Someone contacted Dr. Edip Yuksel, a prominent member of the submitters and a follower of Dr. Rashid
Khalifa to debate with me. Dr. Yuksel kindly accepted the challenge and here is our discussion.
This debate focuses on two issues. One is that the Quran without hadith is incomprehensible and therefore the position of the Submitters who, embarrassed by the hadith try to ignore it is untenable and absurd. The other is that the Quran by itself is a book of absurdity and violence, of terror and error.
During this debate Dr. Yusksel refused to answer any of my charges made against the Quran and instead, like a broken record, kept repeating that I am relying on hadith.
At the end of the discussion he made a “prophecy” that something is going to happen to me on the 19th of February 2005. Nothing out of ordinary happened on that day.
This debate is long but it covers many important topics that can be helpful to understand Islam.
Dear Edip Yuksel
The invitation must have been sent to you by someone else. But I am glad that you agreed to this exchange.
I will start with something that needs clarification and it has to do with your position as a “Quran only” Muslim.
You apparently deny all the Hadiths. Can you please tell us whether you also deny the books of history such as Sirat, Tabari and Al Waqidi?
If so on what do you base your knowledge of Muhammad as a historic person? How do you know about him, his life, his companions, etc?
Do you perform the rituals of obligatory prayers fasting, hajj etc? If you do how do you know that is the way Muhammad intended. There are no descriptions of these rituals in the Quran. All these details are in the hadith which constitute the bases of the sunna. But you deny the authenticity of the hadith. So where do you get these important information that are missing in the Quran?
Finally, do you recognize the importance of some of the hadiths at least for their historic value?
|Dear Ali Sina:
A good question.
Syrat (history of prophet and his companions) were written after hadith and civil war intellectually and emotionally contaminated the so-called Islamic land. Though some are more critical than the other, still they all rely on hadith and hearsay. Besides, they are also not immune from the influence of political and religious powers of their time.
Historically, the Quran is the most authentic book reflecting the events. In fact, the Quran is like a journal of major events with lost chronology. Surely, you will claim that the narrative of the Quran is from the perspective of Muhammad and his interest. I think and hope that we will find a way to come into a reasonable agreement on major historical events.
I do not think that you are relying on every historical report of the syrah books, such as Tabari or Waqidi. I will treat each historical anecdote on ad-hoc basis and evaluate it critically with a healthy dose of suspicion.
I think we both will agree on many issues, as long as we both try our best to be consistent and objective on the purported stories.
I mostly rely on the narration of the Quran. If the Quran’s account contradicts the account of a particular narration I chose the narrative of the Quran since it was written down when events were happening. However, if you chose the narrative of a book written five or ten centuries after the events, I expect you to provide a good reason for that choice.
Interesting. I hear similar questions from Sunnis and Shiites. I do not follow any ritual that is not in the Quran. I argue that all the details of Salaat (contact) prayer, zakat (purification of blessings), hajj (annual conference in Mecca), and fasting in Ramadan are given in the Quran. For instance, if you have time, please find my article “How to Pray According to the Quran” at my website, yuksel.org
Hadith, like every heresy, legend or story may contain some truth. They at least reflect the spoken language of their time, the culture, general events, mindset, economy, political and social tension among groups and nations.
However, I will not consider Hadith as authority besides the Quran even if I know hundred percent that it was uttered by Muhammad. I dedicate my religion to God alone, and I reject the religion of limited partnership that is based on Allah + Muhammad + Muhammad’s companions + early imams + mujtahids + later imams, etc.
I went to your site and read your views on hadith
Do you prefer to use the books of history to learn about Muhammad? That is fine with me. However, let us talk about hadith for now to see whether it is possible to trash them.
Your position is that all hadiths should be scrapped because a lot of them are fabricated. Lomax, your opponent in that debate, made a valid observation. He said: “The bound collection of testimony from any court is certain to contain some lies and some errors. The reliability of any piece of evidence remains debatable….And if a collector collects a thousand hadith and makes a few errors neither is he to be condemned as unreliable.”
You rebutted his statement and said: “Not a single court will accept the testimony of Bukhari who collected contradictory hadiths about the Prophet Muhammad, narrated from generation to generation 200 years after his departure.”
On this issue I side with Lomax. Let us make this clear with an example. The police department of a city is trying to solve a case and asks for tips from the public. Thousands of tips pour in. Most of them are completely unrelated, but among those thousands a few corroborate a story and based on those related tips the detectives will be able to solve the case. It would be unconscionable to through away all the tips because many of them are incorrect.
In our case we want to know about Muhammad and how he lived his life. We have tens of thousands of tips in the form of narrations of his followers. Some of them are weak leads and some are fabricated. We know also that the believers tend to exaggerate and aggrandize the virtues of their prophet and attribute miracles the person they believe. When it comes to such hadiths we should take them with a grain of salt. However, when we put all these tips together the picture of a man emerges. We separate those tips that corroborate each other and based on them we sketch the profile of our suspect. Can we be 100% sure that this is how he looked? Maybe not! But because these tips come from a variety of sources and despite the differences in detail they tell us the same story we can be fairly sure that we have a good idea of how our suspect looked and what he did.
So if I were a responsible detective, I would not discard all the tips simply because some of them are fabricated, especially when there is no other source to depend on. However, what if the picture emerging of the suspect portrays my beloved father? What would be my natural reaction? I would probably want to scrap all the tips and discredit them. This is dishonesty. But hey, you are talking about my father. You are asking me to choose between filial piety and honesty. That is a tough choice. Not everyone can pass that test. I would do everything to cover up my father’s crime and protect him. That is how I see you and all other hadith deniers. You do not like what you see in the hadith. They embarrass you. You find Muhammad torturing his victims, beheading them, gauging their eyes, raping them and doing all sorts of despicable acts and all that hurts. So instead of being honest and admitting that the man whom you worship is a psychopath criminal, you try to dismiss all the hadiths. You think that by burying your head in the sand and pretending not to see the problem will go away. The despicable lawyers of O.J. Simpson did that and they won. But does that mean that Mr. Simpson was innocent? Even if you win this case based on discrediting the evidence and technicalities, can you still live with your conscience?
Can we use these hadiths in an actual court of law to incriminate Muhammad? I think we can. You may argue that they are circumstantial and try to discredit them. But they are so many that any sane jury will find it difficult to dismiss them. Muhammad is guilty as charged.
