Ali Sina’s Response to Mr. Mustafa Hoseini Tabatabaie
Today, July 16, 2011 I received an email from a friend informing me that Muslim scholar Mr. Mustafa Huseini Tabatabie has written a refutation to my response to Ayatollah Montazeri. This refutation is four years old. However, he did not send me a copy. It’s only now that I saw it for the first time.
Mr. Tabatabaie chides me for not being respectful to Islam and to Muhammad. I admit that I don’t have any respect for the man who thinks I should be killed for not submitting to him. That would be absurd. Respecting such a vile man means validating his asinine claims. As a rule I don’t respect any ideology that is divisive, promotes hate and violence. By the same token I have no respect for communism, Nazism, fascism, or Thuggee religion. I put Islam in the same category.
As a matter of fact respecting ideologies is a fallacy. All ideologies, even good ones, such as democracy, should be open to criticism. If they can’t stand the test of scrutiny they must be discarded. Beliefs don’t have to be respected. It is human rights and human dignity that must be respected. We must respect people’s right to believe, even in what we consider to be false. However, no belief is above criticism.
The Marriage to Aisha
In regards to the young age of Aisha Mr. Tabatabai says there is discrepancy in hadiths and there are also hadiths that show the age of Aisha was between 12 to 20 years when Muhammad married her. This is a weak claim made by contemporary Muslim scholars. For example, Mr. Tabatabi quotes Ibn Ishaq who said Aisha was one of the early convert to Islam. Aisha herself says that as long as she remembers her parents were Muslims. In other words, she was born into a Muslim family. There are dozens of very detailed hadiths where Aisha herself says she was six years old when she was given in marriage to Muhammad; that she was playing on a swing when her mother came and took her to Muhammad; that she had her dolls with her and her girlfriends used to visit her and they played with dolls; that when Muhammad entered the room her friends used to hide, but Muhammad would call them and he would play dolls with them. Seventeen or 20 years old women don’t play with dolls. The same hadiths say that playing doll in Islam is prohibited but an exception was made for Aisha because she had not reached the age of puberty. There is another hadith that says when Muhammad told to Abu Bakr that Aisha was shown to him in a dream, carried by Gabriel, and he said, if it is the will of God it must happen,” Abu Bakr begged Muhammad to wait a few more years until Aisha reaches puberty. There is no authentic and reliable hadith stating Aisha was older. The biggest evidence the revisionists present is one hadith that says Asma, the sister of Aisha who was ten years older than her died at the alleged age of 100 in 692 CE. Therefore Aisha must have been born in 602 CE and since her marriage took place in 618 CE she must have been 16 at the time and not six. This is the best argument they present. But it is very weak. Ninety years old people look old to all those around them. People thought Asma was 100 when in reality she was 90. This is a very honest mistake. Her exact date of birth was not of importance so the historian did not research it. He gave a round number to highlight her advanced age.
It is also interesting that neither Mr. Tabatabaie nor any of the modern revisionists try to use this argument to ban the child marriage that is prevalent in Islamic countries. Child marriage is practiced in most Islamic countries and it is part of the Sharia. This argument is only used to counter the criticism of Islam. On one hand they deny Muhammad’s pedophilia and on the other hand they emulate him in that. This is a perfect example of Islamic taqiyah, “to conceal the truth.”
To defend Muhammad Mr. Tabatabaie engages in another fallacy and quotes cases where younger women have married older men. He wonders why should there be any problem for Aisha to fall in love with Muhammad.
The fallacy consists in the fact that we are not arguing about the difference of age between Muhammad and Aisha. Younger women do marry older men for their money. But Aisha was only six years old. At this age the only thing a girl can decide is the color of her dress. A child that young does not have the maturity to decide about her marriage. In fact, Aisha says that nothing “surprised” her more than when Muhammad “came to her” in that forenoon. That little girl did not know anything about sex and why this old man was touching her private parts. We are not talking about the difference of age between Muhammad and Aisha. We are talking about pedophilia.
