, there is no connection to any other nation except these listed. There is no command to wipe out the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Arabians, the Persians, or anyone. There is no command to conquer the world and force or compel it to become Jewish.

Once this judgment was passed there are many commands about welcoming and protecting the sojourner in their midst.

Before the events of judgment on these groups we have the words in Exodus,
 
“... but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.” (Exodus 20:10)
 
“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)

These were non-Jews and there was respect for them.

Part of the reason for the judgment upon Jews centuries later announced by the prophet Ezekiel was,

“The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice.” (Ezekiel 22:29)

The last prophet in the Old Testament declares God’s word,
 
“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 3:5)

One more perspective is important for seeing what happens in the Old Testament concerning judgment. Here the issue is that after 400 years Israel is used by Yahweh to bring judgment on these people. However, Israel is warned that if they are disobedient to Yahweh they will be judged. The prophets of the Old Testament announce again and again that God’s judgment is coming by means of another nation destroying them.
 
“Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, "Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets." But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God They despised his statutes and his covenant that he made with their fathers and the warnings that he gave them. They went after false idols and became false, and they followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom the LORD had commanded them that they should not do like them. And they abandoned all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made for themselves metal images of two calves; and they made an Asherah and worshiped all the host of heaven and served Baal. And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings and used divination and omens and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger. Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight. None was left but the tribe of Judah only. Judah also did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the customs that Israel had introduced. And the LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel and afflicted them and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until he had cast them out of his sight. When he had torn Israel from the house of David, they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. And Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD and made them commit great sin. The people of Israel walked in all the sins that Jeroboam did. They did not depart from them, until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had spoken by all his servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day. (2 Kings 17:13-23)

The view of history is expressed also in the following passage:
 
“So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and he took them into exile, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river Gozan, to this day.” (1 Chronicles 5:26)

Jeremiah, the prophet also declares God’s activity in judging Israel by another nation. Not only was Assyria punished by Yahweh’s use of another nation, but that nation would be punished also for its sins. The following passage declares this:
 
“Israel is a hunted sheep driven away by lions. First the king of Assyria devoured him, and now at last Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has gnawed his bones. Therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing punishment on the king of Babylon and his land, as I punished the king of Assyria.” (Jeremiah 50:17-18)

Not only would the Babylonians come as Yahweh’s judge on Israel, but the sin of the Israelites would be such that Yahweh declares He will make them a terror to themselves. Note the following passage:
 
“For thus says the LORD: Behold, I will make you a terror to yourself and to all your friends. They shall fall by the sword of their enemies while you look on. And I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon. He shall carry them captive to Babylon, and shall strike them down with the sword.” (Jeremiah 20:4)

The warnings from Yahweh had been made repeatedly and the most sacred place in Israel was Jerusalem and its temple. The judgment of Yahweh was that the city would be destroyed and the temple burned.
 
“For I have set my face against this city for harm and not for good, declares the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.” (Jeremiah 21:10)

The punishment on Israel would last for 70 years in their captivity in the land of Babylon and then they would return to Israel. At the end of the period of time, the captive people would be free because Babylon would fall and that kingdom would be no more.

“Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the LORD, making the land an everlasting waste.” (Jeremiah 25:12)

The punishment or visitation of its iniquity upon Babylon was executed when the city was taken, after a long and difficult siege, by the allied Medes and Persians under Cyrus’ command. This was in 538 BC, just 68 years after Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar for the first time. From the time of the fall of Babylon the sovereignty passed to the Medes and Persians.

No, I don’t think jihad began in the Old Testament. It began with Mohammed.

We should now look at the passages of Scripture that are used to suggest jihad in the Old Testament. The first is:
 
 “... then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, "Who is on the LORD's side? Come to me." And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.'” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell.” (Exodus 32:26-28)

What has gone on here? The word of Yahweh to Abraham was in the process of being fulfilled. After years of slavery in Egypt they are now being delivered. They have knowledge of the plagues on their masters in Egypt, they have experienced the Passover in which their first born children are saved in the night of the Passover, they have experienced deliverance from Pharaoh’s army at the Sea, they have experienced daily food that Yahweh provided out of nowhere, they have seen His provision of water, they have seen Yahweh’s presence day and night and in the most awesome way at Sinai where Moses was given the Law. They also have been grumbling, complaining, rebelling, and wanting to return to slavery in Egypt rather than being free in the land that was promised to Abraham. Some of the people persuaded Aaron to make an idol out of their jewelry and they regarded the idol as the god who brought them out of Egypt. (32:4)

These were direct insults to the mercy and grace of Yahweh. What ingratitude!! What thoughtlessness!! How warped were their reasons that they could know all this and turn against Yahweh. In light of this, the rebellious were dealt with. They were judged for their iniquity. There is no command to the Levites that they should pursue other nations to forcibly bring them under the rule of Yahweh. Neither has there been a command to the nation or people of Israel to do that. It seems reasonable to think that the idolaters were the only ones killed since there were still people left to continue the journey.

The second passage is:
 
“Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death. Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction.” (Exodus 22:19-20)

First, this is a passage that relates to the life of Israel in its strictest sense. These people were chosen by Yahweh to be a blessing to the world, and one of these blessings related to the promise of the Messiah that would come in their midst, foretold by the prophets in the Old Testament. Yahweh wanted a faithful people. Second, there were lots of idol worshipers in the world in those days and there was no jihad called for against them. The list of people, Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites, were the only ones singled out for judgment. Third, idol worship can do no good for anyone and the demands are immoral. Some of these people sacrificed their children to the gods, others were involved in temple prostitution as in the case of Baal worship, and the gods gave nothing in return. Fourth, why would one turn from a Being who delivered you from slavery to an idol that could do nothing in response? Fifth, idolatry was like a cancer that would spread through the whole body of people if it were not stopped. Sixth, again, it must be emphasized that this was a very limited command related to the people of Israel, not other cultures. There were old cultures, Indian, Chinese, and others that were idolaters and nothing is pronounced against nations away from Israel.

The third passage is:
 
“And Joshua turned back at that time and captured Hazor and struck its king with the sword, for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. And they struck with the sword all who were in it, devoting them to destruction; there was none left that breathed. And he burned Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua captured, and struck them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. But none of the cities that stood on mounds did Israel burn, except Hazor alone; that Joshua burned.” (Joshua 11:10-13)

This passage gives an example of Yahweh using one nation to bring judgment on the evil nation whose time had come. The same idea relates to Israel later when the Assyrians are bringing judgment on the northern Kingdom and the Babylonians were bringing Yahweh’s pronouncement of judgment on the southern kingdom, or Judah. If Yahweh cannot judge his creation, who can?  If one must condemn Joshua and his people, then one must also condemn the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Rather, the Old Testaments describe Yahweh as the Lord of History and Ruler of His Creation.

The fourth passage:
 
“And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous. For thus the LORD will do to all your enemies against whom you fight." And afterward Joshua struck them and put them to death, and he hanged them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. But at the time of the going down of the sun, Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves, and they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. As for Makkedah, Joshua captured it on that day and struck it, and its king, with the edge of the sword. He devoted to destruction every person in it; he left none remaining. And he did to the king of Makkedah just as he had done to the king of Jericho.” (Joshua 10:25-28)

This passage fits into the same category of the one above and the comments related to it.

The fifth passage:
 
“Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword. But to the two men who had spied out the land, Joshua said, "Go into the prostitute's house and bring out from there the woman and all who belong to her, as you swore to her."” (Joshua 6:21-22)

Rajib listed only 6:21, but the context of the story is interesting in many ways. First, it was an act of Yahweh who brought down the walls. Joshua’s people only marched around the city for 7 days blowing the trumpet but it was Yahweh who brought down the walls. Second, it was again the people coming to re-claim the land promised to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob. These were the people who were in Egypt in slavery, not anyone else connected to Abraham. Third, it is interesting that a prostitute’s life was spared by her faith and commitment to Yahweh’s people. Her faith in Yahweh saved her. She was not stoned. There is forgiveness for prostitutes. Is there forgiveness for prostitutes in Islam?

The sixth passage is:
 
“And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they defeated the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath and devoted it to destruction. So the name of the city was called Hormah.” (Judges 1:17)

This passage still relates to the campaign to take possession of the land that Yahweh had given them.

The seventh passage is:
 
“And he said to them, "Follow after me, for the LORD has given your enemies the Moabites into your hand." So they went down after him and seized the fords of the Jordan against the Moabites and did not allow anyone to pass over. And they killed at that time about 10,000 of the Moabites, all strong, able-bodied men; not a man escaped. So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest for eighty years.” (Judges 3:28-30)

The book of judges has a theme of “each man did what was right in his own eyes,” and general deterioration of loyalty to Yahweh is described in the many chapters. The theme is repeated many times in which the people fall away, the judgment of Yahweh takes place allowing invaders to come and enslave them until they are desperate and cry out to Yahweh to deliver them. In this case, the Moabites had come and subjected the people for many years.

When they repented of their sins, Yahweh raised up a leader who brought deliverance and in this case they were fighting for their country again. The enemy was killed and they had rest and peace for 80 years before another falling away took place and the process was repeated.

In conclusion, the concept of jihad as the Muslim world views it does not exist in the Old Testament. The fulfillment of the promise to Abraham involved Yahweh’s judgment on the peoples there. Yahweh is still Lord of history!! To understand the Old or New Testament one must read the whole story.

Thanks for writing. If you have other questions I would try to answer them.

Blessings, Dallas

Source:

IHS


Admin · 33 views · Leave a comment
20 Apr 2013 
Bart Ehrman: A Hero for Islam?

By Keith Thompson


Many Muslims adore the New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman because he is a former Christian who is now a critic of the New Testament. He has authored numerous books attacking the validity of the New Testament including Misquoting Jesus. In turn Ehrman’s claims have been challenged and addressed in subsequent articles and debates.1 Muslims often exploit Ehrman’s work and parade his anti-Christian rhetoric in videos and articles. But is Ehrman really a hero for Islam? Or does he hold to historical views that are detrimental to Islam?

The aim of this article is to do two things. 1. Show that Bart Ehrman grants four major and fundamental things concerning the life of Jesus and about Christianity that Islam denies. 2. To give reference material to those who are confronted with Muslims who appeal to Bart Ehrman as a hero for Islam. This article will demonstrate that many of Bart Ehrman’s writings are useful tools against Islam.

Topic 1: The Crucifixion of Jesus
The vast majority of Muslims rejects the Crucifixion of Christ because their Qur’an rejects this historical event. In the Qur’an we read:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. (Qur’an 4:157, Pickthall)

It is quite clear that this religion teaches its followers that Jesus’ crucifixion was just an act of deception on the part of Allah. The Qur’an teaches that Allah deceived everyone to think Jesus was crucified but that it didn’t actually happen historically speaking. This claim is very problematic and it flies in the face of 1st and 2nd century historical data. For this reason the supposed hero of Islam, Bart Ehrman rejects Islam’s position that Jesus wasn’t crucified and he has openly stated that he believes Jesus was crucified according to the available data. In his work ‘The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,’ he states:

In any event, Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate.2

So it seems that the hero for Islam agrees with the Christians about Jesus being crucified. This is valuable information and is very useful to bring up to anyone who touts Ehrman as the hero of Islam.

Topic 2: Paul the Usurper or Real Apostle of Christ?
Many modern Muslims hate Paul because Paul clearly taught Christ’s divinity in his writings. Even though there is a strong case to be made that Paul was a true apostle according to the Qur’an and early Muslim sources (*), many Muslims do not hesitate to slander and even mock the Apostle Paul. Many Muslims claim that Paul was not a true apostle. They claim that he simply came in later and corrupted everything somehow.

However, Bart Ehrman does not share this radical belief. In fact Bart Ehrman defends Apostle Paul as an early reliable source of information for the life of Jesus. Ehrman contends that, based on the evidence, the Apostle Paul knew the original disciples of Jesus and became one of them.

In a radio interview the Infidel Guy challenged the notion that Jesus even existed and claimed that there is no real evidence for him existing. Ehrman, confused at the assertion because virtually no scholars hold this view, corrects the deceived radio host. They then debate and Ehrman states the following:

We have one author who actually knew Jesus’ relatives and knew his disciples…Paul….It’s not an embellishment that Paul met with James in Jerusalem.3

So what we have is Islam’s hero Bart Ehrman destroying modern Muslim belief about Apostle Paul. Ehrman, along with the majority of serious scholarship holds the view that Paul was a true disciple of Jesus Christ who met with the leaders of the early church shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, not a usurper.

Topic 3: Jesus was buried & His Apostles Reported Visions
Muslims deny that Jesus was crucified. Islam teaches that Jesus was rescued from the cross by Allah and that someone was made to appear like Jesus on the cross. However the hero of Islam, Bart Ehrman, although he disputes the type of burial Jesus had, does concede that Jesus was most likely buried and that his disciples most likely did have visions where they believed they saw the risen Christ!

Dr. Ehrman remarks:
What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?) claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough was Jesus’ own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principle leaders of the early Christian church.4

Since Islam denies that Jesus died and was buried one can logically assume that they deny that Jesus’ followers had multiple experiences in which they thought that they had seen the risen Christ. I am not aware of any Islamic text which states that the post resurrection appearances were delusions from Allah. However the supposed hero of Islam grants all of this based on the early data. It looks like Bart Ehrman holds to historical views which undermine Islam in a very strong way.

Topic 4: Does the Bible anywhere teach that Jesus is God?
It is a common theme for Muslims to assert that nowhere in the Bible does it teach that Jesus is God. Many debates have been waged on this very subject. Muslims believe that it is shirk (unforgivable sin) to associate partners with Allah. This is why Muslims will try to make a case that the Bible doesn’t teach that Jesus is God. Because they don’t understand the Trinitarian doctrine they believe we are associating another being with God. However the Trinity doctrine teaches that there is one being of God existing in three persons, not three beings. One Muslim apologist Sami Zaatari has stated:

I don’t believe the first four gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John… I don’t believe preach he is God at all. I believe they preach that he is the Messiah, a prophet and that’s it. And he did mighty miracles and great works.5

This is a bold claim but does Islam’s anti-Christian hero Bart Ehrman share the same view as Zaatari? Or does Bart Ehrman admit that there are passages in the Gospels that teach Jesus’ deity?

Bart Ehrman refutes Zaatari’s distortion and states:

The Gospel of John …goes a long way toward identifying Jesus himself as divine (see e.g., John 8:58; 10:30; 20:28).6

These are the verses which Ehrman believes attest to Jesus’ divinity in the Gospel of John:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58, NASB)

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30, NASB)

Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28, NASB)

Although Muslim apologists will claim that the Gospels don’t teach that Jesus is God, Islam’s supposed hero Bart Ehrman lists three passages in the Gospel of John that he feels clearly attest to Christ’s divinity.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we learn that Ehrman grants many things that Islam emphatically denies which should make people wonder why they hold this man in such a high view. We learn that Ehrman accepts four important historical facts that Islam rejects about Jesus and early Christianity. Ehrman grants Jesus’ death on the cross, the reliability of Paul as an apostle and acquaintance of the disciples, Jesus’ burial, that Jesus’ followers had experiences in which they believe Jesus appeared to them, and that the Gospel of John teaches the deity of Christ. This information should be useful to anyone who is confronted by Muslims who tout Bart Ehrman as a hero for Islam. Bart Ehrman’s views should in fact be used as a weapon against Islam.

Christ has risen, he is Lord.

Footnotes
1 For a few articles and debates regarding Ehrmans views see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
2 Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press, 2000], p. 197
3 Infidel Guy Interview with Bart Ehrman (31:50 – 35:38)
4 Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, [Oxford University Press US, 1999], p.229
5 Sam Shamoun vs Sami Zaatari Debate: Is Jesus God? Time slice (3:49 – 4:05)
6 Bart Ehrman, Whose Word Is It? [Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006], p. 161

Source:

IHS
Admin · 16 views · Leave a comment
20 Mar 2013 
Al-Azhar Scholar in Debate on Sex Ed in Arab Schools: Sex Ed is 'Implementation of the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]'
Following are excerpts from a television debate on sex education in schools in the Arab world. The debate aired on Al-Jazeera TV on August 11, 2009.