However, our goal is not to take legal action against Muhammad. He is dead and if there is a judgment and a next world he must be burning in hell. We want to find out the truth. We may never be able to find the truth one hundred percent. But we can get a fairly good idea of it. What you have now are absolute lies.
We have enough evidence in the Quran, in the books of history and in the hadith to become certain that Muhammad was not a messenger of God, but a cult leader like Jim Jones and David Koresh and this I will prove to you in our discussions.
Muslims have fallen in love with Muhammad because they have been shown a picture of him that portrays him as a holy man, a perfect human, an example for all to follow, the mercy of God for all the creation, etc, etc. That image is false. According to the “tips,” (hadiths) given to us by his own followers, and his own book, he was far from being a good man. How did the Muslims get that false picture in their minds? …Because they were fed with lies! It certainly does not match the picture we get from our tips and thorough investigation. So, which picture is more accurate? The one that is based on the fantasies of his followers or the one that emerges from the tips?
This is just to show the weakness of the position of the “Quran Only Muslims”. Apart from the fact that this is a fallacious way of thinking, it leaves the Quran indecipherable.
I see in this letter you say that you don’t even acknowledge the biography of Muhammad as recorded by Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa’d and al Waqidi. I understood this differently when I read your debate with Lomax, but now it is clear.
If that is your position and you are adamant to deny all the historic evidences relating to Muhammad, I deny even the existence of Muhammad. I claim that he was the fabrication of Arab rulers who needed a religion to justify their imperialistic ambitions (See Crone and Cook). You are a lawyer. You know that the burden of proof is on the person who is making the positive assertion, i.e. you. It is you who must prove that Muhammad actually existed and was not just a fictitious personage, a figment of the unknown real author/s of the Quran. Anything you say must be documented. You can’t use the hadith or the Sira to make your case. If you deny these books you can’t use them.
|I do not think that you are relying on every historical report of the syrah books, such as Tabari or Waqidi. I will treat each historical anecdote on ad-hoc basis and evaluate it critically with a healthy dose of suspicion.|
So what is your position exactly? Are you saying that only a part of the history is acceptable? I perfectly understand looking at the history and hadith with a healthy dose of suspicion. That is my position too. The reason I bring this up is to know which documents are admissible in our discussion and which ones are not and whether your rejection of haidth and Sira is categorical or you are open to accept them with a healthy dose of suspicion. Are you willing to use the same criteria also for the hadith, or is hadith definitely out?
I asked on what do you base your knowledge of Muhammad and you responded:
|I mostly rely on the narration of the Quran. If the Quran’s account contradicts the account of a particular narration I chose the narrative of the Quran.|
That is okay with me. If a hadith or a narration contradicts the Quran or the spirit of it we will reject it.
So let me recapitulate what I understood from your position. You would look at hadith and the biography of Muhammad, provided they don’t contradict the Quran or the spirit of it. You are willing to consider them as sources of information for their historic value, although with some reservation.
If that is your position I am with you. That is how I look at those sources too. If I have misunderstood you please correct me.
In that case, I will make my case against Muhammad using the hadith and Sira as well as the Quran. You are free to dispute the accuracy of each document I present based on the above criterion, i.e. if they contradict the Quran we will discard them, but if they don’t we’ll keep them, not as absolute truth, but as a probable.
In other words, we will not discard a hadith or a story just because it incriminates Muhammad. After all that is what I want to prove. If I am not even allowed to present my evidence against him then what is the point of the trial?
I agree not to present any evidence that is against the explicit or implicit teachings of the Quran. You are entitled to question the validity of my exhibits, but if you can’t demonstrate that they are unauthentic we are not going to discard them. We leave them there as probable. It is my conviction that the weight of these probable documents and the Quran will be so overwhelming that I will win the case against Muhammad and will prove to you and the world that he was an impostor and not a prophet. Scott Peterson’s lawyer argued that all the evidences against his client are circumstantial. He was right! But they were so many that the jury had no problem convicting him. We have a lot more evidence against Muhammad.
Once I was a believer and defender of hadith. However, when I studied the history of hadith, its collection, procedures of its collection, and problems with their authenticity and the profound difference between hadith and the Quran, yes I witnessed this, I gave up from following hadith and sunnah.
I understand why you want me to drag to a source that I have come to refute at the cost of my life. You want me to revert back to my old days and start believing those sources that are mere hearsay. Here is my answer:
I WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR INVITATION TO DIG INTO A LITERARY GARBAGE AND CHOOSE AND PICK WHATEVER WE LIKE AMONG THE THOUSANDS Of CONTRADICTORY AND OCCASIONALLY RIDICULOUS NARRATION.
It appears that you are not able to criticize the Quran without the help of adding some garbage from collections of hearsay.
On the contrary! I will show that the Quran is full of errors and absurdities and it can’t be a book of revelation unless the revealer was Satan. The reason I want to clarify the question of hadith is to demonstrate the fallacy of the position of those who totally deny them. Once that is established I will have no need for hadith to prove Muhammad was a liar only based on the Quran alone.
|Muslims and non-Muslims, all agree that the historical authenticity of the Quran is far beyond the authenticity of hadith.|
It is not true that everyone agrees that the Quran is more authentic than the hadith. Here is a study that disagrees with that claim:
|Thus, your insistence to rely on hadith, by a biased criterion of “if it says something good about prophet we will reject it but if it says bad things about him we jump over and accept it.” is unacceptable. It is unfair; it is dishonest.|
I already responded to this in my example of police and tips from the public. It would be dishonest to disregard all those tips. No investigator would do such thing unless he is trying to cover up.
You want us to throw all the incriminating evidence against Muhammad just because some of those stories may not be true. The mere fact that some of them are fabricated is not enough reason to discard all of them. You have to do more than that to discredit them all. For example let us talk about the motive.
People don’t lie unless there is a motive. What was the motive of those who reported these hadiths?
Sycophantism is a motive. People lie to endear themselves. They falsely attribute miracles to their cult leader because they find receptive audience among fellow believers. This makes them feel important and validates their ego. This is very typical in cults where the cult leader is elevated superlatively by his cronies and each tries to fabricate a lie to make the cult leader look bigger and holier, both during his life time and after his death. A good example is John de Ruiter, the self appointed “Messiah” who has orgies with two young sisters with the consent and gratitude of their parents even though he is married.