Mr. Tabatabaie expresses his amazement that I have a problem about the fact that 14 centuries ago two consenting people married when even their families had agreed to such a marriage. He claims I should respect people’s freedom.
What amazes me is the fact that Mr. Tabatabaie thinks a six year old child is mature enough to consent to marriage. The fact that Aisha’s parents consented is not good enough. They were brainwashed and blinded by their zealotry. Please watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oyHM7aZ1Ws. A man is saying he witnessed Khomeini soliciting one of his followers to let him have sex with his five years old daughter and that benighted man consented. Does the consent of a brain dead believer justify the crime of Khomeini? Abu Bakr was a cultist. He had given up thinking rationally. He believed in every nonsense Muhammad told him. This is what blind faith does to people. In our own time we had many cult leaders like David Koresh and James Jones who persuaded their followers to let them have sex with their wives and daughters and these men consented. Cult leaders abuse the trust of their followers. The mechanism is complex. To understand this I suggest you read my book Understanding Muhammad and Muslims.
Having sex with a child is morally wrong. What part of this, Mr. Tabatabaie does not understand?
Mr. Tabatabaie says that the charge of pedophilia does not apply to Muhammad because pedophiles are compulsively attracted to children whereas Muhammad’s other wives were older.
This is a fallacy. One does not have to be a serial killer or a serial thief to be convicted of murder or theft. A person who is not a pedophile cannot find little girls sexually attractive. If I see a bunch of little girls naked the only feeling I can have for them is parental. It is simply not possible for me to find girls as young and 12, sexually attractive. If a grown up man feels any sexual attraction for young children he is a pedophile even if he never acts on his paraphilia.
Let me make an example. Is it possible for a man to have sexual feelings for another man? No, unless he is a homosexual. If you have attraction for a person of same sex you are a homosexual, even though you don’t act on it. Muhammad acted on his pedophiliac instinct.
The marriage between Muhammad and Khadijah was a codependency. These two individuals were both emotionally unhealthy. They suffered from disorders that I have explained in my book. Their marriage was a sick symbiosis and not a mature love. Khadijah was to Muhammad a sugar mommy.
All other Muhammad’s wives were teenagers or in their early teens when Muhammad married them. Some of them were widowed because Muhammad had killed their husband. As for Sauda, she was not an old woman when Muhammad married her.
How old was she? No mention of her age is made. Ibn Sa’d writes, Sauda died during the rule of Muaviyah in the year 54 Hijra. [Tabaqat V.8, page 56] Muhammad married her about a month after the death of Khadijah, i.e. three years before Hijra. Therefore, Sauda died 57 years after she married Muhammad. What is the normal age of a person? Sauda was a large woman. Often overweigh people don’t live long. But let us say she died at the age of eighty. 80-57=23. Sauda was 23 years old when the 50 year old Muhammad marreid her. This makes sense since when Sauda’s first husband died; she did not have yet a child. If Sauda died at the age of 90, which is unlikely, she could not have been older than 33 years when she married Muhammad. As we can deduce, Sauda was about half the age of Muhammad. But she was older than his other wives who were 36 to 44 years younger than him and that is why Muhammad did not sleep with her and wanted to divorce her. [Tabaqat V. 8 p. 53-54]
Another argument presented by Mr. Tabatabaie is that Muhammad’s marriages were politically motivated, intended to foster friendship with their relatives. Let us give the benefit of doubt to Mr. Tabatabaie and accept his argument. Is this ethically right? This only proves that Muhammad treated women as objects and pawns in his big political chess game. We don’t have to be a psychologist to understand the humiliation that a woman would feel knowing she is not chosen because of her own merits or because she is loved, but because she is useful to her husband’s political ambitions.
The argument that Muhammad’s marriages were politically motivated is rehashed by all Muslims. It amazes me that they don’t realize this is strong evidence that Muhammad was an opportunist manipulator who used others for his own gain.