To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit .

"When You Incorporate the 'Colonialist, Crusader Invasion' Into Our Discussion, It's Like Saying That Teaching About the Digestive or Respiratory Systems Constitutes Colonialist Invasion"

Egyptian author Dr. Khaled Muntaser: "Dr. Faysal, let us begin by defining the kind of sex education that needs to be taught at school. When you incorporate the 'colonialist, Crusader invasion' into our discussion, it's like saying that teaching about the digestive or respiratory systems constitutes colonialist invasion. How can we say that sex education and teaching the reproductive system amounts to a colonialist invasion?
"I would like to share with the viewers a personal story. When I was at high school in Egypt, the teacher came into class one day, and said: 'Good news! The reproductive system has been removed [from the exam] this year. There will be no questions about it.' As young students, we were happy that the curriculum had shrunk. Later, I realized that this was not a personal decision of the teacher. It is the position of the Arab culture, which is terrified by the human body."
[...]

"Some Books of Jurisprudence Say That Pregnancy Lasts Four Years"

Al-Azhar university scholar Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "What [the imam] Malik and [the imam] Al-Shafi'i said about the minimum and maximum terms of pregnancy is based on life experience. They set the principles according to the norm."
Khaled Muntaser: "What, in the past pregnancy lasted four years and now only nine months?"
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "I didn't say that."
Khaled Muntaser: "So what life experience are you talking about?"
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "You're not listening to me."
Khaled Muntaser: "This is about science."
[...]
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Some books of jurisprudence say that pregnancy lasts four years, while others - like Ibn Hazm and Averroes, who are among the greatest jurisprudents - say the norm for people is nine months.
[...]
"A fetus can spend more than nine months [in the womb]. This happens in cattle. A cow can become pregnant and give birth..."
Khaled Muntaser: "Are we talking about cattle now?!"
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Allow me!"
Khaled Muntaser: "Next thing you'll bring us the elephant. What cattle are you talking about?"
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "You people turn human into cattle.
"Cows are pregnant for nine months. Sometimes it lasts for 10 months. That's the truth. It's very normal, but rare." [...]

"It Was the Qur’an That Taught the World to Respect Science"

"It was the Qur’an that taught the world to respect science, man. Before that, Europe had not heard about science and knew nothing about it. We are the ones who taught it about science."
Khaled Muntaser: "And where have we gone since then?
[...]
"When a gym teacher forbids girls from participating in gymnastics, claiming that their hymen might be torn, he is committing a sex crime. When a kindergarten teacher separates boys from girls at the age of four, and forces four-year-old girls to wear the hijab, she is perpetrating a crime in sex education."
[...]
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "I have visited London. Haven't you seen the sex shops there?"
Khaled Muntaser: "What are you talking about? We are talking about sex education at school." [...]

"Sex Was Given Moral Values and an Existential Role in the Life of Mankind Only In Islam"

Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Sex was given moral values and an existential role in the life of mankind only in Islam. The ancient Greeks degenerated to the point that they worshipped the sexual organs, and others despised them, like in India. Islam does not say such things."[...]

"Everything That Is Happening is the Implementation of The Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]"

"Don't you realize that everything that is happening is the implementation of The Protocols?"
Interviewer: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ?"
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Yes."
Interviewer: "You mean that sex education is a conspiracy?"
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Let me finish."
Interviewer: "Go ahead."
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "When Freud says that man lives for the sake of his sex organ, and when Marx says that man lives for the sake of his belly - they are not really talking about humans, but about herds of cattle."
Khaled Muntaser: "Are you talking about the Freud we know?"
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "They are trying to apply this to humans. People are not like that!"
 [...]
Khaled Muntaser: "Sex, according to Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli, is only about child bearing."
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Not true!"
Khaled Muntaser: "For him, sex is a factory for children..."
Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "Not true!"
Khaled Muntaser: "If they invent a machine, maybe we should get it. Just like a machine makes ice-cream, it will be able to produce children." [...]

"When a Child Is Exposed to Such Information... He Will Do It With His Sister"

Ibrahim Al-Khouli: "According to scientific reason, the idea leads to action. When you get an idea, you start thinking about how to implement it. When a child is exposed to such information, he tries to imitate it. He will do it with his sister. That is one of the most catastrophic problems."

Source:

IHS
Admin · 18 views · Leave a comment
20 Mar 2013 
You cannot kill a Muslim because he killed a Christian"

"The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim." --'Umdat al-Salik, o4.9

"Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution...Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash....Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim...then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain...Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed....Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." -- Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Four Sudan Islamists to hang for US diplomat murder," from AFP, October 12:

KHARTOUM-- A Sudanese court sentenced four Islamists to death for a second time on Monday for the murder of a US diplomat and his driver in Khartoum last year.

The sentencing came after the mother of John Granville, who worked with the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the wife of driver Abdel Rahman Abbas both demanded the men be executed.

Granville and Abbas were returning from a New Year's celebration in 2008 when the gunmen opened fire on their car, riddling them both with bullets.

"The murder of a person is as illegal from the point of view of shariah (Islamic law) as it is in Sudanese criminal law," the judge, Said Ahmed al-Badri, said when announcing the sentence.

The court had condemned the men to death in June for the New Year's Day murders of Granville and Abbas but the sentences were cancelled in August after Abbas's father forgave the men.

Under Islamic law, the victim's family has the right to forgive the murderer, ask for compensation or demand execution.

Granville's mother, Jane Granville, at the time had asked for the men's execution but her letter was rejected because it was not notarised. A new letter was submitted by her and read out by a court prosecutor on Sunday.

On Monday, Abbas's wife appeared before the court to demand the death penalty for the four convicts.

One of the defendants, Mohammed Osman Yusef, shouted after sentencing: "You cannot killed a Muslim because he killed a Christian."

Dressed in a traditional white robe, the bearded Yusef, a former military officer, also accused the United States of killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Islamic law condemns murder, regardless of the nationality or religion (of the victim)," the judge said. Some Muslim scholars say a Muslim can be punished, but not executed, for killing a non-Muslim.

The judge added that according to Islamic law Granville was a "dhimmi" in Sudan, referring to the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state that affords them protection and a waiver from army service, in return for a tax.

Sudanese law does not recognise non-Muslims in the country as dhimmis....

It said the murder was in response to attempts to raise the banner of Christianity over Sudan, the largest country in Africa....



Source:

IHS


Admin · 27 views · Leave a comment
20 Mar 2013 
Hope in Allah’s Salvation?

A former Muslim’s Perspective


By Mutee’a Al-Fadi


When I was a Muslim I was taught to believe that our eternal destiny and our hope of salvation in paradise are only known to Allah and under his divine control. We or any other creature have no hope whatsoever in securing such on our own, nor have we any control over our final destiny, even though Islam teaches that people may have hope to be saved by works, provided they are covered by the mercy of Allah on Judgment Day. Furthermore, the Qur’an explicitly teaches that Allah is the ultimate authority over guiding and misguiding people and that he has already determined their eternal abode. The following verses from the Qur’an demonstrate this belief very clearly:

Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). Q. 4:88 Hilali & Khan

Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did. Q. 6:108 Y. Ali

We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom. Q. 14:4 Y. Ali

In addition, when we study the teachings of Muhammad we find further confirmation of such belief. The following hadiths serve as examples:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Allah says, 'The vow, does not bring about for the son of Adam anything I have not decreed for him, but his vow may coincide with what has been decided for him, and by this way I cause a miser to spend of his wealth. So he gives Me (spends in charity) for the fulfillment of what has been decreed for him what he would not give Me before but for his vow." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 685)

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.' Then Adam said to him, 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet added, repeating the Statement three times. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 685)

Abdullah b. Amr b. al-'As reported that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily, the hearts of all the sons of Adam are between the two fingers out of the fingers of the Compassionate Lord as one heart. He turns that to any (direction) He likes. Then Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: O Allah, the Turner of the hearts, turn our hearts to Thine obedience. (Sahih Bukhari, Book 033, Number 6418)

Upon examining these Islamic sources one can become convinced that Allah, the so called “most compassionate and most merciful”, actually has neither compassion nor mercy for his Muslim people, let alone for non-Muslims. In light of what we have just examined, I want to raise the question of how can anyone have a glimmer of hope in a god who made it very clear that no one has any control concerning their eternal destiny, whether it be based on their good deeds or any other means.

Furthermore, these sources show very vividly that all humans, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are predestined to do whatever act is ordained for them including the act of shirk, which is the association of other deities beside Allah. In other words, Allah has predestined some to commit shirk against him and others not to. If this statement sounds utterly outrageous, the following verse should provide a clear proof:

And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction. Q. 17:16 Shakir

When we review some of the Islamic commentaries dealing with this verse we will read the following:

Al-Tabari in his commentary said:

Ibn Abbas said: “We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives”, means, we [Allah] commands its wicked people to transgress in the town, and once they do so I [Allah] will destroy them. (Source)1

Ar-Razi also stated:

... “We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives”, meaning we [Allah] increase its [the town’s] transgression. (Source)

Al-Qurtubi added: Allah declared in the verse preceding this one that he sends prophets to warn people before he destroys them, not that it matters to him to do so, but rather as a promise from him, and he does not change his promises.2 So if Allah wanted to destroy a village to fulfill his promise, he will order its people who live an easy life to commit abomination and injustice, therefore his commandment to destroy it will be accomplished. He is declaring that whoever perishes, will perish by Allah’s will, for he is the one who work all things with a divine purpose to fulfill his commandments. (Source)

How comforting is that thought? How can anyone trust in a god that has a divine purpose to destroy people by commanding them to sin and commit abominations to fulfill his divine purpose?

Furthermore, the Qur’an states that it was sent by Allah as a guidance ONLY to those believers who do good deeds.

Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward. Q. 17:9 Shakir

When examining some of the classical Islamic commentaries concerning this verse we read the following:

Al-Tabari
{and gives good news to the believers} ... brings glad tiding in addition to its guidance to those who are upright, who believe in Allah and his messenger, and do good deeds in this world according to what Allah has commanded them ... {shall have a great reward} from Allah as a reward for their belief and for their good deeds. {great} meaning a great reward, which is paradise, which Allah has prepared to those whom he is pleased with. (Source)

Ibn Katheer
Allah describes his book which he has revealed to Muhammad that it guides to the straight path and the clearest of ways. It also brings glad tiding to those who believe in it and do good deeds according to its teachings, that they will have great reward on the day of judgment. (Source)

Just to recap this part of our analysis, as a Muslim person or even someone who is seeking to know more about Islam, do the preceding accounts from the god of Islam give you a sense of security or assurance? If the god who claims to be the one true god, the creator of heaven and earth, the judge of mankind, if this god can’t even assure his people of being protected from his actions, and further, if he can’t even assure his righteous people as well, how then can you be certain that you will be saved from his wrath?

However, even if we were to comprehend or harmonize the preceding so called “divine” accounts, we find ourselves with even more confusing teachings concerning someone’s hope in the Islamic version of Salvation.3 This time we focus our attention on the Hadith traditions and what Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had to say about this topic regarding someone’s assurance of salvation.

Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "No human being is killed unjustly, but a part of responsibility for the crime is laid on the first son of Adam who invented the tradition of killing (murdering) on the earth. (It is said that he was Qabil). (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 6)

This hadith appears to place the blame of the crime of murder in the world on the first son of Adam, who killed his brother. If this is true of murder, then one can say that this is true of other crimes as well. Such Islamic teaching is very confusing because it portrays humans to be in complete control of their actions whereas Allah is removed from such action. Yet earlier we read that Allah claimed to be the author of every single deed committed by humans, the good ones and the bad ones alike. This begs the question of who is in charge here, Allah or humans.

The following hadith further affirms this view that man has authority over his/her own actions.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "Allah will say to the person who will have the minimum punishment in the Fire on the Day of Resurrection, 'If you had things equal to whatever is on the earth, would you ransom yourself (from the punishment) with it?' He will reply, Yes. Allah will say, 'I asked you a much easier thing than this while you were in the backbone of Adam, that is, not to worship others besides Me, but you refused and insisted to worship others besides Me." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 562)

So far we have shown contradictions between the Islamic teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith regarding the actions of humans and their relation to Allah’s predestination of such actions. However, our confusion does not stop there. The following verses from the Qur’an introduce another agent whose authority can determine the actions of humans, even having authority over their eternal destination:

But the Shaitan 4 made them both fall from it, and caused them to depart from that(state) in which they were; and We said: Get forth, some of you being the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. Q. 2:36 Shakir

Here is what Al-Tabari has to say about this verse:

{made them both fall from it}… meaning Iblis 5 [Satan] because he caused them [Adam and Eve] to sin which Allah had punished them for by removing them from heaven.

Notice that the agent who caused Adam and Eve to fall is Satan. Although, this claim may sound reasonable to accept, the language of the Qur’an tries to remove any human will from this entire action, thus making Satan not only the master mind but also the author of the fall of man.

However, if we read what Az-Zamakhshari had to say concerning this verse we uncover a hidden agent behind Satan’s action:

. . . Satan caused them to fall because he made them eat from the tree. . . a similar scenario can be found in what Allah said in {and I did not do it of my own accord} [Q. 18:82 Shakir]

What Az-Zamakhshari is referencing in [Q. 18.82] had to do with the story of a servant who accompanied Moses for a season to test his patience by performing certain acts of violence against others. When questioned by Moses concerning these actions, the servant’s response was: “I did not do it of my own accord, since it was Allah who commanded me to do it.”

In other word, Az-Zamakhshari is comparing the story of the servant with the story of the fall of Adam and Eve by stating that even though it was Satan who caused them to fall, he [Satan] was actually performing an action commanded to him by Allah. And so, we come full circle back to Allah as the sole author of all deeds of mankind. Hence, we have to ask our readers again: How can you trust in such a god who commands even the devil to cause you to sin against him in an effort to punish you?

The following verse makes the issue at hand even more convoluted by stating that Allah couldn’t save some of the nations of the past due to the power of the deception of Satan.

By Allah, We verily sent messengers unto the nations before thee, but the devil made their deeds fairseeming unto them. So he is their patron this day, and theirs will be a painful doom. Q. 16:63 Pickthall

It is rather disturbing to know such a thing, especially when Allah is swearing by himself as a testimony to the truth of this account. Al-Tabari in his commentary of this verse stated:

Allah swore by himself to his prophet Muhammad (saw) saying: By Allah, O Muhammad we sent messengers before you to their nations with the same message we sent you with to your nation, by inviting them to worship one god; to be sincere to him in worship; and to obey his commands. . . but Satan made their disbelief fairseeming to them until they rejected their messengers. (Source)

How can any individual Muslim have confidence that Allah will make any effort to protect him or her from Satan and his deception if Allah did not even care to protect entire nations? Can we even assume that Allah is able to protect anyone from Satan? It is clear, after all, that Satan was able to mislead them all even though Allah sent messengers to them, supposedly because he was intending to guide them? So, Satan deception is actually stronger than Allah’s guidance? In fact, when you read the verse closely you will be able to see that Allah uses the reference to what happened to the nations of the messengers before Muhammad as an indirect warning that the same can happen to Muhammad’s nation.

Furthermore, upon examining other verses dealing with Satan and his impact on the entire human race, the following verse makes it clear that Allah’s warning to Adam and Eve in Eden was not only against the eating from the forbidden tree, but it also was to avoid Satan:

So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?" Q. 7:22 Y. Ali

What this verse tells us then is that Satan had power over Adam and Eve so much so that Allah can’t even protect them from his deception. This is different than God warning Adam and Eve against disobeying God’s command6 and the consequences of such action, as the Bible teaches.7

The power of Satan according to the Qur’an includes false revelations of the Qur’an to the messengers and prophets of the past.

Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom. Q. 22:52 Y. Ali

Islamic commentaries and tradition reveal to us that the main purpose behind the revelation of this verse is that Satan revealed to Muhammad verses which Allah had not intended, and Muhammad would assume them to be from Allah. The Allah revealed this verse to him to comfort him and assure him that Allah will remedy this problem. Just let’s examine what Al-Tabari had to say about this particular verse:

It was said: the reason behind the revelation of this verse to the messenger of Allah (saw), is that Satan put in his mouth some of the verses he was reciting from the Qur’an, which was not revealed to him from Allah. As a result, the messenger of Allah (saw) was getting depressed over this, but Allah comforted him with these verses. (Source)

Al-Qurtubi added: The idolaters used to say, the prophets should never err or forget, however Allah revealed that they [the prophets] are mere humans . . . and it is permissible for humans to forget and err until Allah establishes his verses and abrogates the deceptions of Satan. (Source)

My dear Muslim brothers and sisters, I beseech you to ponder what you have just read concerning the revelations of the Qur’an. How can you be certain that whatever promises given to you throughout the Qur’an are actually from Allah? How can you be certain that your salvation according to the Qur’an is assured? What if it was Satan who spoke or uttered these promises through Muhammad or the other prophets who preceded him?8

This is a very serious matter since the Qur’an teaches that one must follow the teaching of Allah and the prophet:

And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy. Q. 3:132 Y. Ali

Those are limits set by Allah: those who obey Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, to abide therein (for ever) and that will be the supreme achievement. Q. 4:13 Y. Ali

If the above verse is not strong enough to reveal to you the power of Satan, how about the verse below where the tone is more than clear that Allah is appealing to his human creations not to follow Satan who has been deceiving numerous people leading them astray, away from the straight path.

Did I not charge you, O children of Adam! that you should not serve the Shaitan? Surely he is your open enemy, and that you should serve Me; this is the right way. And certainly he led astray numerous people from among you. What! could you not then understand? Q. 36:60-62 Shakir

The problem with these verses is not only that Satan has so much power over Allah’s creation, the human beings, but the fact that Allah is a co-conspirator with Satan from the beginning. If that sounds surprising, just read the following verses and judge for yourself:9

O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith. Q. 7:27 Y. Ali

The prominent Islamic exegete Al-Baydawi in his commenatry “Anwar At-tanzeel wa Asrar At-ta’weel” says concerning this verse:

{We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.} by what we [Allah] founded between the evil ones and the unbelievers of compatibility. . . by sending the evil ones to them and giving them power to deceive them and empowering them to do wickedness.

The prophet of Islam also feared Satan and his power. The following hadith tradition states this point vividly:

Narrated Safiya bint Huyai: The wife of the Prophet that she went to Allah's Apostle while he was in Itikaf (staying in the mosque) during the last ten nights of the month of Ramadan. She spoke to him for an hour (a while) at night and then she got up to return home. The Prophet got up to accompany her, and when they reached the gate of the mosque opposite the dwelling place of Um Salama, the wife of the Prophet, two Ansari men passed by, and greeting Allah's Apostle, they quickly went ahead. Allah's Apostle said to them, "Do not be in a hurry. She is Safiya, the daughter of Huyai." They said, "Subhan Allah! O Allah's Apostle (how dare we suspect you)." That was a great thing for both of them. The Prophet then said, "Satan runs in the body of Adam's son (i.e. man) as his blood circulates in it, and I was afraid that he (Satan) might insert an evil thought in your hearts." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 238)

How comforting can it be to know that the most powerful, most knowing god [Allah], can chose to only save some or even at times uses Satan to deceive humans. In fact, the preceding verses depict Satan with an almost equal power to this god. In light of all what we have examined, is this truly a god you can follow and rest your very assurance of salvation upon? If you can’t rest upon God’s attribute of omnipotence to be able trust in Him for protection from the devil’s schemes, how can we then trust him to save us from hell and eternal punishment?

Hence, I like to appeal to my fellow Muslim people, what chance do you have before Allah to survive his awaiting punishment or to please him? I think you will agree that the answer to this is: None whatsoever.

As a result, I ask you to place your hope of Salvation from God’s wrath and His eternal damnation on the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose power over Satan was evidenced from birth and even admitted by Muhammad:

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab: Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641)

When Muhammad said that he without a doubt had this Qur’anic verse in mind:

When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected. Q. 3:36 Y. Ali

In conclusion, I pray that the evidences presented to you throughout this paper will open your eyes to one truth, that Jesus Christ is the only one who can protect you and provide you with the straight path to Heaven. His work of Salvation is guaranteed10 and His love for you was evident on the cross. May the Lord bless you and open your eyes to the devil and His schemes in order that you may find light in Him.

Footnotes
1 Translations of Arabic sources are my own.
2 For more on the fact that Allah does change his promises, please see these articles: 1, 2, 3, 4.
3 For more on the Islamic teachings of Salvation and its inconsistency, see these articles: 1, 2, 3.
4 Shaitan is the Arabic word for “Satan”.
5 Iblis is another name for Satan in Islamic traditions.
6 Genesis 2:17
7 For more on this account in the Bible, please refer to Genesis chapter 3.
8 For more on this issue or the issue of the completeness of the Qur’an, please read the following articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
9 For more Qur’anic verses regarding the power of Satan over Humans, see Q. 16:63 and 17:63-64.
10 For more on this hope, please read this article.

Source:

IHS


Admin · 21 views · Leave a comment
20 Feb 2013 
Does Islam Discourage Slavery?

Dear Sir/Madam
I was looking at islam online and came across a Q&A section and was interested in a question about slave women as this is something often featured on FFI. I have copied it below and would be intrigued to read your take on it.
Regards Raheel



Sarah – United Kingdom
Title About Concubines & Slavery
Date 22/May/2006
Question As-salamu `alaykum!

Why is a man permitted to have concubines in addition to having a wife? And, in a case that a man has 4 wives (surely his needs are being met) why would it still be allowable to have a concubine? Why are concubines and harems allowed at all, especially if it doesn’t seem to be very fair for women? Does the wife have a say in it? What rights does a concubine have?

I understand how Islam permits polygamy with conditions that provide fairness and protection for women, but I just don’t understand the issue of concubines. Prophet Sulayman (Solomon) is said to have had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Obviously, this was in a time before Islam regulated polygamy, but how can concubines be considered fair or respectable?

Jazakum Allahu Khayran.

Topic Culture & Society
Name of Counselor Amani Aboul Fadl Farag
Answer:

Salam, dear Safina.
Thank you for raising this point which is a matter of confusion to many non-Muslims and Muslims as well!

First, it is important to define the term “concubine” as it is usually misunderstood. Some think that “concubine” refers to the mistress or the woman who lives a non-marital relationship with a man, and who is inferior in rank to the legal wife. This might be due to the fact that people see famous men like kings and princes having concubines in their courts. Of course, such a relationship is outlawed in Islam.

As for Islam, the term “concubine” refers to a woman slave who is owned by a certain man either through serfdom, or by being a war captive. According to this definition, it becomes obvious that taking concubines, as well as slaves, is out of date. It is a system that existed early in the history of humanity but has ceased to exist any more under the law of abolishing servitude, not only in the Muslim communities, but also all over the world. No one now is allowed to take a slave or a concubine in our modern times; it is criminal to do so.

This image of one man buying tens of women to meet his endless desires is but a far memory of an old history. This is not only for the legal considerations of abolishing servitude, but also for the economic and health problems befalling the modern man disabling him from following the model of Shahrayar, the king in The Arabian Nights, even if he aspires to!

The only form of relationship between men and women among Muslims now is that of marriage, and anything outside it is not accepted.

Having a look at the history of this phenomenon, one finds that it was not confined to the Muslim world, though it is sometimes portrayed as if it is a Muslim-made tradition, coming from the East.

The Arabian Nights represents Muslim society as highly sensual, living in an erotic atmosphere with every single man having an army of concubines playing around in his bed to satisfy his surfeit needs! If this was the real picture of Muslim society in its early and middle ages, then who was behind the great scientific and military achievements that happened at that time?

When Islam was revealed, taking male and female slaves —either through buying or being taken as war captives— was a widespread phenomenon. This was not only in the Arabian Peninsula, but also in the neighboring Roman and Persian Empires. The attitude towards slaves and concubines was inhuman and abusive of all human rights. Such maltreatment of slaves resulted in profound psychological sicknesses and chaotic orders within the societies, which produced — for example—the slave riot lead by Spartacus.

Because Islam existed in various historical epochs, it has been its inevitable role to cope with the norms and to regulate the legal systems of those epochs. So, for the tradition of taking slaves and concubines, that already existed then, Islam interfered by regulating it in an attempt to abolish it gradually. It couldn’t have been abolished abruptly, since it was such a deep rooted tradition.

Islam has always adopted the strategy of gradual reformation rather than rapid radical solutions, especially in aspects that are vital to people’s lives such as religion, economy or politics. The issue of idol worshipping, for example, took 13 years of persuasion till the Prophet decided to pull idols down. This has always been Islam’s malleable nature, which made its spirit — and not only script — survive for almost 15 centuries and not perish or extinct by time.

Back to the historical survey of the issue of concubines, Islam worked gradually in two directions to free slaves and concubines. The first was by encouraging the believers to buy and free slaves. Almighty Allah offered Paradise as a reward for whoever did that. As a result of such a divine promise, a large number of slaves were freed.

The second was by making the act of freeing slaves a form of kaffarah (punishment or penalty) as a make-up “penalty”, if a person commits some forbidden deeds. And in this way, punishment became pleasing to both the slave and the punished one, who would have wanted to receive God’s forgiveness, for the forbidden deed, by doing the good deed of freeing a slave.

Parallel to that process of gradual freeing — and until all slaves were freed — Allah granted slaves and concubines — who had not yet gained their liberty — many human rights that had never been given to them before.

For example, when a concubine begot a child by her master, the child would immediately be recognized as legal and free. The child would carry the father’s name and inherit the same like any brothers and sisters begotten by wives. As for the concubine herself, she is directly elevated to a higher status, that is of om-el-walad (legal mother of a legal child). Her owner can no longer sell her as a slave and in case he dies, she is automatically free.

No wonder that up to the 17th century, Mamluks — who were slaves owned by the Islamic state — were allowed high education and job opportunities exactly like their masters. They were trained in chivalry and were upgraded in the social rank until they reached the positions of sultans and kings of the whole Islamic state. This was termed in history as the Mamluk State. It was a state that lasted for several hundreds of years and was considered among the most fruitful periods in the history of Islam.

Nobody ever looked with sensitivity or with dissatisfaction at the experience of being ruled by a “slave” who owned by the state. This Mamluk State was in existence simultaneously while Americans were taking African people as slaves and concubines from Africa. These were being treated like animals and deprived from basic human rights, as we have read in history.

I only wanted to clear the idea of concubines as an interesting fact of the past, which has no mention in Islamic life any more in today’s world. Thank you and I am looking forward to receiving more of your interesting questions. Please keep in touch

Response by Ali Sina

Slavery or “right hand possession” is recognized and accepted in the Quran. Muslims are allowed and encouraged to raid non-Muslims and after killing the men take their women and children as slaves. Older women can be killed or left to die.

Based on his response it appears that Mr. Amani Aboul Fadl Farag says that Islamic law that comes from God and according to Muhammad is valid until the Day of Resurrection has become outdated. Is this not bid’a? (innovation). Isn’t bid’a prohibited in the Quran and punishable by death? Is Mr. Amani Aboul Fadl Farag saying that parts of the Quran are outdated? Doesn’t the Quran strictly prohibit taking parts of it and leaving other parts?

If slavery and right hand possessions are outdated, can we also conclude that other injections of the Quran may also be outdated?

For example, the Quran allows a man to marry four wives. This law seems outdated too. It causes psychological distress for the wives who have to compete with each other for their husband’s attention, and it causes rivalry among their children. Polygamy is very unhealthy from the psychological point of view for everyone involved. Can Muslims decide to ban polygamy and override the Quran?

What about the law of fasting? Fasting in places close to the Earth’s poles is impossible during the summer. Can Muslims pick and choose and make rulings that differ from the Quran and hadith? They actually do it, whenever they get stuck. But is it allowed?

What about the testimony of women? Today the modern secular law does not accept anything but equality between men and women. Can Muslims abrogate the laws of the Quran and adopt the secular laws of the kafirs because they are more up to date?

What about chopping the right hand of the thief? It is rarely practiced, but isn’t abolishing it a contravention from divine guidance?

How about beating one’s wife? Can an Islamic country prohibit it when the Quran prescribes it? Would that country be regarded Islamic?

Mr. Farag, by preferring the secular law over the laws of God is opening a Pandora box and allowing men to abrogate any law of God that they deem outdated. Is this allowed and if so where one has to draw the line? Is man’s understanding superior to the understanding of God? Can a man question the authority and the wisdom of the Quran?

Mr. Farag says that “Islam interfered by regulating it in an attempt to abolish it gradually. It couldn’t have been abolished abruptly, since it was such a deep rooted tradition.”

Why slavery could not be abolished abruptly? Didn’t Islam abolish adopting children abruptly? Allah told his prophet to marry his own daughter in law to set an example and show to Arabs that the old rules are changed and an adopted son is not a son and his wife is halal. Wasn’t this far more shocking to the believers than abolishing slavery?

Muhammad even encouraged Muslims to fight against their own brothers and fathers if they like disbelief to Islam. Wasn’t this a much harsher teaching than abolishing slavery?

If Muhammad wanted to abolish slavery why did he reduce tens of thousands of free people into slaves? After their prophet, Muslims raided other countries killing millions of men and enslaving their wives and children. The actions of Muhammad and his early followers belie the claim of Mr. Farag that he wanted to abolish slavery gradually. Do we have a verse in the Quran or hadith saying that slavery should be abolished eventually?

Mr. Farag says,“Islam has always adopted the strategy of gradual reformation rather than rapid radical solutions” and to prove Islam’s “malleable” nature he brings the example of Muhammad’s desecration of Ka’ba and demolition of Pagan’s idols, which he says was gradual and took 13 years. Mr. Farag is twisting the facts. Muhammad demolished the idols of the Arabs in the very day he conquered Mecca and got hold of the Ka’ba.

Mr. Farag says Islam encouraged the believers to buy and free slaves. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Muhammad made slaves from free people and sold them. He started doing this since his very first successful raid at a small Meccan caravan at Nakhlah where the two surviving captives were kept for ransom and released after their relatives paid a hefty sum. Muslims started as a bunch of impoverished people but through raids they amassed huge wealth and countless slaves. The claims made by this Muslim scholar are not substantiated by facts. They contradict the history of Islam written by the early Muslims. Muslims did not have slaves when they migrated to Medina. They were a bunch of rebbelious youth and a few slaves themselves. So how can we understand the claim that Muhammad wanted to abolish slavery gradually? Why start it in the first place?

He also talks about the reward promised to Muslims for freeing slaves. Yes that is true. But his actions were belied by his words. Only fools judge a man’s character by his words. Wiser people look at the actions of the person. Look how many brain dead people have fallen for the empty words of a buffoon like Obama. Wiser people look at his actions and at his past.

Furthermore, Muslims did not manumit their able bodied and young slaves. They freed them when they became old and a burden to their masters. In this way, not only they did not have to maintain them, but also their sins were forgiven. The old slaves ended up as beggars in the streets and died alone and in poverty. What a mockery of justice! How many of the slaves that Muhammad during his raids did he set free and restored to them their wealth?

Mr. Farag says that slaves in Islam were granted rights that prior to that they did not have, “for example, when a concubine begot a child by her master, the child would immediately be recognized as legal and free.”

This tradition existed in that desert society long before Muhammad was born. A good example is Abraham’s son Ismael, who was born to a slave woman and was recognized by Abraham as his son and not as a slave. After Ismael’s birth, his mother Agar also gained her freedom. It is just commonsense that a man would not sell his own children as slaves. Now we have to even give credit to Muhammad for something that is not only commonsense but existed for ever. In no society the child of a free man born to a slave was considered to be a slave. Remember that women were thought to be only incubators for mans’ progeny. The children belonged to the father. If the father was a free man, so were his children.

Like any good Muslim Mr. Farag could not resist pouring his venom on America. He accused Americans of “taking African people as slaves and concubines from Africa. These were being treated like animals and deprived from basic human rights, as we have read in history.”