A few years ago in my neighborhood market, I saw his flyer pinned to the billboard. It was an invitation to his conferences with these words:
“John de Ruiter: Master of transformation; living embodiment and teacher of Truth.”
“Through the living essence of Truth emanating from his words and from his presence, John de Ruiter awakens what our hearts most long for…”
Any sane person can see that this self proclaimed “guru of the gurus” is insane. But that is not what his followers see. I can bring multitude of examples such as these where cultists become blind and try to fabricate an unreal image of their leader. The point here is that such narrations from the befogged followers of cults should not be taken seriously. So when we see hadiths that attribute miracles to Muhammad we should discard them or at least the part containing the miracles. Also attributing miracles to Muhammad contradicts the Quran.
We see Muhammad shrugging his shoulder when people ask for miracles. He said “There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?”3:138 Or: “Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?” Q.17:93. We see this denial that he can perform any miracles in many verses of the Quran (25:7,8 17: 95 ) People called him mad and possessed and asked “Why do you not bring to us the angels if you are of the truthful ones? Q15:7 His response was: “We send not the angels down except for just cause Q.15:8 In another place we read ““And the Unbelievers say: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?” But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide.” Q.13:7 His contention was that even with clear signs people rejected the prophets so the miracles are useless. Q.3:184
Therefore, if the Quran is right then all the miracles attributed to Muhammad in the hadiths are fabricated.
It is clear why the believers fabricate false stories to make their cult leader look grand. But why would they lie to make him look like a villain? We have stories about Muhammad raiding innocent unarmed people with no warning, massacring and looting them, enslaving their wives and children and raping them, torturing people to make them reveal the whereabouts of their treasures, branding their eyes with hot red iron and then raping their wives on the same day. There are stories about him beheading in cold blood750 innocent men who had surrendered to him without a fight when he blockaded their quarter and diverted the flow of the water to their town. We have hadiths that say he assassinated his opponents including a 120 year old man and a mother of five small children only because they composed poetries criticizing them.
These hadiths are confirmed in the books of history (Siras). They come to us from a variety of sources. They vary in detail but are consistent in the main theme, which is normal when a story is reported by several people. There are names of the people involved. They do not seem to be fabrications because of the amount of details.
The main question is WHY? Why would devout followers who loved their prophet report so many false stories about him that portray him as a criminal, mass murderer, rapist, pedophile, assassin, deceiver, and a highway robber?
The motive is important. We can see a clear motive why people fabricate lies to make their prophet look holy but what motive could they have to lie about their prophet and make him look so evil?
We could also overlook such hadiths if they were just a few. But we have thousands upon thousands of hadiths that tell the same tale of brutality and portray Muhammad as a criminal. At the same time we have no other version of the same events. If Muhammad actually did not raid the innocent populations how they converted to Islam? Do we have a different version of how Islam expanded? Why would so many devout believers who waged wars for Islam and gave their lives fabricate so many falsehoods against their prophet? Why would dedicated scholars such as Ibh Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hisham, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Malik or others spend an entire life writing books based on nothing but lies? What happened to the “real” history of Muhammad? How come not a single version of that was ever written and all what is survived are lies? If all the Muslim historians were liars, where were the truthful scholars of Islam? How can it be that for 1300 years all the Muslims were lying and suddenly when they came in contact with the West and were embarrassed to see their religion is barbaric, in comparison to the humanistic values of the Westerners, they discovered that the history of Muhammad that they have is all lies?
Your position of denial is absurd and indefensible. You are ashamed by the sheer inhumanity of Muhammad, but you are not capable to let go. You try to cling to him desperately and mask the truth, lie to yourself and cocooned in your leis you feel safe. By these denials you are not changing the truth. You are simply sugarcoating the bitter truth so you can swallow it easier. You are simply beguiling yourself.
|How can you rely on Bukhari who in the beginning of his collection is not even ashamed of insulting MONKEYS by reporting that a companion of the prophet saw monkeys stoning an adulterous monkey to death?”|
If you want to discredit Bukhari and other biographers on the basis of the absurdity of their thinking then why not look at the absurdity of Muhammad’s thinking?
Muhammad’s ignorance is obvious from what he wrote in the Quran. He thought that Jews were transformed into apes and swine. Is that logical? Who is more ridiculous? Bukhari who thought monkeys practice Sharia or Muhammad who thought Jews were transformed into monkeys? 2:65 5:60 7:166
But that is not all. There are numerous ridiculous statements made by Muhammad in the Quran. We will come to that when we come to the Quran.
|According to your suggested criterion of sifting the garbage, we should accept this report since it does not praise Muhammad! Or you have another criterion that you forgot to communicate to me? You may end up with hundreds of arbitrary criteria to be able to justify your picks and rejects!|
No this hadith should not be accepted. It belongs to that category of hadiths that were invented by Muslims to make their religion look universal. We can see why a zealot Muslim would fabricate such a ludicrous hadith. We can also easily see it is false because we know monkeys are not as savage as Muslims to stone their kind. Like all other hadiths talking about miracles, this hadith is irrational and hence should be discarded. But when we read Muhammad took a bunch of Arabs and cut their extremities, gouged their eyes and left them to die in the desert for stealing his camels, we have no reason to doubt this is untrue because this heinous act is doable and it fits the character of Muhammad. From the Quran, from thousands of hadiths and from the siras we can see that Muhammad was a violent, unforgiving and ruthless man. There is nothing extraordinary in this hadith for us to doubt it. It is likely that this hadith is true.
- It is repeated in several sources
- It is not contrary to the explicit or implicit teachings of the Quran, in fact it is in unison with them.
- It is not contrary to logic. It is possible to cut the hands and feet of people, gouge their eyes and leave them die in the desert sun.
- It is consistent with the character of Muhammad
- There is no reason to believe why so many believers would fabricate such a story
- It is detailed.