However, I assure my readers that Muhammad was also motivated by lust. A Muslim named Jarir ibn Abdullah narrated that Muhammad asked him, “Have you got married?” He replied in the affirmative. Muhammad enquired, “A virgin or a matron?” He responded, “I married a matron.” Then Muhammad said, “Why not a virgin? So you may play with her and she may play with you?” [Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 310]
Ibn Sa’d makes it clear that Muhammad wanted to divorce Sauda only because she was not attractive, until she begged him to not divorce her and told him that she has no need for sex and he can use her turn to sleep with Aisha. Sauda wanted to have the title of being the Prophet’s wife for prestige and money. Her chances of getting re-married were slim and she would have faced poverty. Remaining a wife of Muhammad paid off. From every raid and pillage, the wives of Muhammad received their share of the booty and slaves. Omar, during his caliphate, sent to Sauda a burlap sack filled with Dirhams (Probably the proceeds of the loot of Persia or Egypt). Sauda asked, what is this? They said it is Dirhams. She exclaimed, “SubhanAllâh, they send me money in a sack of dates?” [Tabaqat V. 8 p. 55]
After accusing me of rudeness for calling Muhammad’s robberies, robberies, and insisting that I should have used a more respectful term to describe his criminal activities, Mr. Tabatabaie engages in the typical Islamic arguments.
He says that Muhammad and his followers in Mecca were persecuted and their property taken away. So they raided the caravans of the Meccans to recover their own lost property. I have demonstrated in my book that the claim of persecution of Muslims is a myth. Both Ibn Ishaq and Tabari clearly state that the Quraish were angered, not because Muhammad was preaching monotheism, (the Jews and the Christians and the Sabeans also were monotheists), but because he insulted their religion in every opportunity. Muhammad deliberately taunted them. His goal was to cause disunity, bueause only through that he could control his followers. If they hated their families, they would love him.
Ibn Ishaq narrates that the elders of Quraish got together and said, “We have never known anything like the trouble we have endured from this fellow. He has declared our mode of life foolish, insulted our forefathers, reviled our religion, divided the community and cursed our gods.” At this time Muhammad enters Ka’ba and starts circumvallating it. One of them calls on him saying he should stop dividing the community. Muhammad stops, his face is red with rage. He says, “Will you listen to me O Quraish? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter. [Sira p. 131]
The Baha’is don’t insult Islam. They are not calling for the slaughter of anyone and yet Muslims have been prosecuting them since their inception and killing them mercilessly. And Mr. Tabatabaie has the chutzpa to uphod the myth of the persecution of Muslims in Mecca, but he will never voice any condemnation for the persecution of Bahais in Iran.
There was no persecution of Muslims in Mecca. People kept their children at home so they don’t get mislead by the man they believed to be an impostor and the divider of the community. This is not persecution but protection of the loved ones. Bilal was beaten not because he converted to Islam but because he insulted his master’s religion. Umayyah sold Bilal to Abu Bakr when he offered to buy him. This shows he did not care that Bilal had converted to Islam. But he did not want one of his slaves insult his religion. That is not unreasonable.
I have shown in my book that the alleged persecution of Muslims in Mecca is a myth. One proof that Muhammad was never at risk in Mecca is the discourse of his uncle Abbas at Aqaba. When the new converts of Yathrib came to Mecca to pledge their allegiance to Muhammad, Abbas stood up and said, “O People of Khazraj, you know what position Muhammad holds among us. We have protected him from our own people who think as we do about him. He lives in honor and safety among his people, but he will turn to you and join you. If you think that you can be faithful to what you have promised and protect him from his opponents, then assume the burden you have undertaken. But if you think that you will betray and abandon him after he has gone out with you, then leave him now, for he is safe where he is.”[Sira p. 203] This contradicts the claim made in the Quran 8:30 that unbelievers were plotting to bond, or to slay or to exile Muhammad. How can we reconcile these contradictory statements? Truth was irrelevant for Muhammad. He said what was needed in every situation.
Another myth that Muslims love to say is that Muhammad was called Amin because he was trusted by the Meccans. Mr. Tabatabaie says people leaved their belongings to him. Why? Did Muhammad own a pawn shop? Did he own a bank or rented out storage facilities? Why would people leave their belongings to him?