He conveniently ignored the fact that those slaves were bought from Arab slave merchants who systematically raided the villages in Africa and took young men and women as slaves. Americans purchased those slaves, but it was the Arabs and Muslims who in the first place had reduced them into slaves. Facts seem to have little relevance for Muslims. This is like a butcher condemning meat eaters of cruelty to animals. The slavery ended because the westerners stopped buying slaves. Otherwise the Arab would be still providing them to any bidder.

In his attempt to deny historic facts Mr. Farag wrote: “The Arabian Nights represents Muslim society as highly sensual, living in an erotic atmosphere with every single man having an army of concubines playing around in his bed to satisfy his surfeit needs! If this was the real picture of Muslim society in its early and middle ages, then who was behind the great scientific and military achievements that happened at that time?”

Military achievements were made to reduce people into slaves and fill the harem of Muslim fighters with “right hand possessions” and sexual trophies. Taking sex slaves was the main incentive for jihad.

Muslim scholars try their best to mask the ugly truth about Islam, but their own books of history testify against them. With the advent of the Internet and the free spread of knowledge, truth can no longer be concealed. With the spread of truth Islam’s days are numbered.

Source:

IHS


Admin · 37 views · Leave a comment
20 Feb 2013 
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Qur’an – by Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of nine books on Islam and Jihad, a weekly columnist for Human Events and Frontpagemag.com, and has led numerous seminars for the U.S. military and intelligence communities. He is the author of the new book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Qur’an [1].

FP: Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Spencer: Thanks, Jamie. It is always an honor to chat with a perceptive and honest thinker like you.

FP: Well thank you.

So how is this new book different from your previous ones?

Spencer: While in my other books I’ve quoted from the Qur’an in explaining various aspects of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism, this book is unique among my books in being an in-depth examination of the Qur’an itself. In this book, and in none of my other books, I discuss how the Qur’an was compiled; alternate versions of the Qur’an; alleged miracles of the Qur’an; how the Qur’an adapts and alters Biblical stories such as those of Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Mary and Jesus; the Qur’anic appropriation of Jewish, Christian and even pagan figures; the foundations of Islamic mysticism in the Qur’an; the ways in which seemingly innocuous passages of the Qur’an actually convey meanings quite different from what may appear to non-Muslim Westerners; how the Qur’an’s stories of the Biblical prophets are all told in a way meant to support Muhammad’s prophetic claim; why Muslims regard the Jews as their worst enemies; how and why the New Testament accounts of Christ are altered in the Qur’an; the Qur’an’s moral code and what it is conspicuously lacking; and much more.

FP: How come there is so much ignorance about the Qur’an, not only among non-Muslims but also Muslims themselves?

Spencer: Large numbers of Muslims have no firm idea of what is really in the Qur’an. This is in large part because, as central as it is to Islamic faith and culture, the Qur’an is an Arabic book: its Arabic character is part of its essence. This notion comes from the book itself: “We have revealed the Qur’an in the Arabic tongue so that you may grow in understanding” (12:1). The Qur’an describes itself repeatedly as essentially and inherently an “Arabic Qur’an” (12:2; 20:113; 39:28; 41:3; 41:44; 42:7; and 43:3).

Indeed, with an eye apparently only on the local situation in Muhammad’s time and not on the long-term picture, Allah says that it would not have made any sense to send down the Qur’an to Muhammad in any language other than Arabic, and to have done so would have incited the scorn of Infidels: “Had We sent this as a Qur’an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: ‘Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) an Arab?’” (41:44).

All Muslims, whether or not they speak Arabic (and most Muslims today are not Arabs), are obligated to recite the Qur’an in Arabic. This means most Muslims worldwide recite their prayers from rote memory. Translations of the Qur’an occupy a curious position in the Islamic world. Muslims do not consider any translation of the Qur’an to be the Qur’an at all; it is only Allah’s word when it is transmitted in Arabic. In Arabic, says English Muslim convert Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, the Qur’an is an “inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy.” But that quality allegedly doesn’t carry over to other languages – something essential is lost in translation.

Still, translations of the Qur’an are tolerated for the sake of spreading Islam to non-Arabic speakers. Muslim groups worldwide work energetically to convert non-Muslims, offering Islamic materials such as translated Qur’ans that are produced by Muslims themselves, despite the alleged impossibility of understanding the Qur’an except in Arabic. And yet Muslim scholars and apologists often dodge tough questions about the allegedly peaceful nature of Islam by dismissing all translations of the Qur’an and claiming that the book can only be truly understood in Arabic. Why they bother translating it and distributing these translations among non-Muslims remains unexplained.

The religious superiority of Arabic in Islam has led to an Arabic cultural hegemony in the non-Arabic Muslim world. Great non-Arab civilizations in lands that are now Muslim — most notably Iran — are not valued as part of the Muslim heritage, but are generally dismissed as products of the worthless time of jahiliyya, the “pre-Islamic period of ignorance.” This view has led to a surprising lack of knowledge on the part of even faithful and devoted Muslims as to the precise contents of the Qur’an. Many recite it syllabically without any deep understanding of the meaning of the words they are pronouncing. A Pakistani Muslim once said to me, in all seriousness, “I am very proud of my religion, and have memorized almost all of the Qur’an. And one day I plan to get one of those translations and find out what it means.”

The implications of this for contemporary debates about Islamic terrorism are profound. The point here is not that peaceful Muslims misunderstand their own religion and would become radicalized if they knew it better. But when the Qur’an is not immediately understood – and its seventh-century Arabic can be difficult even for native Arabic speakers – those who believe in it understand it by means of how it is preached and presented in the local mosque. If the imams there do not preach hatred of Infidels and the necessity to fight and subjugate them, then these probably won’t be live ideas in the minds of the devout – and such has long been the case in many areas of the world.

At the same time, however, the Qur’an says what it says, and so jihadist movements do point to chapter and verse to attempt to recruit peaceful Muslims to their cause, and to justify their actions within the Islamic community.

Many non-Muslims, meanwhile, simply assume without examination that the Qur’an, since it is a religious book, must teach peace, love, brotherhood, and compassion.

FP: What does the Qur’an think of infidels and what does it teach for Muslims to do to them? Why?

Spencer: In the Qur’an the Infidels (kuffar) are, simply, those who reject Islam. They are those who do not believe in Muhammad’s message: they “treat it as a falsehood that they must meet Allah” (6:31) and “believe not in the Hereafter” (16:60). They “have bartered guidance for error” (2:16). They even dare to mock Muhammad in his proclamation of Islam. Allah tells his prophet, “When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding” (5:58).

The Infidels are those who have made themselves enemies “to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael.” Allah himself, in turn, “is an enemy to the disbelievers” (2:98). And Satan and his minions are their friends: “Lo! We have made the devils protecting friends for those who believe not” (7:27). They are also, naturally enough, the enemies of the Muslims. Allah gives permission to the believers to shorten their prayers while traveling “for fear the unbelievers may attack you: for the unbelievers are unto you open enemies” (4:101).

Who specifically are Infidels? First there are polytheists (mushrikun), whom Allah particularly disdains for committing the cardinal sin of shirk – associating partners with Allah (2:105, 3:95, and many other passages identify the polytheists as apart from and opposed to Islam’s central monotheism).

There are also People of the Book – mostly Jews and Christians. Islamic apologists argue that Islam does not consider them Infidels, since the Qur’an never specifically identifies them as such. The Qur’an, they further note, speaks of the “unbelievers among the People of the Book” (59:2), implying that at least some People of the Book were believers, and therefore were not Infidels.

But who comprised this group among the People of the Book that the Qur’an identifies as believers? They were Jews and Christians who distinguished themselves by “believing” in one thing: that the Biblical prophets, as well as Jesus, preached Islam and anticipated Muhammad’s arrival — and thus they became Muslims when they heard about Islam. In other words, they were proto-Muslims who recognized that the true teachings of Moses and Jesus were identical to Muhammad’s teachings. Any Jews and Christians who rejected this idea and stayed true to their own religions were “unbelievers among the People of the Book” – and therefore Infidels.

The Qur’an consistently assumes that the Infidels are not people who have come to a good faith decision that Islam is false – neither the Qur’an nor Islamic tradition allows for the existence of such people. The Qur’an declares that “the Religion before Allah is Islam,” and that the People of the Book reject it only because of “envy of each other” (3:19). The Jews and Christians, says Maulana Bulandshahri, a twentieth-century Islamic scholar, recognized Muhammad “to be the final Prophet but their obstinate nature prevented them from accepting.”

Thus, in the Qur’an the unbelievers know that Muhammad is a prophet, and yet, purely out of bad faith, they refuse to become Muslim and follow him. The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes the oneness of Allah, and claims that “those to whom We have given the Book” – that is, the Jews and Christians – “know this” – that is, the truth of Muhammad’s message – “as they know their own sons” (6:20). This is because, says Ibn Kathir, “they received good news from the previous Messengers and Prophets about the coming of Muhammad, his attributes, homeland, his migration, and the description of his Ummah.” In other words, their unbelief in Islam is not a sincere rejection based on honest conviction, but sheer perversity: they “lie against their own souls” (6:24). For “in their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease. And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves)” (2:10).

Muslims have the responsibility to fight the Infidels (4:89, 2:191, 9:5) and subjugate the People of the Book under the rule of Islamic law (9:29).

FP: Why do Muslims regard the Jews as their worst enemies? Why such targeting of Jews?

Spencer: The Qur’an says that the Jews will be the Muslims’ worst enemies, along with the pagans (5:82). This comes from the Qur’anic presentation of Muhammad as the last and greatest in the line of Biblical prophets, preaching a message identical to theirs. The authentic Torah supposedly commands Jews to follow Muhammad and recognize his prophecy – those who refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet are, in the Muslim view, rejecting both Moses and the prophecies of the Torah. It is no surprise, then, that in the Qur’an both David and Jesus curse the disbelieving Jews for their disobedience (5:78).

Yet of course, Torah-observant Jews did not and do not accept Muhammad as a prophet, and this enraged the prophet of Islam during his lifetime. Muhammad initially appealed energetically to the Jews, hoping they would accept his prophetic status. He even had the Muslims imitate the Jews by facing Jerusalem for prayers, and he adopted for the Muslims the Jews’ prohibition of pork. But he was infuriated when the Jews rejected him, and Allah shared his fury in Qur’anic revelation: they had the Torah, and the Qur’an confirmed it, and yet they refused to accept the Qur’an! “And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if (it had been something) they did not know!” (2:101).

Another Jewish leader noted that “no covenant was ever made with us about Muhammad.” Allah again responded through his Prophet: “Is it ever so that when they make a covenant a party of them set it aside? The truth is, most of them believe not” (2:100).

FP: Muslims say they believe in Jesus and respect him, but what they say about him is quite different from what the New Testament says about him. How does the Qur’an alter the New Testament’s accounts about Jesus? Why?

Spencer: Jesus has a prominent place in the Qur’an. The Islamic holy book refers to Jesus frequently, usually either as “Jesus Christ” or as “Jesus the Son of Mary” (although it uses a form of the name Jesus, Isa, that is not used by Arabic-speaking Christians, and which in reality is closer to “Esau” than to “Jesus.”) The references to the “Son of Mary” reflect the Qur’an’s acceptance of the Virgin Birth – everyone in antiquity was referred to as the son of his father, not of his mother, unless his father was unknown. And the Qur’an also affirms the Virgin Birth directly (3:47). Besides “Son of Mary,” Jesus is called Christ (3:45; 4:157; 4:171-2; 5:17; 5:72; 5:75; 9:30-1) and the “Word” of Allah (3:45; 4:171), recalling the Gospel of John, which also identifies Jesus as God’s Word in a striking passage that also says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1, 1:14).

But the Qur’an and the New Testament also disagree, quite profoundly, about Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus is the Word of Allah in the Qur’an, but the Word is not Allah. Allah explains, “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be.’ And he was” (3:59).

Similarly, in the Qur’an, “Christ” (al-Masih) is essentially a proper name, not a title; Jesus is not the “anointed one” promised to the Jews or to anyone else. Islamic scholars explain that the name is derived from the Arabic verb Massaha, which means to anoint someone with oil for healing. So then is Jesus the Messiah, the anointed one? Not in the Christian sense — they say he bears this name solely because he healed others.

Instead of the Messiah and the Savior of the world, Jesus in the Qur’an is only one among many prophets — even if he is favored above his fellow prophets, for Allah has given him “clear (signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit” (2:253). In fact, another passage says that Jesus is himself a “spirit proceeding from” Allah (4:171).

The spirit of a being is, of course, its very life, but Muslim theologians have never considered the implications of this title, any more than they have considered the implications of calling Jesus Allah’s “word.” The Qur’an repeats twelve times that Allah has no son, saying that to claim that he does would impugn his transcendent majesty (2:116; 10:68; 17:111; 18:4; 19:35; 19:88; 19:91; 19:92; 21:26; 23:91; 39:04; 43:81). It also specifically rejects the Christian idea that Jesus is the Son of God (4:171; 9:30), at one point implying, remarkably, that Muhammad thought of the question in purely physical terms: “How can [Allah] have a Son when He has no consort?” (6:101).

Ultimately, the Qur’an concludes that Christians have departed from the truth by teaching the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ: “So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three.’ Cease! (It is) better for you! Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son” (4:171).

The most significant Qur’anic departure from Christianity is its denial of the reality of the crucifixion of Christ: “They did not kill him, nor crucify him, but they thought they did [or literally, it appeared so to them].” The Jews boast that they killed Jesus—but they only think they did (4:157). In fact, Jesus escaped crucifixion, though how he did so is the source of some dispute. The traditional Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir argues that “when Allah sent ‘Isa [Jesus] with proofs and guidance, the Jews, may Allah’s curses, anger, torment and punishment be upon them, envied him because of his prophethood and obvious miracles. . .” Consumed by this envy, Ibn Kathir continues, the Jews stirred up “the king of Damascus at that time, a Greek polytheist who worshipped the stars” to order his deputy in Jerusalem to arrest Jesus. Jesus, perceiving this, asked those with him, “Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise?” A young man volunteered, whereupon “Allah made the young man look exactly like ‘Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and ‘Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep.” Then “those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like ‘Isa, they thought that he was ‘Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. The Jews then boasted that they killed ‘Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason.”

The Qur’an emphasizes that Jesus was a prophet of Allah, who did all his mighty works by order of Allah – and is thus not himself divine. Interestingly, unlike Muhammad, Jesus is depicted performing various miracles. But after these miracle stories, Allah again stresses that Jesus is not divine, asking him point blank: “O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?” (5:116)

The Qur’an here seems to be criticizing the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which it apparently envisions as consisting of Allah along with a deified Jesus and Mary. Ibn Kathir says the same thing, claiming the Christians elevated Jesus “and his mother to be gods with Allah.” The actual Christian Trinity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not envisioned in the Qur’an.

In any case, Jesus denies having told his followers to worship him and his mother, and the passage concludes by repeating that those who believe otherwise will, of course, be punished (5:116).

The Qur’an even asserts that those who believe that Jesus is divine are themselves Infidels, and hell-bound to boot: “They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.” (5:72).

Jesus is, far from being divine, a “slave of Allah” (Abdullah: 4:172; 19:30; 43:59). Calling Jesus a slave of Allah, of course, puts him on the same level as all created beings – for the master–slave relationship is the primary paradigm in Islam for human relations with the divine. Despite his Virgin Birth, despite his miracles, despite his being favored above the other prophets, Jesus is, in the final analysis, simply another created being, a slave of Allah. Those who assert otherwise, identifying Jesus with God, are Infidels: “They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary” (5:17).

In case the point is not clear, Allah directs Muhammad to say that Allah could destroy Jesus, his mother, and the entire earth if he so wished (5:17) – thereby vividly reasserting Allah’s absolute sovereignty, which the Qur’an appears to regard as threatened by the idea of the divinity of Christ.

The Qur’an declares that, just as Muhammad’s message confirmed that of the Gospel before it, Jesus told the Jews that his message confirmed that of the Torah. Jesus also said, according to the Qur’an, that he was the precursor of a messenger who would come after him, whose name would be Ahmad. But the people would dismiss Jesus’s miracles as “sorcery” (61:6) – recalling their dismissal of Moses (28:36) and Muhammad (28:48).
 