Based on all the above criteria, this hadith is very likely to be true. And since we have thousands of hadiths like this, it really does not matter even if some of them are not true. We get the picture of Muhammad when we read all of them.
|How can you invite me to speculate on Bukhari who confesses of collecting 700,000 hadith and accepting only about 7000; rejecting 99 percent of them? Don’t you see the exaggeration? Had Muhammad talked every minute of his life after claiming messengership, his words could have hardly added up to 700,000 hadiths.|
This is not a valid argument at all. Suppose Bukhari was exaggerating, this does not invalidate his work. Talking hyperbolically is part of the Persian psyche. If only you could see the kind of hyperbole they use in their poetry! The number 7 and its multiples of ten were the favorite number of the ancient people and we see Muhammad also using it often. As in the example of police and tips brought earlier, sometimes tens of thousands of tips could be reported. If among them there are many false tips, they do not invalidate the good ones.
|How can you take Bukhari serious who justifies the abrogation of a Quranic verse after Muhammad’s departure by none other than a holy goat that ate the skin where the alleged verses issuing the stoning-to-death for adulterers written? Should we accept that report? In order to add another insult to Islam you would like to have it. But you cannot have it both ways. You have to also believe the “holy goat”|
I haven’t seen this hadith. It could be false but it is not illogical. Goats are known to eat papers and books. The only reason you are so shocked is that you think those writings were revelations from God and if so they could not have been destroyed. Well, nobody told that to the goats. Since your premise is wrong your conclusion is also wrong.
|Bukhari had a very different idea of islam than Muhammad. Bukhari was an ignorant idol worshiper and had no respect to the Quran. Besides, he sided with the oppressive rulers. For instance, he found Marwan, the drunk and murderer governor. to be a credible person by narrating “sahih” hadiths from him, while he declined accepting any hadith from a brave student of the Quran, Abu Hanifah who suffered in the jails of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties for rejecting to sell his soul! Bukhari was not an objective hadith collector, he was on the side of murderers and aggressors.
We can write volumes of books listing the contradiction between the teaching of Bukhari and the Quran, the only book delivered by Muhammad. Then, how can a sound person claim Bukhari to be a friend of Muhammad? To me, he was a real enemy of Muhammad (6:112-116), like St. Paul was the real enemy of Jesus, since he distorted his message beyond recognition.
Let me little side track here. For instance, Jesus never silenced women and put them down with xenophobic teachings but St. Paul asked women to submit to men and hush: (1Ti 2:7-15; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Peter 3:7). Jesus never asked for money for preaching but St. Paul asked for money shamelessly and likened his audience to flock of sheep to be milked by the holy shepherd! (Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 1Co 9:7). He was a successful Machiavellian (before Machiavelli was born!) as opposed to Jesus who did not twist the truth to gain people: “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22).
How can you trust Bukhari who narrates the LAST HADITH while prophet Muhammad in his death bed, rejecting the recording of any hadith through a decleration from the mouth of Omar Bin Khattap and the acquiescence of all prominent muslims that “Hasbuna kitabullah” (God’s word is enough for us)?
I think you are confusing the facts. This hadith that BTW might be apocryphal reports that Muhammad asked for pen and paper to write something and Omar said Hasbuna Kitabullah. Muhammad did not say that. It was Omar who said it in defiance of Muhammad’s order and Muhammad was upset and motioned everyone to leave the room. I say it might be apocryphal because a) Muhammad could not write b) it is highly unlikely that Omar would be so disrespectful to him at the moment of his death and c) even if Omar said such a thing others who were present would have obeyed Muhammad and not Omar. This hadith could have been invented by a follower of Ali to stain Omar. But whatever it is it has nothing to do with rejecting the hadith. Muhammad claimed to have sublime morals 68:4 and ordered the Muslims to follow his “good example” 33:21. How would you know about his examples if not through the narrations left by his companions? The Quran is allegedly the word of God and not a collection of the examples of Muhammad.
Furthermore, isn’t this story you are telling us a hadith? So you are trying to discredit all the hadiths on the authority of one hadith? And you call that honesty?
|Will your suggested criterion to sift through the garbage help us to decide the authenticity of this hadith and reject all the rest? Which one do you believe? Was the Quran deemed sufficient by early muslims or they too needed hearsay reports to understand the Quran?|
The early Muslims did not need narrations about him because they had seen him themselves. But soon after he died, they went to Aisha and others asking about him so they could emulate him. There is no logical reason to believe that his companions started lying from the day one after his death and never said a word of truth. Yes exaggerations happen, memories fail and stories get twisted, but despite all that it is not difficult to find an approximation of what actually happened, especially on major events like wars and mass murders. If we had a different version or these events, completely opposite to what we have, you would have a point. But what we have is all there is. There is no other version of the history of Islam and Muhammad.
|What is the meaning of protecting the Quran from tempering while making it needy of volumes of dubious and fabricated stories?|
How do you know that the Quran has not been tampered, especially when the same Muslims who were so dishonest as to fabricate thousands of hadiths were the very ones who transmitted the Quran? In fact, even your mentor Rashed Khalifa admitted that the Quran has been tampered. http://www.submission.org/tampering.html
If the Quran has been tampered it throws out the claim that God has promised to preserve it. 15:9 The myth of inviolability of the Quran has been shattered. What guarantees do we have that it has not been tampered more than once?
|How can you trust hadith books that report THE MOST WITNESSED HADITH, or THE MOST AUTHENTIC HADITH and manage to confuse the most crucial words, THE LAST WORDS in that hadith? The hadith about the last sermon, which was claimed to be witnessed by more than hundred thousand believers, has three different endings: (1). Follow the Quran. (2). Follow the Quran and my Sunnah. (3). Follow the Quran and my family. Should we pick and choose! Throw dice? How will your criterion help us to pick the accurate version?|
No two people will tell you exactly the same story after witnessing the same event. If we have three different versions of this hadith, it shows that such sermon did take place and Muhammad made a plea at the end of his sermon. What did he exactly say? We may never be able to know 100%. But we can say he recommended his followers to follow the Quran with great certainty and possibly his sunna and or his family. But this we can’t say with certainty. We can only speculate. In the Quran he says follow my example 33:21. This is sunna. So the version 2 could be true. It does not contradict the Quran and it ratifies it. What about the family? Muhammad had only one daughter left alive who was married to Ali. It is very unlikely that he recommended people to follow his family. Can this be a fabrication? If so who would have benefited by fabricating such lie? Well, the Shiites would have benefited. So it is highly probably that the version 3 that says follow my family is apocryphal.
You see? Not a big deal at all! We can easily solve most of these problems and sieve the authentic hadith from the false ones, like wheat from chaff, once we look at them objectively and not through the lens of a believer who has his responses already made before even asking the question.
If we ask the opinion of a “Quran Only Muslism” about the above hadith, he will choose the version 1. A Sunny will only accept the version 2 and a Shiite will only agree with the version 3. Only an unbiased person like me can see the truth. You can’t be a judge and the interested party at the same time.