1.4 billion Muslims, for 14 hundred years have been rehashing this nonsense and not a single one of them pauses to wonder why? Why if the Meccans thought Muhammad was honest and truthful they called him a liar, a majnoon and a lunatic?
Amin means trustee. It was the title of those who sold and bought merchandise on behalf of others. One is called school trustee, or city trustee because of his profession. The title “Amin” is a label for every sort of profession. Here are some examples: Amin El-Makataba (Trustee of the library); Amin El-Shortaa (Police Trustee); and Majlass El-Omnaa (Council of Trustees). Abul Aas, husband of Zeinab, Muhammad’s daughter, was also called Amin because he was also a trader. He did not convert until he was forced to. Muhammad ordered Zeinab to leave him unless he converted.
Muhammad acted as the trustee (Amin) for Khadijah once, when he took her merchandise to Damascus and sold it on her behalf. Had the Meccans believed Muhammad to be trustworthy they would not have derided him when he told them that he had received a message from God. According to Muhammad’s own admission made in the Quran, those who knew him best called him a liar and a madman, (Q.15:6) a charge that he denied by making his Allâh testify: “Therefore continue to remind, for by the grace of your Lord, you are not a soothsayer, or a madman.” (Q.52:29)
The Quran makes many claims portraying Muslims as victims and persecuted. But those claims are not supported by the history of Islam. We don’t have an independent source of history. All we are left with is the Islamic narrative and that belies the claims of the Quran.
Mr. Tabatabaie quotes the Quran as if it is the word of God and anyone must believe them. That maybe so for Muslims but I don’t regard the Quran as the word of God. I think this book reveals the hallucinations of a mentally sick man. I base my narrative on what early Muslims have reported and conclude that the claim of persecution is a myth.
After buying into the myth that Muslims were persecuted in Mecca, Mr. Tabatabaie justifies the raid of their caravans and looting of their property. What an amazing rationalization by someone living in the 21st century but still thinking like a man living in the seventh century.
Let us assume the Meccans persecuted the Muslims and drove them out of Mecca. This is not true. But let us accept it for the sake of argument. Does this justify raiding and looting the caravans coming from that town? Let us say I am mistreated by some people in a town, can I rob anyone coming from that town? This is absurd. But it is also a deception. Did the Jews of Bani Qainuqa persecute Muslims? Why did Muhammad besiege their fortress, exiled them and stole their property? He did the same in eventy other places. Muhammad grew up with the Hawazin in the first five years of his life and then he raided them and killed them and stole their belongings. What was their crime?
Tarikh Tabari is accessible to all Persian speaking people. It can be downloaded online. The story of Muhammad’s crimes can be read in volumes 3, 4 and 5. Any Persian, with a grain of humanity (ensaniyyat) left in him who reads this book, can no longer call himself a Muslim.
Mr. Tabatabaie accuses me of being unfair for saying Muslims were not persecuted in Mecca, but it was Muhammad who urged them to leave. I base my claim on what Muslim historians have written and not on the bogus claims of Muhammad.
When the Muslims escaped to Abyssinia, their parents sent Amr ibn ‘As and Abdulah ibn Abu Rabi’ to plead with Negus to send them back to Mecca. Muslims want to make this look like the Meccans plot to kill or harm these converts. However, that is not what their history books say. The Meccans wanted their kids to come back. Amr had two sons among the escapees, Sahm and Sa’id. In total 14 members of his immediate family had gone to Abyssinia. Abdullah also had his son Ma’mar among the escapees. Before meeting the King the two men discussed. Amr said, “Tomorrow I will tell the King something that will uproot them all.” Abdullah begged him not to do it. He said, “They are our kindred, though they have gone against us.” What was it that Amr wanted to say? He wanted to say that Muhammad says Jesus is not son of God but a slave.
Can we say these people were persecuting the Muslims? Prior to leaving, Abu Talib called Amr and Abdulalh and told them that two of his sons, Ja’far and Amr are also among the escapees. He asked them to take a poem that he had written, to Negus. In that poem he pleaded with the King to treat their children kindly. Then he said, “The bitterest enemies are oft the nearest in blood.” Despite all these evidence and more that are in my book Muslims want us to believe the Meccans were persecuting the Muslims. For Muslims truth has no meaning. All that matters is propaganda.