“Ahmad” means “the Most Praised One,” and it is etymologically related to Muhammad, which means “Praised One.” Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, a British Islamic scholar and convert to Islam, drove the connection home by translating “Ahmad” simply as “Praised One.” And Muslims universally understand the verse as depicting Jesus predicting the coming of Muhammad.

Muslims contend that this prophecy is the uncorrupted version of the words of Jesus that survive in corrupted form in John 14:16-17, where Jesus says, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”
 
“Counselor” here is parakletos, or Paraclete. Some Islamic apologists have claimed this is a corruption of periklytos, which means “famous” or “renowned,” i.e., “Praised One.” However, there is no textual evidence whatsoever for this: no manuscripts of the New Testament exist that use the word periklytos in this place. Nor is it likely that the two words might have been confused. That kind of confusion may be theoretically possible in Arabic, which does not write vowels and hence would present two words with identical consonant structures. But Greek does write vowels, so the words would never in Greek have appeared as even close to identical.

In light of all this, it is clear that when the Qur’an refers to Jesus, it has in mind a figure who is strikingly different from the one in the New Testament. And the Qur’an is presented as the corrective to these New Testament “corruptions.” The idea that Christianity is a “distorted, deformed religion” created by people who were bent on rejecting the prophet Muhammad fuels a great deal of Muslim hatred for Christianity, Christians, and the West to this day.

FP: What are some strange things found in the Qur’an?

Spencer: The Qur’an tells of the strange journey of Moses and Khidr (18:60-82) — one of the all-time great road-trip stories. Moses, traveling with his servant, forgets the fish they had carried along for their meal. Returning to retrieve it, they encounter “one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence” (18:65). In Islamic tradition this man is identified as Al-Khadir or Al-Khidr, or, more commonly, Khidr, “the Green Man.” Some identify him as one of the prophets, others as a wali, a Muslim saint.

Moses asks Khidr, “May I follow thee,” so that “thou teach me something of the (Higher) Truth which thou hast been taught?” (18:66). Leery, Khidr finally consents provided Moses asks him no questions, and Moses agrees. Khidr and Moses then get on a boat, which Khidr immediately scuttles – whereupon Moses breaks his promise and upbraids Khidr; Khidr reminds him of his promise. Shortly thereafter, Khidr murders a young man in an apparently random act, and Moses criticizes him again, and Khidr reminds him once again that Moses had promised not to ask him any questions and to have patience when Khidr did something that Moses did not understand. Finally, Khidr rebuilds a wall in a town that had refused the two hospitality, and Moses scolds him yet again, telling Khidr that he could have gotten money for his work, which the two could have used to buy food and lodging.

Informing Moses that their journey is over, Khidr finally explains his strange actions. (Even Muhammad wanted to hear more, commenting, “We wished that Moses could have remained patient by virtue of which Allah might have told us more about their story.”) Khidr damaged the ship because a king is seizing “every boat by force” (18:79), but not ones that are unserviceable – presumably the poor owners of the boat could repair it once the king passed by. Khidr killed the young man because he would grieve his pious parents with his “rebellion and ingratitude” (18:80), and Allah will give them a better son. And there was buried treasure beneath the wall that belonged to boys too young to inherit it yet — so repairing it gave them time to reach maturity while protecting the treasure from theft.

The Qur’an translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali derives the lesson from the story that “even as the whole stock of the knowledge of the present day, the sciences and the arts, and in literature, (if it could be supposed to be gathered in one individual), does not include all knowledge. Divine knowledge, as far as man is concerned, is unlimited.” Furthermore, “There are paradoxes in life: apparent loss may be real gain; apparent cruelty may be real mercy; returning good for evil may really be justice and not generosity (18:79-82). Allah’s wisdom transcends all human calculation.”

Perhaps understandably in light of the strangeness of the story and the mystery embedded within it, Khidr looms large in Islamic mystical tradition. The eighth-century Sufi mystic Ibrahim Bin Adham (Abou Ben Adhem) once claimed, “In that wilderness I lived for four years. God gave me my eating without any toil of mine. Khidr the Green Ancient was my companion during that time — he taught me the Great Name of God.”

Another strange and pregnant passage in the Qur’an is this cryptic verse: “Above it are nineteen” (74:30).

That’s it. “Above it are nineteen.”

Above what? Nineteen what? The Qur’an doesn’t say, and that is where the fun begins. There are innumerable theories regarding this verse, including that of the Qur’anic scholar Günther Lüling, who suggests a slight alteration of the text to make it a simple reference to the gates of hell – which works in context.

However, Islamic scholars don’t generally take kindly to suggestions that the Qur’anic text should be changed – it is supposed to have been delivered by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad in perfect form, and preserved in that perfect form ever after. Thus believers must make do with the existing cryptic verse – and they have. It has become the foundation for numerous elaborate flights of Islamic numerology, attempting to show that this verse contains a hidden, number-based key that demonstrates the Qur’an’s miraculous character. The verse has also led to the development of mysticism surrounding the number nineteen — such that some have opined, despite the many nominees for the role of “twentieth hijacker,” that there is no such person, and that precisely nineteen hijackers were chosen for the September 11 jihad missions because of the mystical significance of that number.

FP: Tell us how and why political correctness has made it almost impossible to discuss what is really in the Qur’an and in other Islamic texts.

Spencer: Political correctness would have us believe that the Qur’an is a book of peace, and that anyone who says otherwise is “bigoted,” “hateful,” and “Islamophobic.” But is it, really? What the Qur’an really says can easily be verified. If the Qur’an really curses Jews and Christians (9:30) and calls for warfare against them in order to bring about their subjugation (9:29), it is not “Islamophobic” to forewarn Infidels by pointing this out. It is simply a fact. And it should go without saying that it is not a fact that should move any reader of my book to hate anyone. The fact that the Qur’an counsels warfare against unbelievers should move readers to act in defense of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of all people, before it is too late.

FP: How does the misinterpretation of what the Qur’an and other Muslim texts teach endanger our security?

Spencer: Most Western analysts dogmatically deny that the Qur’an teaches violence and supremacism. Yet Muslims who believe this comprise a global movement, active from Indonesia to Nigeria and extending into Europe and North America, that is dedicated to waging war against “unbelievers” – that is, non-Muslims – and subjugating them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law. This movement sees in the Qur’an its divine mandate to wage that war.

In March 2009, five Muslims accused of helping plot the September 11 attacks, including the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wrote an “Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations.” In it they quote the Qur’an to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. “In God’s book,” asserts the letter, “he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God’s book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Qur’an’s 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.”

Osama bin Laden’s communiqués have also quoted the Qur’an copiously. In his 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” he quotes seven Qur’an verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious “Verse of the Sword,” 9:5.[i] [2] Bin Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Qur’an quotations, both of a martial bent: “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” (22:39) and “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan” (4:76).”

In a sermon broadcast in 2003, bin Laden rejoiced in a Qur’anic exhortation to violence as being a means to establish the truth: “Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Islamic Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.” The “Verse of the Sword” is Qur’an 9:5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

The idea that the Qur’an commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from the very top of the international jihadist movement – Osama bin Laden – down to the rank and file. Overall, it is extremely rare – if not impossible – to find a jihadist who does not cite the Qur’an to justify his actions. Britain-based jihadist preacher, Abu Yahya, asserts simply, “It says in the Qur’an that we must try as much as we can to terrorise the enemy.” And Pakistani jihad leader Beitullah Mehsud claims that “Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Qur’an extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” He specified that his jihad –struggle in Arabic – was an offensive military operation: “We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia.” The “jazia,” or jizya, is a tax that the Qur’an (9:29) specifies must be levied on Jews, Christians, and some other non-Muslim faiths as a sign of their subjugation under the Islamic social order.

One pro-Osama website put it this way: “The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Qur’an with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Qur’an, knowing that Muslims who understand the Qur’an will not distance themselves from Jihad.”

Yet a huge number of policy decisions are predicated upon the assumption that the Qur’an teaches peace, and that those who brandish Qur’ans and commit violence are misunderstanding their own religion and perverting the teachings of their own holy book. These include U.S. government postures toward Pakistan and Egypt; immigration matters; airport security procedures; military strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan; domestic anti-terror policies; and our acquiescence to Saudi Arabia’s Islamic proselytizing campaign in America and many other countries.

But most government and media analysts dare not even question the assumption that the Qur’an is peaceful, for they believe that any insinuation to the contrary is racist, bigoted, and effectively brands all Muslims as terrorists. In other words, they think the implications of the possibility that the Qur’an teaches warfare against unbelievers are too terrible to even contemplate. Thus, many policymakers simply assume the Qur’an teaches peace without bothering to study the text. They do this to their own peril – and ours.

FP: What, in your view, is the Qur’an?

Spencer: It is the primary religious text of one of the world’s most prominent and influential religions. For more than a billion Muslims, the Qur’an is the unadulterated, pure word of Allah, eternal and perfect, delivered though the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. For Infidels, it is a threat, a call for their destruction or subjugation. Consequently, every Infidel needs to know what is in it, and plan accordingly to defend himself.

[i] [3] Osama Bin Laden, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” 1996. .

Source:

URLs in this post:

[1] The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Qur’an:
[2] [i]:#_edn1
[3] [i]: #_ednref1
[4] Image:

IHS


Admin · 23 views · Leave a comment
20 Feb 2013 
Islam and the Dark Age of Byzantium
by John J. O’Neill

In his 1936 book, Mohammed et Charlemagne, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne argued in great detail that the Dark Ages of Europe began rather suddenly in the middle of the seventh century; and that this sudden and catastrophic decline in civilization was due to Islam’s blockade of the Mediterranean. Up to that time, Pirenne showed, there was no evidence of a decline in Classical culture. True, the Western Roman Empire as a political entity had disappeared in 476, but the literate, prosperous and urban civilization which we call “Classical” continued virtually uninterrupted. The Goths and other “Barbarian” peoples who ruled the provinces of the West after 467 did not try to destroy Roman civilization and civil society. Indeed, as Pirenne showed in great detail, they did everything in their power to preserve it. They adopted the Latin language, accepted Imperial titles from the Emperor in Constantinople, and minted gold coins with the image of the Eastern Emperor emblazoned upon them.

Yet this thriving Late Classical culture came to a rather sudden end in the seventh century: city life declined, as did trade; a barter economy replaced the earlier monetary system, and what coins were issued were minted in silver rather than gold; literacy declined as papyrus from Egypt disappeared and expensive parchment took its place; and the power of kings waned, as local strongmen or “barons” seized the reigns of power in the provinces. The Middle Ages had begun.

Pirenne’s great book, which was published posthumously, received a mixed reception. On the whole, it was conceded that he seemed to be on to sometime of great importance. Yet there was criticism, and this criticism only increased over the years.

One of the most telling arguments against Pirenne was the question of Byzantium. Historians were quick to point out that, whilst the regions of the West may have experienced a Dark Age between the seventh and tenth centuries, those of the East did not. There was no decline, they said, in Byzantium. If the Arab blockade of the Mediterranean had strangled classical urban civilization in the West, why did it not have the same effect in the East? This was a question to which there seemed no easy answer. Even Pirenne believed that Byzantium had somehow coped better with the Arabs than the West. In his time it was generally assumed that Classical Civilization survived in the East, and that the region was less “medievalised” than the West. We are, or have been until recently, informed by historians that the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries in Byzantium were, in the words of Sidnay Painter, “three centuries of glory,” and that during this time “The Byzantine Empire was the richest state in Europe, the strongest military power, and by far the most cultivated.”(Sidney Painter, A History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500) We are further informed that, “During these three centuries while Western Europe was a land of partly tamed barbarians, the Byzantine Empire was a highly civilized state where a most felicitous merger of Christianity and Hellenism produced a fascinating culture.”(Ibid.)

The above opinions, common till the latter half of the twentieth century, were partly prompted by Byzantine propaganda, which always sought to portray Constantinople as the “New Rome” and the successor, in an unbroken line of authority, of the first Christian Emperor, Constantine. Yet over the past half century the science of archaeology has proved that picture to be a fabrication.

As a matter of fact, we now know that the once-proud Eastern Rome was devastated by the Arab assaults. The same poverty and illiteracy that we find in the West we now find also in the East. Cities decline and the science and philosophy of the Greeks and Romans disappear. Indeed, just as in the West, a “dark age” descends. In the words of Cyril Mango;

“One can hardly overestimate the catastrophic break that occurred in the seventh century. Anyone who reads the narrative of events will not fail to be struck by the calamities that befell the Empire, starting with the Persian invasion at the very beginning of the century and going on to the Arab expansion some thirty years later - a series of reverses that deprived the Empire of some of its most prosperous provinces, namely, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and, later, North Africa - and so reduced it to less than half its former size both in area and in population. But a reading of the narrative sources gives only a faint idea of the profound transformation that accompanied these events. … It marked for the Byzantine lands the end of a way of life - the urban civilization of Antiquity - and the beginning of a very different and distinctly medieval world.”(Cyril Mango, Byzantium, the Empire of New Rome, p. 4)

Mango remarked on the virtual abandonment of the Byzantine cities after the mid-seventh century, and the archaeology of these settlements usually reveals “a dramatic rupture in the seventh century, sometimes in the form of virtual abandonment.”(Ibid. p. 8) With the cities and with the papyrus supply from Egypt went the intellectual class, who after the seventh century were reduced to a “small clique.”(Ibid. p. 9) The evidence, as Mango sees it, is unmistakable: the “catastrophe” (as he names it) of the seventh century, “is the central event of Byzantine history.”(Ibid.)

Constantinople herself, the mighty million-strong capital of the East, was reduced, by the middle of the eighth century, to a veritable ruin. Mango quotes a document of the period which evokes a picture of “abandonment and ruination. Time and again we are told that various monuments - statues, palaces, baths - had once existed but were destroyed. What is more, the remaining monuments, many of which must have dated from the fourth and fifth centuries, were no longer understood for what they were. They had acquired a magical and generally ominous connotation.”(Ibid. p. 80)

So great was the destruction that even bronze coinage, the everyday lubricant of commercial life, disappeared. According to Mango, “In sites that have been systematically excavated, such as Athens, Corinth, Sardis and others, it has been ascertained that bronze coinage, the small change used for everyday transactions, was plentiful throughout the sixth century and (depending on local circumstances) until some time in the seventh, after which it almost disappeared, then showed a slight increase in the ninth, and did not become abundant again until the latter part of the tenth.”(Ibid. pp. 72-3). Yet even the statement that some coins appeared in the ninth century has to be treated with caution. Mango notes that at Sardis the period between 491 and 616 is represented by 1,011 bronze coins, the rest of the seventh century by about 90, “and the eighth and ninth centuries combined by no more than 9.”(Ibid. p. 73) And, “similar results have been obtained from nearly all provincial Byzantine cities.” Even such paltry samples as have survived from the eighth and ninth centuries (nine) are usually of questionable provenance, a fact noted by Mango himself, who remarked that often, upon closer inspection, these turn out to originate either from before the dark age, or after it.

When archaeology again appears, in the middle of the tenth century, the civilization it reveals has been radically altered: The old Byzantium of Late Antiquity is gone, and we find an impoverished and semi-literate rump; a Medieval Byzantium strikingly like the Medieval France, Germany and Italy with which it was contemporary. Here we find too a barter or semi-barter economy; a decline in population and literacy; and an intolerant and theocratic state. And the break-off point in Byzantium, as in the West, is the first half of the seventh century - precisely corresponding to the arrival on the scene of the Arabs and of Islam.