If we leave our faith and look at the hadith objectively we will find the truth. We may not be 100% right but we can be close. After all our objective is not to follow blindly and religiously these hadiths. They are not sacred to us. We want to use them as sources of information to learn about Muhammad. These are the ONLY sources of information about Muhammad available to us. The Quran does not talk about Muhammad. It is allegedly the message of God to mankind. In that message he says follow the examples of the prophet, but those examples are not there in the Quran. They are in the traditions.
|How can you invite me to take Bukhari a serious source of history while in its LONGEST HADITH it narrates the story of Miraj in which poor Muhammad goes up and down between 6th and 7th heavens trying to reduce the number of daily prayers? In that hadith, Muhammad is like an innumerate and gullible union leader bargaining for some break time on behalf of his people against a merciless boss (hasha God!) who tries to require 50 prayers a day, that is, a prayer for every 28 minutes, day and night! In that narration Moses is the wise guy and he coaches Muhammad in this hard task of negotiation with God! According to your suggested criterion we should accept this hadith because Muhammad is depicted as an idiot who cannot even calculate, without the help of Moses who resides just one heaven below God, the impossibility of performing 50 prayers (not unit) a day? Even if one tried at that time they could not have divided the day to 50 periods of 28-minutes! Since, this hadith insults the intelligence of Prophet Muhammad according to your garbage-sifting criterion, should we believe this story?!|
The story of Mi’raj is ridiculous. But it was a story told by Muhammad himself. Why would you disparage only the bargaining part of this story? Is the very idea of going to heaven riding on a donkey not ridiculous? Isn’t the story of Mi’raj in the Quran 71:1? Muhammad claimed that he traveled from Mecca to Masjd Al Aqsa (a mosque that did not exist at his time) and from there to the seventh heaven (which does not exist) in one night. Isn’t this claim more ridiculous? Muhammad bargaining with Allah about the number of prayers is just comic. But the claim that he had such trip is unscientific and absurd. By the way, can you tell me where is Majid al Aqsa without referring to hadith? You can’t. When we start our discussion of the Quran, I’ll show you that the Quran is indecipherable without the hadith.
|How can you trust the account of hadith books, which unanimously claim that Muhammad was an illiterate man? Based on your criterion, we should swallow this lie because it does not praise Muhammad, since it depicts him an illiterate man who was not capable of learning 26 letters while dictating a book for 23 years! Or should we reject it because while insulting Muhammad it praises the literary excellence of the Quran?|
That is a valid argument. In fact Ali Dashti asks the same question. He wonders why Muhammad, if he really could perform miracles, did not perform the most practical and easiest miracle and learn how to read and write? Obviously, whoever said Muhammad was illiterate said a lie to make him look a prodigy. But who really promoted such lie? It was actually Muhammad himself who said it.
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ
“It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves,” 62:2
So I don’t understand why you vilify Bukhari who simply reported what Muhammad claimed and say nothing about Muhammad who said that lie in the first place.
|Idiot friends can harm a person more than wise enemies. Hadith and siyar books are products of ignorant friends who insulted and defamed the men they were trying to worship.|
I agree. If they were not idiot they would not have followed a crazed man such as Muhammad. But didn’t Islam have any wise person to write the correct history of Islam?
|Besides, we should not ignore the possibility of some converts with agenda to distort the message. For instance, many Jewish stories and practices were imported to “islam” via “convert” Jewish and Christian scholars, such as belief Mahdi and practice of circumcision, etc. Kab bin al Ahbar is one of those influential converts. The story of Muhammad massacring Bani Qurayza Jews is another fabricated story by Jewish converts; unfortunately they were able to insert such lies into hadith and siyar books, which provided every fabricator access to a holy mass propaganda.|
Yes also the holocaust is a lie fabricated by the Jews. In fact everyone knows that Osama Bin Laden is a Jew working for CIA who is trying to give a bad name to Islam.
So you want to make us believe that a story reported with so much detail by several historians, containing so many names and data was a total fabrication, that it never happened, that it was a lie concocted by Jews who were exterminated by Muslims but mysteriously reappeared and took control of the Ummah and started writing falsified history of Islam and secretly put those books into the shelves of the Muslims’ libraries without anyone noticing the plot, to give a bad name to Islam and there was not a single Muslim coming forth saying, hey, this is not what happened; the real story is this? No wonder Muslims still believe in Jinns?
The story of Bani Quraiza is recorded by all the Muslim historians. It is not the only disturbing story of the crimes of Muhammad. What happened to Bani Nadir, Bani Qainuqa, the Jews of the Kheibar, the bani Mostaliq, the Hawazin and countless other tribes who became victims of Muhammad’s marauding gangs? They were slaughtered, enslaved, banished, looted and subdued. Is the entire history of Islam a fabrication? In that case what proof is there that Muhammad also is not a fabrication? If the entire history of Islam is false, then what makes you believe that Muhammad ever existed? The whole thing could have been made up. Your first duty is to prove the very existence of Muhammad.
|Hadith books contain almost anything you want. You may find an extremely kind and nice Muhammad besides a cruel torturer one. You may find Muhammad to be a person with great morals and on the other page you will see him a pedophile. You will find Muhammad pointing at the moon and splitting it into two pieces letting one piece falling into Ali’s backyard, and on the other page you will find Muhammad incapable of reading a simple letter. Now, you want us to enter this Muhammad-in-the-wonderland and separate truth from falsehood. And without looking in my eyes you are suggesting me to pick the bad and reject the good ones. You cannot be serious!|
It is good that you see these contradictions. However, these stories originate from the Quran. The claim that Muhammad was illiterate is in the Quran and the claim that he split the moon asunder is also in the Quran.