There are many stories like these in Tabari, in Ibn Ishaq and in Tabaqat. If Muslims stop accepting every baloney that Muhammad has said in the Quran as word of God and judge that book in the light of the history of Islam written by early Muslim historians they can see Muhammad’s big lie unfolding in front of their own eyes.
Ibn Sa’d narrates the story of Mus’ab ibn Umair, a well dressed youth of Mecca. His parents loved him dearly. His mother Khunaas was a wealthy and influential lady. She donned him with the best and finest cloths, indulged him with the most expensive perfumes and bought him the most elegant and fashionable shoes. Mus’ab was one of the early converts in Mecca. He kept his faith a secret. When Khunaas learned about it she was distraught. She locked him inside the house. When Muhammad ordered his followers to go to Abyssinia Mus’ab was among them. That was the “oppression” that Muslims were subjected to. Upon his return, his mother tried again to persuade him to leave Muhammad. Her cries fell on deaf ears. She stopped giving him money. Mus’ab was undeterred. He wore tattered cloths and remained steadfast in his faith. Muhammad sent him to Medina to preach. He was successful and managed to convert seventy people. These are the same seventy who visited Muhammad at Aqaba and pledged to support him.
When Mus’ab returned to Mecca he did not go to visit his mother. When she heard that her son was in town, she felt dejected. She sent him a message saying, how ungrateful can you be to your mother? You came to the city where I reside and did not come to see me? He responded I would not go to anyone’s house before visiting the house of the Prophet. When he visited her, she pleaded with him to stay. He said don’t insist mother, for if you attempt to impede me leaving I will have no choice but to kill you. His poor mother said you may go and wept bitterly. Mus’ab said I want your own good mother. Now attest that there is no god but Allâh and Muhammad is his messenger. She responded, by the brilliance of the stars I will not abandon my faith, but you are free to do as you please. Mus’ab left and soon after he immigrated to Medina. He took part in Muhammad’s raids and robberies and was killed in the Battle of Uhud. Her mother was there. She held the dead body of her son in her arms and cried. [Tabaqat V. III p. 100-102] Persecution eh?
This is what Muslims call persecution. Distraught parents were trying to prevent their wayward children following a man who incited hatred and divided the community. That is not persecution. It is parental concern. I would do everything to stop my child following a cult. Persecution is what Muslims do to minorities in Islamic countries.
As I always say, we must understand the Muslim terminology. When Muslims use the same words we use, they mean an entirely different thing. For example, persecution means abusing someone for his belief, or race, etc. In Islam this word has an entirely different meaning. Muslims feel they are entitled to imprison, torture, and kill others for their belief, as Muhammad did. This does not constitute persecution. But if someone opposes Islam that person is a persecutor of Muslims. I am a critic of Islam. I write about this religion and expose its lies. I have never harmed any Muslim and never encouraged anyone to do so. Yet, in the eyes of Muslims, I am an oppressor. This is how Muslims perceive oppression and persecution. Oppressor is a person who criticizes Islam. So the Meccans who tried to stop their children following a madman were oppressors. But Muslims who killed them were doing jihad and practicing their faith.
Muslims were the first to resort to physical violence. Ibn Ishaq says (Sira p. 166) Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local polytheist who was “rudely interrupting” his group of praying Muslims. “This was the first blood to be shed in Islam” .
Mr. Tabatabaie accuses me of quoting the Quran only when it suits me such as when it prescribes killing and maiming the unbelievers, but ignore the verses that portray Muslims as victims. This argument is a fallacy. I believe Muhammad was a liar. What a liar claims about his innocence is irrelevant. Only his confessions count. A criminal can make a lot of claims to portray himself as innocent, none of that count. But if he says a few words that prove his guilt those words count.