Archaeology has thus come dramatically to the support of Pirenne, long after his death, and answered for him a question he could not. The impact of Islam was devastating for all of Christendom, both East and West. It was the event that terminated Classical civilization. The destruction of Classical culture in Europe was due to largely, though not completely, to the economic blockade of the Mediterranean by Muslim piracy. Yet the termination of that culture in regions such as Egypt and Syria (formally great centers of Classical and Hellenistic civilization) which came under the control of Islam, was produced by the new faith’s utter contempt for the cultures and histories of the peoples it came to dominate. Right from the start, the Caliphal government in Egypt established a commission whose purpose was to seek out pharaohnic age tombs, for plundering. So complete was the destruction that, perhaps little more than a century after the Islamic Conquest, no one in Egypt had any idea who built the Great Pyramid - this in spite of the fact that very substantial histories of this monument and the pharaoh who erected it were contained in the works of many Classical authors, most notably Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. Immediately prior to the Muslim invasion the libraries and academies of Egypt, Syria, and Babylonia, were packed with the works of these authors. Their disappearance and the disappearance of the knowledge they contained can only mean, as Christian polemicists argued for centuries, that the Muslims had deliberately destroyed a great quantity of Classical literature.

In the West of Europe and in the East, in North Africa and the Middle East, Classical civilization came to an end in the mid-seventh century; and the reason for its demise can be summed up in one word: Islam.

Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, by John J. O'Neill, is published by Felibri Publications.

Source:

IHS
Admin · 37 views · Leave a comment
20 Jan 2013 
The Qur’an and Hadith Go Against Human Rights
The Qur’an, the holy book of Muslims, and Hadith (fatwas of the prophet Muhammad) contain numerous passages that are incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights to which, by the way, all Muslim states have officially subscribed.

One might argue that the Bible and the Old Testament of both Christians and Jews also contain atrocious passages that go against human rights. (For further information, click here.) However, while Christians and Jews ignore these atrocious passages and look at them in a historical context, Muslim believers, especially radical Muslims, do not. They are convinced that both the Qur’an and Hadith are sacred scriptures; the word of Allah and must be followed and implemented to the letter. Suicide and car bombers are a clear case in point. Many Muslims believe that Sharia (which includes both the Qur’an and Hadith) must be introduced and applied all over the world as the only best law for all human beings.

Here are some examples which clearly show that Islam is diametrically opposed to universal human rights.

While Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights prescribes: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief ….” the Qur’an prescribes the opposite. It says about freedom of thought, conscience and religion:
 
“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).
 
 “And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191)
 
 “So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom them. That is the command. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them, but He ordered armed struggle to test some of you by means of others.”(Sura 47, verse 4)
 
 “Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, heshall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

And what does the Qur’an say about freedom of religion and about those who turn their back to Islam and commit apostasy?
 
 “They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (the unbelievers) friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” (Sura 4, verse 89).

While the UN Declaration of Human Rights condemns in Article 2 any discrimination based on sex by saying, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,”

The Qur’an calls for discrimination against women. It says:
 
 “Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you FEAR desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34).
 
 “And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.” (Sura 4, verse 15).

Men are allowed to beat women:
 
 “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34)

According to the Qur’an, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man:

O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other.” (Sura 2, verse 282).

As far as sex is concerned, women are sex objects, according to the Qur’an. They must be ready for intercourse any time the husband wishes:
  
“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.” (Sura 2, verse 223).

During menstruation, however, men should keep away from women; they are filthy. The Qur’an says:
  
“It (menstruation) is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.” (Sura 2, verse 222).

According to the Qur’an women are, in general, unclean creatures. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women.
 
“O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.” (Sura 4, verse 43).

In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits:
 
“They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.” (Sura 4, verse 176).

The Hadith is also full with passages that brazenly discriminate against women and followers of other faiths. Here are some of these passages:

Women are deficient in intelligence and religion:
 
“The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” (Book #6, Hadith #301)

Women who pass by a praying man annul his prayer:

Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a Woman. I said, “You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.” (Book #9, Hadith #493)

A Jew also annuls the prayers of a man:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and awoman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw. (Book#2, Hadith #0704)

Prophet Muhammad discriminates even against black dogs:

Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of ‘Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil. (Book #004, Hadith #1032)

While Article 13 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights stresses, “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement,” women in Islam are not allowed to travel alone:
 
(38) Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet said, “A Woman should not travel for more than three days except with a Dhi-Mahra (i.e. a male with whom she cannot marry at all, e.g. her brother, father, grandfather, etc.) or her own husband.)” (Book #20, Hadith #192)
 
(40) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, “It is not permissible for a Woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel for one day and night except with a Mahram.” (Book #20, Hadith #194)

Women are not allowed to mourn as long they want. Why only four months and ten days? Only Allah knows:
 
(49) Narrated Zainab bint Abi Salama: When the news of the death of Abu Sufyan reached from Sham, Um Habiba on the third day, asked for a yellow perfume and scented her cheeks and forearms and said, “No doubt, I would not have been in need of this, had I not heard the Prophet saying: “It is not legal for a Woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to mourn for more than three days for any dead person except her husband, for whom she should mourn for four months and ten days.” (Book #23, Hadith #370)

Non-Muslims are also subjugated to the “law” of Sharia:
 
(54) Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar : The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a Woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque.” (Book #23, Hadith #413)

A woman is allowed to fast only with permission from her husband:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: No woman should observe fast when her spouse is present (in the house) but with his permission. And she should not admit any (mahram) in his house, while he (her husband) is present, but with his permission. And whatever she spends from his earnings without his sanction, for him is half the reward. (Book #005, Hadith #2238)

As a man, if you see an alien woman, rush immediately to your wife and have intercourse with her to repel the devil in that woman:

Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart. (Book #008, Hadith #3240)

Jabir heard Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) say: When a woman fascinates any one of you and she captivates his heart, he should go to his wife and have an intercourse with her, for it would repel what he feels. (Book #008, Hadith #3242)

Women are solely for beauty, status, and believers. Their brains are insignificant:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A woman may be married for four reasons: for her property, her status. her beauty and her religion, so try to get one who is religious, may your hand be besmeared with dust. (Book #008, Hadith #3457)

Women are crooks and useless creatures:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: woman is like a rib. When you attempt to straighten it, you would break it. And if you leave her alone you would benefit by her, and crookedness will remain in her. A hadith like this is reported by another chain of narrators. (Book #008, Hadith #3466)

A woman who commits adultery must be stoned to death. She sacrifices her life for Allah:

Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: Allah’s Apostle, I have done something for which (prescribed punishment) must be imposed upon me, so impose that. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) called her master and said: Treat her well, and when she delivers bring her to me. He did accordingly. Then Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about her and her clothes were tied around her and then he commanded and she was stoned to death. He then prayed over her (dead body). Thereupon Umar said to him: Allah’s Apostle, you offer prayer for her, whereas she had committed adultery! Thereupon he said: She has made such a repentance that if it were to be divided among seventy men of Medina, it would be enough. Have you found any repentance better than this that she sacr ficed her life for Allah, the Majestic? (Book #017, Hadith #4207)

Women are simply bad luck, bad omen:
 
‘Umar b. Muhammad b. Zaid reported that he heard his father narrating from Ibn ‘Umar that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) had said. If bad luck is a fact, then it is in the horse, the woman and the house. (Book#026, Hadith #5526)

Narrated Sa’d ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no hamah, no infection and no evil omen; if there is in anything an evil omen, it is a house, a horse, and a woman. (Book #29, Hadith #3911)

Women are breeding machines:

Narrated Ma’qil ibn Yasar: A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: No. He came again to him, but he prohibited him. He came to him third time, and he (the Prophet) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you. (Book #11, Hadith #2045)

A woman is an unavoidable evil, and marrying a woman is like buying a slave:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: “O Allah, I ask Thee for the good in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her; I take refuge in Thee from the evil in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her.” When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing. (Book#11, Hadith #2155)

If you incite a slave against their master, you are not a good Muslim:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Anyone who incites a woman against her husband or a slave against his master is not one of us. (Book #12, Hadith #2170)

While Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights stresses that men and women “are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution,” Islam makes it difficult for women to divorce:

Narrated Thawban: The Prophet (peace be_upon_him) said: If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odour of Paradise will be forbidden to her. (Book #12, Hadith #2218)

If you want to free a slave, free first the men, then the women:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: Al-Qasim said: Aisha intended to set free two slaves of her who were spouses. She, therefore, asked the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) about this matter. He commanded to begin with the man before the woman. The narrator Nasr said: AbuAli al-Hanafi reported it to me on the authority of Ubaydullah. (Book #12, Hadith #2229)

Forced marriage and forced divorce:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: A woman embraced Islam during the time of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him); she then married. Her (former) husband then came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah, I have already embraced Islam, and she had the knowledge about my Islam. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) took her away from her latter husband and restored her to her former husband. (Book #12, Hadith #2231)

The son of a slave woman consummated by a free man is not allowed to inherit anything:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) decided regarding one who was treated as a member of a family after the death of his father, to whom he was attributed when the heirs said he was one of them, that if he was the child of a slave-woman whom the father owned when he had intercourse with her, he was included among those who sought his inclusion, but received none of the inheritance which was previously divided; he, however, received his portion of the inheritance which had not already been divided; but if the father to whom he was attributed had disowned him, he was not joined to the heirs. If he was a child of a slave-woman whom the father did not possess or of a free woman with whom he had illicit intercourse, he was not joined to the heirs and did not inherit even if the one to whom he was attributed is the one who claimed paternity, since he was a child of fornication whether his mother was free or a slave. (Book #12, Hadith #2258)

A woman whose husband dies must not use any make-up, neither dress up as she pleases. The same does not apply to the man:

Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A woman whose husband has died must not wear clothes dyed with safflower (usfur) or with red ochre (mishq) and ornaments. She must not apply henna and collyrium. (Book #12, Hadith #2297)

Islam is against human rights not only in theory, but also in practice under the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, under Hamas in Gaza, under Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, Egypt, in the Arab Gulf states, Sudan, Somalia, and Morocco.

After all the above blatant evidence, President Obama and apologists across the globe still believe that Islam is a tolerant “religion.” On the contrary, Islam is a fanatic, stone-age “religion.

Source:

IHS
Admin · 31 views · Leave a comment
20 Jan 2013 
Liberal Peaceful Islam – I
FFI received the following email from Mr. Sharjeel Hussain. He claims he is a liberal and peaceful Muslim. Below is his email to us (in black) along with our editor’s response to him (in blue).

Dear FFI Editors,
I am a liberal and peaceful Muslim and despite your prejudiced behaviour towards Islam, I hope that you would accept my request to publish the following article at your website.

I am glad you are liberal and peaceful. Can you please clarify to me what you mean by “liberal” and “peaceful”. For example, as a liberal Muslim, are you ready to renounce and denounce Sharia laws as barbaric. Beheading is barbaric. Beating women is barbaric. Executing gays, lesbians and prostitutes, is barbaric. Are you ready to renounce all of that. Being a “liberal” Muslim sounds good, but what does it mean? Are you willing to admit that the Qur’an has many evil teachings in it (i.e. Qur’an 4:34 sanctions, by divine interference, beating women). Are you willing to reject such verses? Look at the following “dripping with evil” verse from the Qur’an:

009.005 YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

The above verse abrogated all Islamic peace you are talking about and put all non-Muslims under the threat of swords and submission. I honestly do not understand you when you say you are a peaceful Muslim. If you are a Muslim, you are peaceful despite of Islam, not because of it. In the Jalalyn Tafsir, and commenting on verse 4:90 (which has a little bit nicer tone than verse 9:5 above) we read the following:

Except those who attach themselves to, [who] seek refuge with, a people between whom and you there is a covenant, a pledge of security for them and for whoever attaches himself to them, in the manner of the Prophet’s (s) covenant with Hilāl b. ‘Uwaymir al-Aslamī; or, those who, come to you with their breasts constricted, dejected, about the prospect of fighting you, [being] on the side of their people, or fighting their people, siding with you, in other words, [those who come to you] refraining from fighting either you or them, then do not interfere with them, neither taking them as captives nor slaying them: this statement and what follows was abrogated by the ‘sword’ verse. Had God willed, to give them sway over you, He would have given them sway over you, by strengthening their hearts, so that assuredly they would have fought you: but God did not will it and so He cast terror into their hearts. And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, reconciliation, that is, [if] they submit, then God does not allow you any way against them, [He does not allow you] a means to take them captive or to slay them.

In effect, it seems a peaceful Islam is only a mirage. It is good that you are dreaming about a peaceful Islam. But facts tell a contrary story. All “peaceful” verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by the verse of the sword. The last and latest teachings of the Qur’an are found in Sura 9 (Al-Tawbah). Muhammad “revealed” it before he died and went to hell which he thoroughly deserved.

Sir, you also accused FFI of “prejudiced behaviour” against Islam. To be honest with you, I and all other editors, try to look for the truth when we do research on Islam. When we review submitted papers, our main concern is to have truthful research presented to readers. We do not sugar-coat Islamic truths. I find it a sad fact that you call our honesty and hard work of research “prejudiced behavior”. Can you please point out to us where we wrote research that is “prejudiced behaviour”?

MODERNIZATION OF ISLAMIC ARGUMENTS
I have recently read the following statement on a website which tries to harmonize science and religion.
 
“Don’t be discouraged! There is hope. The Bible’s message is trustworthy. God is still God, and Jesus is still the Savior who rose again. The Bible isn’t a science book, and Genesis wasn’t written for 21st century intellectuals. God may have allowed a figurative story of His Creation to be recorded, since a scientific explanation wouldn’t have made sense to readers of that time anyway. So continue to trust Him, despite the apparent difficulties in reconciling science with His Word.”
I feel that, we Muslims, have to adopt the same argument to defend Islam during this modern time. I would like to say to my brave Muslims brothers and cute sisters:
“Don’t be discouraged. There is hope. The Qur’anic message is trustworthy. Allah is still Allah and Prophet is still profit and was mercy for mankind and will intercede for us on the Day of Judgement. The Qur’an is for all times that have gone and those that are still to come. Qur’an is not a science book and it was not written for present modern day. Allah may have allowed some soldiers of Iblis to write fake Ahadith and fake verses to be recorded just to give the Iblis full opportunity to complete his wrong doings before the Allah comes into action and sends Messiahs (Jesus and Mahdi). So continue to trust Allah, despite the apparent difficulties in reconciling teachings of Islam with science and modern human rights concepts.
ISLAM ULLAH

Dear brother
you make some grand claims here. I have some questions for you:

1. You say that the Qur’anic message is trustworthy. How do you know that? Is there is “trustworthiness” scale that you put the Qur’an on and it scored perfectly? Was Muhammad even an honest man to trust what he says. He broke many treaties. He attacked people unprovoked. He pillaged. He raped. He looted. He was a lowly thug. You you say that what he said in the Qur’an is trustworthy. You have big task to prove here. All facts point to the contrary. Nothing in the Qur’an is trustworthy. The man who came with it was a deceiver and a liar. Can you please clarify to me why you say that the Qur’an is trustworthy?
2. You also claim that Muhammad was a mercy to mankind. You have a funny logic. Can you please tell me what kind of “mercy to mankind” was Muhammad when he beheaded all adult males of bani Qurayza, enslaved the women and children, and raped the women who he had just killed. He raped Rayhana on the day he beheaded her husband and all male relatives. Now, for any decent human being, Muhammad is not even worthy of any respect because of the evil he did to bani Qurayza, but to you, my good Muslim friend, Muhammad is a “mercy to mankind”. This is a sad joke indeed.
3. You also admit that there fake hadiths and fake Qur’anic verse. Well, how can we choose which verse of the Qur’an are from Allah, and which are from Iblis (the devil)? The same question applies to Hadiths.
4. You admit the difficulties involved in “reconciling teachings of Islam with science and modern human rights concepts.” I applaud your admittance. Many Muslims try to do acrobatics to make Islam fit science and human rights. The fact of the matter is that you cannot, with good heart, consolidate Islam and the Qur’an with modern scientific facts or with human rights concepts. This is a complicated subject. Many articles are published on our FFI site on the subjects of science and human rights. I encourage our readers to investigate such articles. I just want to mention to you one point regarding human rights. The Jizya tax, which is a tax levied against non-Muslims in a Muslim state, is mandated by the Qur’an. If you are as honest as I think you are, you will have to reject many verses in the Qur’an because of one reason or another.

As a final note to you: Would you not do better by rejecting Islam and seeing all of humanity as one big family? Think about it. I wish you the best in your endeavor to find the truth

Source:

IHS
Admin · 34 views · Leave a comment
20 Jan 2013 
Islamic Sex
GAY ACTIVITIES

Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi. According to this hadith, a (gay) man named Zahir, who used to declare that “the prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest.