“The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.But if they see a sign, they turn away, and say, “This is (but) transient magic.” 54:1,2
Many hadiths were fabricated by zealot believers to back up and justify the claims made in the Quran. But this story is made by Muhammad. He claimed to have ascended to Heaven and this made Abu Bakr waiver for a moment doubting the sanity of Muhammad until his blind faith overcame his reason and he succumbed again into ignorance.
|It is evident that you have no knowledge of modern rules of evidence in justice system. I challenge you to find a single judge in America that would find those hearsay reports credible for character assassination. If you find one, I promise that I will petition to the bar to take away his license by using similar hearsay to depict him as a drunk child molester! Yes, go find a single judge in a secular country accepting the garbage you are inviting me to.|
That won’t be a bad idea. I don’t know whether we can prosecute a dead man. But this surely would make a sensational trial. If it can be done and if a lawyer is willing to join me, it would be a great idea to take Muhammad to court. Or at least try to ban Islam under the anti hate law.
|As I gave a few examples out of many, it is not possible to get a fair and objective idea by using hadith and sira books. But, your insistence on this issue gives away your weakness. You are not able to discuss Islam based on the most reliable historic document, the Quran. You had perhaps had very good time in constructing arguments against Sunni or Shiite Muslims who are mislead by those sources. As you know, I follow the Quran alone, like Muhammad himself did. There are now, thank God, tens of thousands of Muslims all around the world reaching the same conclusion.|
Don’t be impatient my friend. One thing at a time! First I’ll pull the stool from beneath your feet. Then I will move to discredit the Quran and use nothing but the Quran. In fact I left Islam only after reading the Quran. I only became familiar with the hadith afterwards.
|Interesting. How in the world you can construe our rejection of hearsay and silly reports as weakness? The real weakness is in your argument, since you mix garbage in your arguments. I did not come here to speculate on books that NEITHER OF US TRUST. Bukhari could not survive five minutes in the witness stand and he would be rejected by every decent court of justice. But, your hatred against Muhammad or Islam, as it seems, has made you care less about truth and justice.
On the contrary, the very fact that you prefer to deny the hadith and so desperately reject the evidences that incriminate Muhammad is the sign of the weakness of your position. You perfectly know he can’t be defended if those evidences are brought to the light. The books of Bukhari are not one person’s opinion. They are collections of thousands of tips. I have never heard a judge throw out the theory presented by the prosecutors on the basis that some of the tips they had received may be false. As long as the theory is not based on false leads, it stands. Just as the police can construct a theory of how a crime happened, based on a few tips among many false ones, and with that they can prosecute and convict the accused, we can easily construct the profile of Muhammad based on the hadiths that we have, even though some of them may not be true. It is not impossible or difficult to separate the true hadiths from the false ones.
Going through Rashid Khalifa’s claim another fact became apparent, that you don’t reject all the narrations, but just those that you don’t like.
The above link states:
“Nineteen years after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, during the reign of Khalifa `Uthman, a committee of scribes was appointed to make several copies of the Quran to be dispatched to the new Muslim lands. The copies were to be made from the original Quran which was written by Muhammad’s hand. This committee was supervised by `Uthman Ibn `Affaan, `Ali Ibn Abi Taaleb, Zeid Ibn Thaabet, Ubayy Ibn Ka`ab, `Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubair, Sa`eed Ibn Al-`Aas, and `Abdul Rahman Ibn Al-Haareth Ibn Heshaam….”
How do you (or RKh) know that? You are expecting others to believe in that story and not in the story of Bani Quraiza or other stories about Muhammad. Where is the honesty here?
|Why do you think that the books collected centuries after Muhammad are more reliable sources regarding the words and deeds of Muhammad? Why rejecting those books should undermine the HISTORIC value of the Quran? I find no connection. Let’s say I reject the claims of a biography of Jefferson written by a contemporary author and you tell me: “Well, if you reject this book then how can you prove that Jefferson was indeed a real person who drafted the constitution of the United States ?”|
Jefferson’s proof of existence does not depend on one biography. The evidence of his existence is overwhelming. But if you deny all of them then you can’t prove even the existence of Jefferson.
If you deny every biography of Muhammad then his very existence becomes questionable.
|I am not sure how serious you are in your denying the historic reality of Muhammad. You are right that I cannot PROVE his existence to you, neither you can prove to me that there was Jesus or Socrates. But, you are missing the entire point.|
We know about Socrates because Plato wrote about him. So far no own has questioned what Plato said, nor has called him a liar. But if people start doubting Plato, call him a liar who fabricated stories and passed them as truth, (basically what you say about the biographers of Muhammad) then we cannot be sure that Socrates existed. All we know about Socrates is through Plato and if he is found to be a liar then his story about Socrates could also be a lie.
The existence of Jesus has come under question precisely because there is so little information about him outside the Christian literature. Nonetheless, what you are asking is even graver. You want us to disregard any story about Muhammad even though they are written by his followers. If these books were written by the enemies of Muhammad, you had a point. Enemies can be biased and their reporting may not be accurate. But demanding to discard the stories written by the followers of Muhammad is absurd. Under what basis? Just because they portray Muhammad as a criminal? Would you have made such outlandish demand if the hadiths portrayed Muhammad as a saint? That is not acceptable at all. Because these stories are told by the Muslims themselves they are like confessions. You don’t throw out confessions. We know that Muslims lie. Those who reported these stories tried to depict their prophet as a holy man and attributed miracles to him. We don’t have to accept all those lies. They make no sense and they are against the Quran and against logic. But there is no reason to reject the confessions of the Muslims.
|I follow the Quran and whether Muhammad existed or not is really a side issue in the context of the message of the Quran. I am not following Muhammad; I am following the message of the messenger. I am here to defend the principals and teachings of the Quran. Did Muhammad really exist or not, was Muhammad a good guy or not, is not relevant right now.|
That is absurd. The message of Islam depends on the credibility of its messenger. If Muhammad was a mere mailman who had brought a book written and sealed by God in an envelope. Then his credibility would have been irrelevant. When you receive a letter from your friend by mail, you don’t interrogate the mailman. You see the handwriting and recognize it.
But if someone brings to you a verbal message with no credentials whatsoever, then his credibility is of extreme importance. What if he is lying? What if he has made up the whole thing to fool you and make you do what he wants, especially if there is a clear gain in that message for him? What if he demands you to pay part of your wealth to him, wage war for him, kill your brother and be ready to die for him? What if he starts killing, raping, looting and assassinating people with your help? If a man does such despicable things can’t he also lie? You heard Muhammad lied. You heard him say “war is deception” and “Allah is the best deceiver,” and on several occasions he instructed his followers to lie in order to deceive his opponents. Couldn’t such a man have lied about his alleged message too? Muhammad gained a lot with his claim. From being an indigent he rose to become the absolute potentate of the entire Arabia. How can you believe in such a man blindly and not question his credentials and motives?
If he was a liar and a criminal as his biography show couldn’t he lie about his message too?