In One occasion when Muhammad threatens the Meccans telling them he has brought slaughter, Abul Hakam (whom Muhammad abused and called Abu Jahl) went to him and angrily told him to stop this nonsense. When Hamza, Muhammad uncle heard it, he went to Abul Hakam while he was sitting in the mosque in Ka’ba, lifted up his bow and struck him a violent bow. [Sira 185] Up to that day no Muslim was abused in Mecca. All the beating and abuses were done by Muslims? To understand this think of what is happening in Europe today. Who is abusing whom in Europe? It’s Muslims who rape the European women, beat them and abuse them. At the same time they are the ones who cry victim. This has been the modus operandi of Islam since its inception.
Mr. Tabatabaie quotes the verse 6:108 in which Muhammad says, “Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance.” He wants to show us that Muhammad discouraged Muslims reviling people’s beliefs.
It is foolhardy to take Muhammad for his words. Confucius said the superior man is one whose words coincide with his actions. By that standard Muhammad was an inferior man. He said many things that on the surface appear to be goodly words but in practice he led a very different life. The very fact that he rammed into Ka’aba and desecrated that temple that was holy to the Meccans is evidence enough that he was not living by what he preached in verse 6:108
Not only Muhammad did not respect anyone’s belief he did not respect their freedom and their lives. Upon conquering Mecca he gave the unbelievers an ultimatum to convert or to die.
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” (Quran 9:5)
The story of Muhammad’s violent expulsion of non-Muslims from their own city can be found in Ibn Ishaq p.920-923.
Not even the people of the book were safe. “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. “(Sahih Muslim 4366)
Tabari says that after Muhammad’s death most of the Arabs apostatized. Abu Bakr attacked them. He burned them in fire, stoned them to death, threw them from cliffs, or cast them in wells. [Tabari v. 4, p. 1392]. Hundreds of thousands of apostates died in the wars named after them Irtidad (apostasy). So much for respect of people and their beliefs!
Islam is a religion of lies. Everything in this faith is a lie. Everything is deception. Expurgate Islam of lies and all that will be left is a psychopath criminal and a band of brain dead gangsters who committed the most hideous acts of villainy in the name of God.
Mr. Tabatabaie makes a distinction between insulting people’s beliefs and Muhammad’s desecration of Ka’ba. He asks how else Muhammad could convince the Arabs that their idols were useless.
I believe that Allah is a fictitious deity, not just useless but the belief in him is dangerous. The Arab idols had at least a physical existence. Allah is the figment of a sick mind with no existance. I don’t believe in gods, but I am not here making an argument against the belief in God. I respect the right of the people to believe. The argument that I am making is that the deity that Muhammad preached is not the God of the universe. He is not even the god of the Bible. Allah was the title of Hubbal the moon god. Do I have the right to ram into mosques, (assuming I had the power to do so) and destroy every trace of Allah and confiscate those mosques? That is what Muhammad did to Ka’ba, and Muslims did to countless temples of different faiths.
The fact that Muhammad thought he was right and called others misguided and ignorant did not give him any right to destroy and to confiscate their temple. This is obvious to any fair minded person. Yet it is so unclear to Muslims. Muslims have been invading the churches and the temples of other faiths, destroying them and building their own mosques on top of them and they think this is okay. They can’t fathom the fact that what Muhammad did and what they have been doing for over a thousand years is evil. They think since they are right, all their crimes are justified.
Mr. Tabatabaie, accuses me of misrepresenting the truth when I quoted the verse 4:89 that says, “choose not friends from them (the apostates) till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to their unbelieving relatives) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,”
He says why I did not quote the verse that follows that says, “Except those who seek refuge with your allies, or (those who) come unto you because they don’t want to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, don’t fight them.”