Sunan Bayhaqi and which traces to Sunan Abu Dawud (one of the six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man who proceeded to kiss his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”

Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”

INCEST
Incest with daughters in law


Incest with daughters


PEDOPHILIA


Aya of pedophilia
Qur’an 65.4 “If you divorce your (child) wife before she reaches menstruation age her idda is three months

Sunan Nasai Bk of Marriage, No 3256: A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was six and had sexual intercourse with me when I was nine and I was playing with dolls.

Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”

Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”

Even babies are halal
Ref: Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990

A muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her.

Sex with one day old bay


MARITAL RAPE
Consent of a wife is not the requirement in islam .
Mishkat, Arabic edition; Babu’n-Nika, p.671 “When a man calls his wife, she must come, although she be at an oven.”

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 121: The Prophet said, “If a man if a man wants sex from his wife and she then the angels send their curses on her till morning.”

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122: The Prophet said, “If a woman refuses to have sex with her husband, then the angels send their curses on her till she submits to him.”

FRENCH KISSING
No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls” (Boutros)

A hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein (Boutros)

Musnad of Ibn Hanbal: “Muhammad would not sleep until he sucked the tongue of his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom.

THIGHING


Ref: www.islamic-fatwa.net Question 1809 After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)

As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her young age and small size . That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers.. Source:

POLYGAMY
Prophet had nine wives when he died. Qur’an allows changing of wives at will. The only condition to change your wife is to let her keep what you gifted her (aya 4.20). .

PLEASURING WHILE FASTING
34 books, including the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi and Sahih Muslim, record that Muhammad used to fondle , kiss and have sex while fasting (Boutros).

FROLICKING WITH MENSTRUATING WOMEN

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 300: Narrated Maimuna: When ever Allah’s Apostle wanted any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar.

Sunan Abu Dawood Book 1, Number 0272: Narrated One of the Wives of the Prophet: Ikrimah reported on the authority of one of the wives of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) saying: When the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) wanted to do something (.sexual activity) with (his) menstruating wife, he would put a garment on her private part.

Al Suyuti wrote Aisha relayed that Muhammad said to her “Come here,” to which she replied, “But I am menstruating, O prophet of God.” So he said “Expose your thighs”; she did so and “he proceeded to lay his cheek and chest on her thighs.”

MENSTRUAL BLOOD IS HALAL
Ahkam al-Qur’an (v.3, p.444) A woman declared that she used to bring water from a well that had, not just menstruation blood, but dead dogs, and all manner of filth, and give Muhammad to drink.

Sunan Abu Dawood Book 1, Number 0270: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: One night he entered (upon me) while I was menstruating. He said: Come near me. I said: I am menstruating. He said: Uncover your thighs. I, therefore, uncovered both of my thighs. Then he put his cheek and chest on my thighs.

Abu Dawood,Book 1, Number 0067: Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied : Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.

QUR’AN RECITAL RESTING HEAD ON THIGHS
Sahih Bukhari hadith (v.6, p.2744) relayed by Aisha where she said that, while menstruating, the prophet used to lay his head on her (naked) thighs and recite the Qur’an.

Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 296: Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet used to lean on my thighs and recite Qur’an while I was in menses.

KINKY STUFF
Allah has allowed a Muslim man to derive pleasure from a woman in any way or form he wants.

2.223: Women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as ye will.

Bukhari ,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 81: Narrated ‘Uqba: The Prophet said: ” you are given the right to enjoy women’s private parts”

OLDER RELATIVES
Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48: Narrated Hisham’s father: Khaula bint Hakim ,(who was prophet’s aunt), was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet. ‘Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?”

ONE NIGHT STANDS
Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 24: A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have come to give you myself “
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 54: “A woman presented herself to the Prophet.”
Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 58: Narrated Sahl bin Sad: A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have come to you to present myself to you”

CONTINUOUS ACTION
Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268: “Prophet was given the sexual strength of thirty men”. Apostle could make love continuously to all his eleven wives in one night.

SLAVE GIRLS
Islam allows sex with your slave girls and any one who agrees to offer herself with money (muta) (ayas 4.3, 4.24,23.6,33.50,70.30)

The History of Tabari, vol 8, pge 29-30 From his own slave girls Prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts.

CAPTURED WOMEN
The best perk of Islam is to kill an infidel and enjoy his wife and daughters

Hisham pge 766 “Safiyah was captured in the Khaibar raid and was claimed by the apostle as his share of booty.. She was then seventeen. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there “.
 
“Sirat e Rasulullah” by Ishaq, page 464 After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty… He took Rayhana b. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512: Narrated Anas: The Prophet had their men killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717: Narrated Ibn Aun: Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day

The History of Tabari, vol 8, pge 29-30 From his share of captive women, prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts.

CONCLUSION

Islam is the most fun loving religion as far as sexual activity is concerned. No wonder that it is the fastest growing religion among sex offenders in western prisons.

Daily Record.co.uk, Apr 7 2008, Exclusive by Amy Devine: A pedophile has converted to Islam and changed his name behind bars. Paul Falconer, 40, now insists bosses at Peterhead prison call him Mohammed

Source:

IHS
Admin · 37 views · Leave a comment
19 Dec 2012 
Dhimwit Case-Study: Karen Armstrong on the Nakhla Raid
Ibn Kammuna

Dhim·wit (dďm-wît): A non-Muslim member of a free society, who unwittingly abets the stated cause of Islamic domination. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.

And Karen Amstrong fit this bill perfectly. Find out why?

In her book on Muhammad, Karen Armstrong is quick to explain and justify all and every action that Muhammad did. I will take the reader of this article on a journey to see how Ms Armstrong does that through her discussion of the Nakhla Raid. Readers may consult my previous essay to understand the background of the Nakhla raid. For a summary of the incident, Allah’s prophet ordered a group of Muslims to go to a place called Nakhla. There, they ambushed a small Meccan commercial caravan, killing one person and imprisoning two others. In addition, all the spoils became the ownership of the Muslims.

Now, for any decent human being, this was an act of desert piracy, but not to Karen Armstrong. To add insult to injury, this piracy took place on the last day of a sacred month. You see, Arabs before Islam respected the sacredness of time. They never attacked others during their holy months. This was the case for centuries, until Muhammad and his bandits came to the scene.

After this successful raid, the Muslim bandits returned to Medina with prisoners and booty. When the news spread to Medina, everyone, justifiably, was upset. Those sacred months were ‘safety zones’ for all Arabs. Muhammad, seeing this negative reaction, distanced himself from the incident. Then, to justify his greed and his willingness to tramp over anything considered holy by others, he comes down with ‘Allah’s’ revelation:

002.217 YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.’ Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Please note that Muhammad chose to leave Mecca. He was not under much oppression there. Readers are encouraged to read M. A. Khan’s book on this matter. However, Muhammad needed excuse to justify his greed for booty. So, he came down with a lame excuse (that is uglier than admission of guilt as some Arab proverb says) represented by the verse from above. How can preventing access to a place be worse than slaughter? Only a brainwashed person can believe this nonsense.

Our Dimwhit Karen Armstrong defends the attack itself, then, defends his holiness ‘prophet Muhammad’ from any criticism. She even goes farther to show the ‘genius’ of Muhammad. As for the attack itself, Karen Armstrong in her book on Muhammad writes:

What should they do? It was the last day of Rajab, but if they waited until the next day, when fighting was permitted, the caravan would have reached the safety of the Meccan sanctuary. (p. 170)

Any decent human being can tell Armstrong what they should have done. They should have left that caravan alone. It’s not the right time. It was a holy time where all Arabs from east to west and north to south respected as safe time-zones for all to conduct their affairs without fear. This is what they should have done Miss Armstrong. According to Armstrong, Muhammad wanted to abandon those sacred months, because they belonged to the pagan religion. This is actually false as all Arabs whether monotheists or polytheists followed this tradition of sacred months.

Moving along, those bandits take their booty and prisoners and go to Medina. When the people of Medina heard the news of the attack during a sacred time, everyone became saddened, if not shocked, as this was completely against the moral standards followed by all Arabs. Muhammad got worried about this reaction and distanced himself initially from the bandits that he sent out to start with. But, he really wanted the booty and the prisoners’ ransom money. So, the above verse comes down to him telling him that it is okay to attack, unprovoked, a commercial caravan during a time sacred to Arabs. As usual, Karen Armstrong is quick to defend Muhammad:

This incident is a good example of Muhammad’s way of working. He was ready to die for his faith, but was also ready to compromise on inessentials. In the absence of a long-established ethical system, he would listen carefully to events and see them as a revelation of God’s will? (p. 172)

Well, respecting the holy months is not ‘inessential’ Miss Armstrong. Arabs lived thousands of years before Muhammad. So, they had a ‘long-established ethical system’ Miss Armstrong.

It is evident that Karen Armstrong was quick to extend her sympathy to what Muhammad and his murderous robbers did. She fits the definition of a Dhimwhit par excellence. In fact, her views on Islam constitute an ideal example Dhimwhitness.

Source:

IHS
Admin · 109 views · Leave a comment
19 Dec 2012 
Muhammad: A Kindred Spirit From Mecca

Ibn Kammuna

Introduction
In this article, I try to investigate the claim that Muhammad had a gentle spirit in Mecca, that changed quickly after his emigration to Medina. This study relies mainly on comparing earlier Meccan Qur’anic verses with other Qur’anic verses from his early times in Medina, as well as with verses from his last “revelation” when he was the supreme leader of Arabia.

Meccan Muhammad
Muhammad’s message was for his kin folks. Allah is in control of everything. Muhammad is no more than a warner. However, Muhammad did what he could, mainly threaten people. Note how verse 42:7 in the Qur’an promises those who do not follow him the fire of hell. There is more beauty and rhyme in the Meccan Suras. Arabs loved poetry and rhyme, and Muhammad had to compete with that. They had certain annual markets in Mecca where poets competed with their poetry (i.e. Ukad or Ukaz,..). The best poems were hung on the walls of the Ka’ba, an honor that not every poet obtained. Muhammad was unsuccessful with his new ‘poetry-like’ jargon; the Qur’an. In this regard many great poets won the hearts of the Arabs more than Muhammad’s Suras. By the end of his thirteen years in Mecca, Muhammad realized that words are powerful, especially if they came in an attractive way (i.e. poetry). But he also realized that his language abilities cannot compete with those great poets of old. When he went to Yathrib (called Medina later), he probably had in mind getting rid of those poets who went against him, or mocked him with their poetry. History bears me out here. Did he not assassinate Asma bint Marwan and other poets who said some poetry criticizing him? Muhammad’s assassinations and killings of poets are best understood within the context of his life. He could not do much to them when he was in Mecca. He was weak with no political power. Would it not be natural to see Muhammad as a vindictive unforgiving person for those who criticized him right from the start? Muhammad did target poets after the hijra (emigration) to Yathrib (Medina) with assassinations. Even after he took over Mecca, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two singing girls because they sang songs making fun of Muhammad. He was just a vindictive unforgiving person right from the Meccan times. He just did not muster enough power to send his henchmen to kill people back then (Muhammad himself was a coward who relied on others to do his bad deeds for him). Below are some verses from the Meccan period (all of the Qur’anic quotes below are from Yusuf Ali translation):

026.214 And admonish thy nearest kinsmen,
042.003 Thus doth (He) send inspiration to thee as (He did) to those before thee,- Allah, Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.
042.004 To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: and He is Most High, Most Great.
042.005 The heavens are almost rent asunder from above them (by Him Glory): and the angels celebrate the Praises of their Lord, and pray for forgiveness for (all) beings on earth: Behold! Verily Allah is He, the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
042.006 And those who take as protectors others besides Him,- Allah doth watch over them; and thou art not the disposer of their affairs.
042.007 Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur’an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her,- and warn (them) of the Day of Assembly, of which there is no doubt: (when) some will be in the Garden, and some in the Blazing Fire.

While in Mecca, Muhammad increasingly became more insulting to his kin folks and their religions. Despite that, the pagans of Mecca were civil people. They did not drive him or his Muslim group out of Mecca. He had leaving the city on his mind as he realized he cannot make it to be the leading authority figure if he stayed. Over a period of thirteen years he only managed to have around one hundred to a hundred and fifty Muslims, mostly rowdy and lower class people. The fact of the matter is that Muhammad had it in his mind to leave Mecca all along. He sent a group of Muslims to Abyssinia (Ethiopia, 615-6) to see about the situation there. He also went to Taif (619), and the people there told him to just leave. They kicked him out. The idea that Muhammad was forced to leave Mecca because the Meccans were after him wanting to kill him does not find much historical support. The reader is advised to see M. A. Khan’s book discussion on this matter (Islamic Jihad, pp. 18-26).

Early Medinan Muhammad
In Medina, there are, in my view, two distinct stages to Muhammad’s career of ten years there. In Mecca, he realized that he can’t win the hearts of people through his kind verses Qur’an (poetry!!). He just was not good enough to compete with the top poets of the time. He must have contemplated more power and success in life. So, he had to feel his way by using force. He wanted to see how much power he can exercise over other people. First loots were unsuccessful. However, the Nakhla raid was a success. He made a good bounty out of that raid without even lifting a finger. For a quick analogy here, I grew up where there are local dogs in the villages that herded sheep and goats. If a dog tasted the blood of a goat and killed it, that dog had to be shot. There was no way to keep that dog from doing it again. The usual say in the village would be “He (meaning the dog) could not be kept alive. He tasted blood”. Well, in a sense, the Nakhla raid for Muhammad was his “blood tasting” experience. (off course, the problem was he, Muhammad, was kept alive).

Here are some verses from that period:

002.256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
002.257 Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

Note that the above verses still gives an option of belief to people, however he is still threatening people with hell fire. Muhammad is still feeling his way on what to do next. However, look at those verses from the same period:

002.190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
002.191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

It is evident that Muhammad had moved to what I call passive fighting. Muslims are still weak during that period. He wants them to defend themselves by fighting those who fight the Muslims. Verse 191 above shows Muhammad’s hateful heart against those who fight the Muslims. It is at this stage that we see Muhammad feeling that he has some power to be able to subdue those who fight the Muslims. But, he has to be careful with his revelations, as he is still not in full control power-wise. He had to seek alliances with multiple groups and tribes.

Muhammad’s True Colors
The true color of a person shows best when he is in power to decide the fate of other people. Many people loved the late king Hussein of Jordan for many reasons. He was just a kind-hearted man. One of the things about the late king if one reads his writings, and many people do not know that, is that there were many assassination attempts and coups against his life and against his rule. It was a habit of his to forgive those who tried to kill him or make a coup against him (in fact, many of those people he elevated to high ranks in the Jordanian army and the Jordanian police). The late king Hussein had a gentle spirit. Compare that to Muhammad and what he says in the last Sura of the Qur’an (chronologically). Please remember that he was the highest authority in the land when such verses were “revealed” to him. By the way, by that time, Muhammad’s “revelations” lost their rhyme. He did not need to compete with the poets anymore. He had military and political control over much of Arabia. Below are the verses from the chronologically last “revelation”:

009.028 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
009.073 O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.
009.074 They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.
009.113 It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.
009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.


The above verses show no mercy against non-Muslims. The command is to put others into submission by whatever means necessary, force them to pay Jizya, kill them,..etc. Choice of religious belief in a pluralistic society is no more existent.

Concluding Remarks
Muhammad was not a kindred spirit as some Muslim apologetics try to portray him. This fact dates back to his Meccan times. He had a vengeful inner spirit. However, in Mecca, he could not harm people and kill them as he did not have much power. The best he could do is curse others and say Qur’anic verses telling them they are going to hell. That he did. As his power increased, his Qur’an lost much of the rhyme, and added much of the “harm and kill the others” to it. Earlier in Medina, this matter was less noticeable as Muhammad was not in complete control of everything. Later in Medina, he had supreme power over all of Arabia. It is during that time that his true colours showed up in the form of teaching the Muslims, through his Qur’an, to kill and subdue all who do not agree with his message.