How can Muhammad’s character be irrelevant? Why would God choose a man with such a low moral fiber like him to be his mouthpiece? Isn’t it absurd that God send a criminal to teach mankind virtues? Muhammad claimed to have “sublime morals” (68:4) “a good example to follow” (33:21) and a “the mercy of God for all the worlds“? (21:107) Are these lies? If they are, how can you be sure that the rest of his Quran are not lies?
Muhammad called himself Khayru-l-Khalq, “Best of Creation” and claimed to be exalted above others prophets in degrees (2:253); to be the preferred one (17:55); to have been risen “to a praised estate” (17:79) a station which he said none but he would receive and this is “the Station of Intercession at the right of the Glorious Throne”. In other words he would be the person whom God will consult in the Day of Judgment to decide who should go to Hell and who should be admitted to Paradise.
The following two verses express vividly his sense of self importance and grandiosity.
Truly, Allah and His angels send praise and blessings [forever] upon the Prophet. O ye who believe! Praise and bless the Prophet with utmost laud and blessing” (33:56).
In order that ye (O men) may believe in Allah and His Messenger, that ye may assist and honour Him, and celebrate His praise morning and evening. (48:9).
In a Hadith Qudsi he makes his Allah say to him: “Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.” Imagine the level of insanity!
Let us delve into the sick mind of this psychopath narcissist and see what else he said about himself:
- “The very first thing that Allah Almighty ever created was my soul.”
- “First of all things, the Lord created my mind.”
- “I am from Allah, and the believers are from me.” source
And you tell me that it really does not matter whether he was a good guy or not? So all these self adulating verses are hot air? How could a man who spoke so approvingly of himself live so contemptibly?
Zhuang zi said “The wise man teaches not by words but by actions.” And you tell me the actions of Muhammad are irrelevant and what counts are his words? That even though he lived like a criminal he can teach us to live like saints? Look at the sainthood of Muslims at large! Those who follow him most are hate mongers and terrorists. If you are a good person it’s because you deny the hadidth, reinterpret the Quran and twist its meanings and refuse to live the way Muhammad lived. But are you truly a Muslim?
How can darkness brighten the world? How can ignorance impart knowledge? How can vice beget virtue? How can hate promote love? How can war or jihad bring peace?
“The superior man acts before he speaks, and afterwards speaks according to his actions”, said Confucius. Is that how Muhammad lived?
|I again invite you to tell me which verses of the Quran you have problems with and why. Please be specific and concise as possible. Let’s discuss the real issues. I hope we will not be distracted by secondary issues.|
Let us start with the above verses. Show me that Muhammad had sublime morals, was a good example to follow and was a mercy of God for all the worlds. Was he lying when he wrote those verses? Aren’t they from God?
|PS: I believe and argue that the Quran is word of God and the information contain there is authentic. Inshallah, when we get over this procedural issues I will share you my REASONS why I believe in the divine nature of the Quran.Peace,|
Can The Quran Stand Alone?
The “Quran Only Muslims” deny anything that has to do with Muhammad. They erroneously believe, once Muhammad is out of the picture and his crimes are hidden from the eyes of the critics they can win the day and prove that the Quran is a miracle. This is absurd. The Quran is the word of Muhammad and cannot be separated from him.
Unless you, dear Edip, respond to all the objections I presented, I declare this case is closed and move to demonstrate that the Quran is a book of ignorance and terror.
But first I will discredit the Quran and will prove that without the hadith this book is obtuse and utterly incomprehensible.
The Quran cannot be understood without the help of hadith. To understand the Quran we must understand its context. In Arabic it is called “sha’ne nozool” sometimes referred to as sabab’e nozool or the circumstances in which the verses were “revealed” and the states of affair that they address. Without understanding the history behind each verse you can’t understand the Quran. Take the example of Sura 111
Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he!
No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains!
Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame!
His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood – As fuel!-
A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!”
This is the entire sura. It is a small sura consisting of five verses of cursing. If you don’t know anything about the story behind this sura you can’t understand it.
Let us take another example:
And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment.
Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink.
And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding.
And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent m returning (to Allah).
Do these verses make any sense, on their own?
Examples abound. In fact most of the verses in the Quran cannot be understood without knowing their context.
How do we know the context of these verses? They are mostly in the tafseer. Tafseer means explanation, clarification, interpretation, etc. The interpreters/commentators of the Quran (mofasserin) base their interpretation on the hadith and the books of history.
For example, The Sura 9 consists of two parts. The first part is called Bara’at (redemption) and the second part is called Tawbah (repentance). You can’t understand this Sura unless you know what these parts refer to. The Bara’at was written during the invasion of Mecca. It is called Bara’at because in this part of the Sura Allah is telling Muhammad that he is free to break his treaties with the pagans unilaterally. All the verses in this part refer to that occasion. The Tawbah was written when Muhammad returned from the war of Tabuk and found a few Muslims had stayed behind and had not gone to war. He ordered the population of Medina not to talk to these deserters and even ordered that their wives move out of their homes. For forty days no one talked to these people and passed them by as if they were invisible. After forty days Muhammad accepted their repentance and in this Sura he laid the conditions of repentance.
These details are in the history and in the hadith. You cannot understand this sura and any sura, properly without knowing the history behind it.
As you see the Quran Only people can’t even understand the Quran without the hadith and sira. What interpretation can they give us when they deny the background and the context of the Quran?
A participant of the forum, Mirror of Truth, in another threat answered your argument. You were urging me to join you in using hadith as a reliable evidence to incriminate Muhammad. I am quoting his answer, since I agree with all of it and it will save me time. I will answer some of other arguments of yours after this excerpt from Mirror of Truth, whose answer is distinguished with five asterisks:
On the one hand – AS bluffs his hand by stating:
Well he launches into an awful lot of pre-amble if he has no need for hadith. Edip has made it explicit that he does not need nor has any desire to discuss the hadith.
During this pre-amble AS lists two possibilities as the motives for the fabrications which I accept. These are namely:
1. Glorification of an idolized leader. This would explain hadiths for example that report that Muhammad’s manliness was equivalent to 30 men or whatever number it was. In trying to make their hero macho they do not realize the absurdity they create – and the inadvertent slander they commit.
2. The fabrications of enemies whether they be hypocrite ‘believers’/converts or or open enemies. This explains a great many hadiths that are covert digs at Muhammad. An example is the cherished hadith of the ‘miraj’ where Moses acts as the wiser guide to Muhammad’s alleged negotiations with God. Obviously this is the fabrication of a Jewish convert who asserts the superiority of Moses’ bargaining/knowledgeability.