This is the deception of Muhammad. Only those versed in the history of Islam and the Quran can see through his deception. On the surface it appears that Muhammad is saying don’t fight those who don’t fight against you. In reality he considered anyone who spoke against Islam and resisted the advance of his diabolic religion as the enemy to be killed. Anyone who criticizes Islam or resists accepting it falls into that category. You either surrender to Islam or you are an enemy. Did the Jews of Kheibar attack Muslims? Muhammad’s wars are called ghazw and saria. These words mean raid, ambush, sudden attack. Muslims were raiders. If the battles of Muhammad were defensive, as Muslims deceitfully claim, why they were called ghazw? Unless you really know Islam you can fall into these traps that Muslims lay. According to Tabari Muhammad waged 78 ghazws, some were assassination of a poet and others large scale raids of big towns resulting in thousands of deaths. Only in two occasions the Meccans retaliated, one in Ohud and the other the battle of the confederates, which was not fought. In all other cases Muhammad was the aggressor.
Mr. Tabatabaie says I am either ignorant or a traitor (deceiver) for misleading people by not saying Islam prohibits making war against those who don’t make war against Islam. That is not true. Did we Persians attack the Arabs? Did Egypt or Spain attack Islam? Who is the deceiver here? Those who did not believe in Islam were regarded as the enemy by Muhammad and waging war against them became mandatory. What is the meaning of the verse 9:5 quoted above? There is nothing defensive in that verse.
Mr. Tabatabaie tries to justify the butcheries of Muhammad with a verse form Lucas 22:36 were Jesus tells his disciples to sell their coat and satchel and buy swords. In the mind of this respected Muslim scholar this verse makes Jesus a war monger mass murderer like Muhammad. Assuming this were true, does one evil justify another?
I am not an apologist for Christianity. However, I would like to be fair. Had Mr. Tabatabaie read a bit more of Lucas 22 he would have realized that all Jesus wanted were a couple of swords, possibly so his disciples could defend themselves against the Roman soldiers. In verse 38 when his disciples say they have already two swords with them, Jesus says “that is enough.” Clearly he was not planning to start a war with two swords. This happened when Jesus knew that the soldiers were coming to take him. A few hours later the soldiers arrived. But they were not interested in his disciples. His disciples asked “Lord, whether we smite with sword? And one of them smote the servant of the prince of priests, and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered, and said, Suffer ye till hither. And when he had touched his ear, he healed him. [Lucas 22 49-51]
Jesus prohibited his followers to use the sword against the soldiers who had come to take him and heals the wound of one of them. How can anyone equate this episode with the raids and massacres of Muhammad?
Mr. Tabatabaie claims that the Meccans were constantly raiding and robbing the Muslims in Medina and so the verse 22:39 was revealed which said “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory.”
This is the distortion of history. Tabari tells us about several unprovoked raids of Muslims until one of them succeeded in Nakhla resulting in one death, which is hailed by all historians as “the first bloodshed in Islam.” The first person injured was a non-Muslim and the first person killed was also a non-Muslim. After Nakhla, Muhammad launched a few minor raids, until he had his major breakthrough in Badr where his young and agile men killed a bunch of “old and bald” men, reluctant to fight their own children. After that victory Muhammad became emboldened. He raided the Bani Qainuqa and assassinated Abu Afak, Asma bit Marwan and Ka’b ibn Ashraf. The Meccans found the rout to Syria dangerous and took their caravans to Iraq. This rout was very far and water was scarce. Even then Muhammad sent Zeid ibn Haritha to raid them. Zeid looted their caravan, but Abu Sufyan and his men escaped. It was only then that Abu Sufyan made a mini raid to the North of Medina, killed one of the Ansar and cut a few date trees. He stole a few of Muhammad’s goats. But don’t forget that Muhammad did not have goats when he went to Medina. All those goats were stolen from others.
Much before the verse 22:39 was given, Muslims were raiding and looting. Mr. Tabatabaie quotes from Maghazi. Maghazi is plural for ghazw. It is the history of Muhammad’s raids, not defensive wars. How then Mr. Tabatabaie says Muhammad’s wars were all defensive? Then why the book of his wars is called Maghazi? Lying comes so natural to Muslims that they don’t even think about it. If most Muslims don’t know that Muhammad’s wars were raids, Mr. Tabatabaie knows that. He is a real scholar of Islam. Despite all these misrepresentations and deceptions Mr. Tabatabaie calls me a “traitor.” Have I betrayed my country? Those who can read Parsi can see that Mr. Tabatabaie has vilified the Persian kings of the pre Islamic Iran and has berated our Iranian heritage and culture. And yet, I am a traitor and he is not. I suppose we have different allegiances.