Source:

IHS
Admin · 70 views · Leave a comment
19 Dec 2012 
National Geographic Blunders on Islamic-Christian History
A friend of mine brought to my attention a problematic article in the National Geographic of June 2009. Apparently, National Geographic featured an article on Arab Christians entitled, "The Forgotten Faithful." Although the article is mainly focused on modern Arab Christians, the author reports this inaccurate historical record:

"Such scenes reflect the Levant's history of coexistence between Muslims and people of other faiths, which dates from the earliest days of Islam. When the Muslim Caliph Omar conquered Syria from the Byzantine Empire around 636, he protected the Christians under his rule, allowing them to keep their churches and worship as they pleased. But many Christians converted to Islam anyway, preferring its emphasis on a personal connection with God to the oppressive hierarchies of the Byzantine Church." [emphasis mine]

You can read this for yourself on the seventh page of the article by clicking here.

This statement is wrong and can be quickly checked against the Omar Agreement (aka Umar Agreement). Click here for source. Under Caliph Omar, Christians were given three choices: death, conversion, or agreement to pay jizya tax. Here is the agreement:

The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule

We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows: In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells,
nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers.
We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.
We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.
We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.
We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly.
We shall not raise our voices when following our dead.
We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.
We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
 (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition. Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact." from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
 
[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]



It is disappointing that the journalist, who wrote, The Forgotten Faithful, did not report on Omar's Agreement at all. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may not have known that this agreement existed. However, notice the term dhimma in the text. This is a term for second class citizens under Sharia Law (Islamic Law). This is not how these people are portrayed in the National Geographic article when the author reports these people worshiped "as they pleased."

As Nabeel Qureshi of Acts 17 Apologetics pointed out, in reference to this same article: "Unfortunately, there is a problem with this [the author's] perspective: it ignores virtually everything about Islam. As we have pointed out before, Sharia stems from the Qur'an, and in its final days of revelation, the Qur'an commanded that Christians and Jews be fought until they are humiliated (9:29). Sharia thus calls for active antagonism towards non-Muslims."

Also, it is unfortunate how the article presented an imbalance of religious violence, focusing more on historical Christian violence without a balanced assessment of the Muslim violence in history, as well. And so it appears as if the article is attempting to persuade people about an ideology under the guise of reporting his

Source:

IHS
Admin · 47 views · Leave a comment
19 Nov 2012 
The Absence of Freedom in The Lands Governed by Sharia
On 7 July, 2009, the daily online Al-Awan published an article by a reformist Algerian intellectual unmasking the hypocrisy of the Islamic propaganda machine that seeks to paint a rosy picture of the human rights conditions in the “Lands Governed by the Sharia.” He began, with tongue in cheek, to quote a paragraph written in a flowery Arabic style that sang the praises of the superlative tolerance and magnanimity shown to the various religious and ethnic minorities living within Daru’l Islam. Then he proceeded to list certain actions taken by Muslim governments that contradicted the empty claims enumerated in the propaganda piece. I must confess that I was fascinated with his sarcasm and wit which comes through especially forcefully in Arabic!

Here are excerpts from the article, followed by my analysis and comments.
 
“We are a tolerant people. With us, there is no ‘compulsion in religion.’ We don’t punish apostates, or force them to return to Islam. Buddhists living among us are free to build their temples. As to our Christian brothers and Jewish cousins, they have all the freedom to build their houses of worship without any hindrance. [Among us] you are as free to change religion as you are to change your shirt. There is true freedom in Daru’l Islam. A Copt is a citizen, and not a dhimmi. A Shi’ite enjoys the same privileges as a Sunni in a Sunni majority land; the same thing obtains for a Sunni living in a Shi’ite majority country. The Ahmadis 1 and the Bahais 2 are well-treated. In fact, all religions are properly treated in our Arab-Muslim world. May Allah protect us from the evil designs and calumnies of the West who are very jealous on account of our blessings, the blessings of justice, peace, and Islam.”
 
 “Now, anyone who takes seriously such propaganda, [referring to the words of the paragraph above] is a fool for believing such lies! The meetings that take place, and the funds that are spent to present Islam as a tolerant religion, are nothing but smoke-screens.
 
 “The facts gleaned from the Islamic world don’t reveal an idealistic and tolerant Islam. How can a genuine spirit of citizenship prosper in the Muslim world, where the Sharia mandates not only discrimination against non-Muslims, but their ultimate elimination?
 
 “Any keen observer of the condition of human rights in the Muslim world is able to dismantle meaningless discourse that seeks to present to the world an idealistic Islam. Such an observer cannot but take note of the total lack of individual freedoms and human rights in all those countries where their laws are based on Sharia, and not on human reason.
 
 “It is necessary to dismantle the very structures of Islamist discourse based, as we know, on purely verbal formulations and vapid eloquence. Doing so would reveal the true nature of that miserable and imagined“glorious Islamic past,” a past that the Islamists are trying to resurrect, which can only mean that entire Muslim societies will continue to remain underdeveloped!
 
 “Let us observe realistically the present state of affairs in the Arab-Islamic world so that we may not be duped by the empty claims of the Islamists. Where is that vaunted justice when a young Algerian woman is brought to trial, simply because she chose to embrace Christianity in a country with a constitution that guarantees freedom of belief? The Algerian Government claims that there is a widespread evangelization movement taking place in the country. But what exactly is the problem with that? Should the State be responsible for the conscience of its people and their inner convictions? Why do we forbid others to engage in activities which we allow ourselves? What’s the difference between “da’wa” and “tabshir” (evangelism?) 3. And can there be harmony between the Sharia as the basis of legislations and the principle of religious freedom?
 
 “In the final analysis, it is only when we adopt a secular outlook as the basis of our laws that we can arrive at a just solution to the problem of religious, ethnic, and racial minorities who are at present “submerged” in the sea of an intolerant Muslim majority throughout the Arab world.”

Analysis
The author of this brief article locates the source and foundation of discrimination against non-Muslims in the very Islamic Sharia as based on the sacred and normative texts of Islam, namely the Qur’an, the Hadith, and Sirat (Life of) Muhammad. Most if not all the “Constitutions” of Islamic states begin with a clause that makes Islam the source of legislation.

Comments
The discriminatory teachings of Islamic Sharia classify people living within Daru’l Islam according to several categories such as, Muslims, Dhimmis or People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews), and pagans. While Muslim propagandists never cease to claim that Islam respects the rights of non-Muslims to worship and live according to their own beliefs, the facts reveal an entirely different reality.

The author is known for expressing views about the necessity of the separation of religion from politics in the Arab-Muslim world. His remarks reflect his belief that as long as the Sharia remains the foundational source of all legislation, there can be no genuine equality among the citizens of an Arab country. The very source of discrimination is the Sharia itself. Since it is based on a Divine revelation, it follows that no mere humans may alter any of its provisions.

We should never forget that the presence of Islam outside the Arabian Peninsula took place by force. This fact is often forgotten or glossed over by Western intellectuals. In the Introduction to his book, “Islamic Imperialism: A History” published in 2006 by Yale University Press, Professor Ephraim Karsh, head of Mediterranean Studies at King’s College, University of London, made this contrast between Christianity and Islam:
 
“The worlds of Christianity and Islam, however, have developed differently in one fundamental respect. The Christian faith won over an existing empire in an extremely slow and painful process and its universalism was originally conceived in spiritual terms that made a clear distinction between God and Caesar. By the time it was embraced by the Byzantine emperors as a tool for buttressing their imperial claims, three centuries after its foundation, Christianity had in place a countervailing ecclesiastical institution with an abiding authority over the wills and actions of all believers. The birth of Islam, by contrast, was inextricably linked with the creation of a world empire and its universalism was inherently imperialist. It did not distinguish between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammad, who derived his authority directly from Allah and acted at one and the same time as head of the state and head of the church. This allowed the prophet to cloak his political ambitions with a religious aura and to channel Islam’s energies into ‘its instruments of aggressive expansion, there [being] no internal organism of equal force to counterbalance it.’” (P. 5)

A thorough study of the plight of minorities under Islam has been done by Bat Ye’or. In her book, “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude,” she documents the condition of Eastern Christians throughout the Middle East, since the early years of the seventh century.4

It was the imposition of the Jizya tax and other harsh discriminatory measures on the majority populations during the successive Arab, Seljuk, and Ottoman regimes that ultimately led to a drastic demographic change. The subjects who were originally in the majority became a despised and barely tolerated minority. The results of this Islamic intolerance are realistically described by the author of Al-Awan article in these strong words, “The facts gleaned from the Islamic world don’t reveal an idealistic and tolerant Islam. How can a genuine spirit of citizenship prosper in the Muslim world, where the Sharia mandates not only discrimination against non-Muslims, but their ultimate elimination?”

The writer also makes reference to “that miserable and imagined glorious Islamic past.” These words point to the era of the early caliphs and the subsequent caliphates that witnessed the expansion of the Muslim world. The first caliphs are called, “Al-Khulafa al-Rashidoon,” i.e. “The Rightly Guided Caliphs.” Their era (632-661) was marred by a series of assassinations. Umar, the 2nd caliph was murdered in 644, and was succeeded by Uthman who was assassinated twelve years later. Then Ali, cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, was murdered by one of his own disgruntled soldiers!

The list of horrors that mar the history of Islam goes on. The martyrdom of Husain, the son of Ali, and leader of the Shi’ites, took place in 680, at Karbala, Iraq. Seventy years later, the Umayyad Caliphate, responsible for the killing of Husain and his entourage, ended in a blood-bath! What the author decries is the undue praise that is heaped on that period in the history of Islam by present-day Islamists.

Finally, our author turns to the subject of freedom of religion, and refers to an Algerian woman who, after being converted to the Christian faith, was hauled before the courts. He considers this the height of intolerance. Furthermore, he remains skeptical about the Algerian Government’s claim of the existence of a widespread evangelistic activity in the country. And even if such a campaign did exist, why should it be considered a subversive movement! He abhors the shocking asymmetry that exists in Islam’s relations with the rest of the world and boldly asked: “What’s the difference between ‘da’wa’ and ‘tabshir’”3

While any attempt to spread the Christian faith in the vast Islamic world is looked upon with alarm and considered a crime, Muslims in Europe and the Americas encounter no hindrances in the practice of their faith, nor are they forbidden to engage in Da’wa, i.e. calling non-Muslims to embrace Islam. In several of my previous articles on this website, I called attention to the total absence of a quid pro quo in the relations between Islam and the West.

Not only do Muslims enjoy freedom of religion in the West, but Muslin governments and institutions subsidize chairs of Islamic Studies at major American universities. For example, Dr. John L. Esposito, of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., is a “Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.” His position at this Catholic university is funded by a member of the Saudi Royal family. A perusal of his writings and various texts from his speeches indicates a consistently revisionist exposition of Islam. On the other hand, it is unimaginable to expect the existence of a “chair” for Christian Studies at any Islamic university.

The reason for this shocking anomaly is that, through their actions, Muslims declare the finality and superiority of their faith and worldview over all other major world civilizations. Thus, they see no inconsistency at all in demanding freedom to exercise and propagate their faith wherever they have settled outside Daru’l Islam. After all, Muhammad is Allah’s last messenger, the Qur’an is His completed revelation, and therefore the Sharia must rule the entire world. To allow a witness for other faiths within Islam’s homelands is utterly inconceivable.

The author of the article in Al-Awan, who has challenged the uniqueness and superiority of Islam, must be congratulated for his courage, honesty, and integrity. I can never be thankful enough for the Internet that allows his opinions to appear and spread. I hope more Arabs would not only read his contributions, but would adopt his reformist worldview, and pave the way for a peaceful coexistence between a reformed Islam and the rest of mankind.

1. Ahmadis are followers of the “Ahmadiyya Movement” which was founded in 1889 in India, by a Muslim scholar, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He claimed that he received revelation from Allah “to disclose the true spirit of Islam.” Since both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam do not recognize any new prophet after Muhammad, the followers of this movement are regarded as heretics, and quite often, are persecuted in Muslim countries.
2. Bahais follow the teachings of a 19th century Persian religious leader who took the name of Baha’ullah (Splendor of Allah). He sought to unite all three theistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Persecuted by the Shah, he sought refuge within the Ottoman Empire. He died in 1892, and is buried on Mt. Carmel, near Haifa, Israel.
3. Da’wa” and “Tabshir” The effort to propagate Islam is known as da’wa, i.e. calling people to accept Muhammad as Allah’s final messenger. Tabshir is an Arabic word based on Bishara, i.e. Good News or Gospel. Tabshir refers to Christian missions.
4.

Source:

IHS
Admin · 50 views · Leave a comment
19 Nov 2012 
A Debate that I Lost – The last Verse of the Qur’an
Sometime ago, while socializing with a group of Muslims, I became involved in a debate with one of them, who happened to be a Muslim scholar. It all started when he objected to my referral to the Qur’anic verse 5: 3 as the last revealed verse. He insisted that I was wrong and quoted some references to prove his point. Although he appeared to be sure I still didn’t believe his claims because they seemed to defy commonsense. When I went home, the first thing I did was to look at those references quoted by the Muslim scholar and, to my surprise, he was absolutely correct. The Muslim scholars, who rarely agree on anything, were in full agreement on that one! There are a few verses that were revealed after verse Q.5:3, therefore, this verse cannot be described as the last revealed of the Qur’an.

The verse, or rather part of verse, I was referring to is this one:

Q.5:3 (…This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion….)

The above statement is a part of a long verse in surat Almaeda (chapter 5) and is one of those popular verses that many Muslims tend to know by heart. It also has a special significance because it was revealed during Mohammed’s last pilgrimage, known to Muslims as hijatul wadaa, or the farewell pilgrimage. Indeed, Mohammed died three months later, and the verse could have made a perfect finish to his career, had he stopped revealing more.

I spent all my years as a Muslim assuming that the above verse was the last to be revealed from the Qur’an. My assumption was not based on historical evidence but on logical conclusion, which explains how I got it wrong; I applied common sense to where it didn’t belong. According to the above verse, Allah states that He had perfected, completed and chosen Islam as a religion for Muslims. I thought that such a clear statement means that no further revelations were needed. In fact, any further revelations would contradict the above verse and make it meaningless. And that is exactly the situation now; the words ‘perfected’ and ‘completed’ seem have lost their meanings because Allah continued to reveal more!

That debate took place years after I already left Islam, but the blunder, on its own, is a good enough reason for any thinking Muslim to leave Islam. My friend had the habit of claiming victory in all debates anyway; I certainly couldn’t disagree with his claim on that one, but that was a debate I was happy to lose.

One might think that the ‘extra’ verses that were revealed had only symbolic value and did not affect the core issues of Islam, like halal (allowed) and haram (prohibited) issues. I am afraid that is only a wishful thinking and is far from true. Let us have a look at some of the verses that were added to the Qur’an after Allah declared that it was completed.

According to Bukhari, Ibn Abbas believed that verse Q.2:278, which deals with usury (riba), was the last of the Qur’an:
 
“Q.2: 278. O you who believe! Be afraid of Allâh and give up what remains from Ribâ (usury) if you are believers”

Both Bukhari and Muslim report that Baraa Ibn Azzeb believed that verse Q.4: 176, which deals with inheritance, was the last of the Qur’an:
 
“Q.4: 176. They ask you for a legal verdict. Say: “Allâh directs about Al Kalâlah (those who leave neither descendants nor ascendants as heirs). If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister, but no child, she shall have half the inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, her brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance; if there are brothers and sisters, the male will have twice the share of the female. (Thus) does Allâh makes clear to you (His Law) lest you go astray. And Allâh is the All-Knower of everything.”

While Abu Ubayd, in his book ‘Fadael al Qur’an’ claims that verse Q.2: 282 from surat Al Bakara, which is the longest verse in the Qur’an and sets the rules of borrowing, was the last to be revealed:
 
“Q.2: 282. O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write ….”

The above were only three contenders for the title of the last verse of the Qur’an, all of them were revealed after Allah stated that He perfected and completed the religion!

My explanation is that Allah, after he completed the Qur’an, remembered a few more things which he added later.

All humans do it, don’t they?

Source:

IHS
Admin · 71 views · Leave a comment

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next page