Mr. Tabatabaie says that Muhammad sent Abdullah ibn Jahsh and seven other men to Nakhla to “bring him information” about the Quriash. And that Abdullah raided their caravan by his own initiative without permission. There is much to this story than what is written. You don’t need to be a detective of have psychological training to read between the lines. This story reveals the manipulative mind of the narcissist Muhammad.
Abdullah ibn Jahsh was Muhammad’s maternal cousin. Jahsh was Amina’s brother. Muhammad sent Abdullah to Nakhla with a clear mission known to him and to Abdullah alone. The other men were not told about the mission. He gave Abdullah a sealed letter ordering him not to open it until they have travelled for two days. Now think about how this coniving man manipulated everything. When the men opened the letter, it said that they should bring information about the Quraish caravan. It also said that no one should be forced to take part in this mission if he does not want to. Why? Because it was the month of Rajab, a sacred month for Arabs. During these sacred months Arabs did not shed blood. That is why Muhammad said don’t force anyone in this mission against his will. Spying was not taboo, shedding blood was taboo. The message was clear even though it was not spelled out. Abdullah knew exactly what Muhammad wanted. He told others if they were ready for martyrdom they should follow him. All of them agreed. Two of them lost their camel (maybe intentionally) and did not go. The other six went to Nakhla. They met the small caravan guarded by four men. They deceived the amins of the caravan by shaving their heads and pretending to have come for the lesser pilgrimage. When the amins lowered their guards, the raiders threw arrows at them. They killed one and took two as hostage. The fourth person escaped.
They brought the booty and the two prisoners to Medina. Muslims were shocked. They still considered killing in those sacred months taboo. They said Muhammad should release the prisoners and return the booty. The cunning prophet devised a plan. He rebuked Abdullah and said, “I did not order you to fight in the sacred month.” In this way he shifted the blame to Abdullah. He then said, leave the booty to me until Allah decides. The next day his Allah revealed “They will ask you about the sacred month, and war in it. Say, war therein is a serious matter, but keeping people from the way of Allah and disbelieving in him and in the sacred mosque and driving out His people therefrom is more serious with Allah. ” [Quran 2:217]
Now you see why Muhammad needed to portray himself and Muslims as victims? To justify rading them and killing them. Muslims do the same to this day. They are the victimizers everywhere while they always cry that they are the victims. Witless people like the leftists buy that narrative. A good example is the claim of the victimhood of the Palestinian Arabs. They are not victim at all. They are the agressors and the victimizer. They are the ones who have stolen the lands from the Jews. But they portray themselves as victim so they have justification to kill the Jews. It is not about land. It is about jewish hatred.
Is keeping people from becoming Muslim worse than killing? This is the morality of Islam. Writing against Islam is worse than Muslims killing us. It is by this “logic” that Muslims say I am worse than Usama bin Laden. Massacring thousands of people is not as bad as writing articles against Islam. This is in a nutshell the Isalmic morality for you. And as you see it all comes from the Quran.
The Golden Rule is something Muslims don’t understand. It’s sad but they simply can’t put themselves in the other person’s shoes. Muslims are incapable of understanding that what they do is evil because they have no grasp of the Golden Rule. The understaning of the Goldern rule is what defines humanity. Animals, and people who have not evolved their humanity, (Nazis, fascists, communists, Thuggees, criminals, psychopaths, and Muslims) are incapable of understanding the Golden Rule.
I will respond to the rest of Mr. Tabatabaie’s refutation of my letter to Ayatollah Montazeri in another date.
I placed a link to this article in Mr. Tabatabie’s page where he wrote his rebuttal to my letter to Ayatollah Montazeri. Mr. Tabatabaie removed the link. Obviously he does not wish his readers to see this article.
He also posted two very short comments below this article, but instead of saying anything of value he insulted me and disapeared.