What Ali Sina discounts and does not mention at all is that there is another group of hadiths that were introduced (or supported) in the folklore in order to support the actions of corrupt leaders. If corrupt leaders/mullahs could justify their pedophilia or desires to rape and pillage by introducing or supporting such hadiths then having the absolute power there would be little reason for them to reject such hadith. Thus the hadith that obviously makes Muhammad look evil/wicked/stupid etc. become canonized because it meets the secondary need of the corrupt leaders.
Thus there are motives for these hadith that AS has completely ignored.
The sum of it is that whatever the motive for ahadith – none are required for the purposes of following God’s system – not one.
AS has stated he has no requirement for them. None of us are shocked and the position to go on sans ahadith is very tenable. They are fabrications. The absurdity they contain is enough to convince the free-thinker of that. I would advise that AS lets go of his love for the hadith that I’m sure rivals the mullahs in order to make a real contribution to the debate. Let’s move on from the nonsense of ahadith and see what arguments he has left now.
You and your friend Mirror of Truth should practice patience. We will soon come to the Quran.
Mirror the Truth says I did not mention the hadiths that were fabricated to support the actions of corrupt leaders. This hypothesis is very unlikely. I find it quite implausible that leaders get together and convince all Muslim scholars who had dedicated their lives to the preservation of what they thought to be the divine guidance, to write that Muhammad married a 6 year old child just because they lusted after 6 year old girls and wanted an excuse. As Ayatollah Montazeri wrote to me, it is against human nature to have sexual feelings for children. I totally agree with him. However, Muhammad was a sick man. I doubt we have many “corrupt leaders” who had filled their harem with children. Normal people find sex with children abhorrent and disgusting. If these rulers were normal, they most likely were not attracted to children. Pedophilia is not a vice that everyone can do. It is not in human nature.
However, drinking is something many like. The so called “corrupt rulers” drank as many of them still do. If that argument had any value, it would have been more likely for these rulers to fabricate hadiths licensing drinking than hadiths that legitimize pedophilia.
These are all excuses of desperate believers who can’t stand facing the truth and can’t let go of a lie. They rather accept any absurdity than facing the truth. The perceived solid ground on which they were standing is gone, they are falling and drowning and try to grab at anything to restore their faith. Muslims do all mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that their prophet was an impostor charlatan. But they only fool themselves. Facts speak loudly and they are stubborn.
|I want to elaborate little bit more about motivation in fabrication of hadiths. Ali Sina is treating hadith sources in a simplistic way. I recommend him to read Mahmud Abu Rayya’s book Adwa ‘ ‘ala al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya (Cairo: 1377/1958). It is one of the best criticism of history of hadith collection and procedures. The book allocates 60 pages to motives for fabricating hadith and documents many of them. People fabricated hadith to even advertise the dates of a particular town, such as, Ajwa. They fabricated hadiths to promote submission to the rule Kings. They fabricated hadith to justify the massacres and tortures of Umayyad or Abbasid kings…. Ali Sina ignores all these motives and wants us to believe that any hadith depicting Muhammad as a violent person must be accepted without question! One of his suggested criteria for accepting hadith is if “It is consistent with the character of Muhammad” found in his hostile imagination or in other dubious hadith books! Accepting this offer is more difficult than to swallow the prophecies of his favorite psychics.|
I don’t deny that many hadiths are fabricated and of course they have been fabricated for one motive or another. However the fact that many hadiths are fabricated does not invalidate the correct ones. As I said it is not difficult to separate truth from falsehood, especially if we see consistency in those hadiths and confirmation in the Quran.
Holy cow! Is this your level of reading a literary test that contains metaphors? Your hatred against Muhammad and islam has reduced your literary skills to elementary level. When your friends tells you “Ali don’t have a cow” do you chastise them “When did I want to have a cow? Are you hallucinating?” When someone labels another person “pig!” does he really mean that the other was transformed to a pig or acted like a pig. The verses you refer are metaphors that use the Arabic language and culture. It likens the acts of a particular group of Jews to the behavior of monkeys and pigs. Please check Arab language for the implication of such metaphors.
The verses that you say are metaphor are as follow
And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”
So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson to those who fear Allah
Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!”
When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”
These texts don’t give any impression of being metaphors. The words used are “Be ye apes” and “He transformed [them] into apes and swine”. If Allah really wanted to say you are worthless creatures like apes and swine then he used a wrong syntax. He should have said “ye are like unto apes and swine”.
So there are two possibilities. a) You are wrong. b) Allah’s Arabic is very poor.
Could this be possibly a mistake in translation? Absolutely not! The word used in verse 5.60 is Ja’ala which means transformed.
وَجَعَلَ مِنْهُمُ الْقِرَدَةَ وَالْخَنَازِيرَ
None of the Muslims understood these verses as metaphor including the greatest Muslim of all times Mevlala Jalaladdin Rumi who echoed the same absurdity in his Mathnavi stating clearly that the Jews were transformed into apes. Now, Rumi was a Sufi and he was the one who taught the Quran should not be read literally, but rather it has a baten (inner) and a zaher (apparent) meaning. He understood Arabic perfectly and yet did not think these verses are metaphors.
Rumi is not the only person who thinks the verse is literal. Ibn Ishaq (Sirat Rasulullah) says
… ‘And stand in awe of Me,’ i.e. lest I bring down on you what I brought down on your fathers before you – the vengeance that you know of, BESTIAL TRANSFORMATION and the like … (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi, thenth impression 1995], p. 250; bold capital emphasis ours)
Also Bukhari makes the same “mistake” and writes:
“The Prophet said, “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it.” I told this to Ka’b who asked me, “Did you hear it from the Prophet?” I said, “Yes.” Ka’b asked me the same question several times.; I said to Ka’b. “Do I read the Torah? (i.e. I tell you this from the Prophet.)” 4.54.524
The translator has footnotes at this point in which he says:
 It was illegal for the Israelites to eat the meat or drink the milk of camels while they were allowed to eat the meat and drink the milk of sheep. The Prophet inferred from the rats’ habit that some Israelites had been transformed into rats.
 Later on the Prophet … was informed THROUGH INSPIRATIONabout the fate of those Israelites: They were transformed into pigs and monkeys.
Also Muslim makes the same “mistake” and says:
“Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: A group of Bani Isra’il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. ….” (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Number 7135)
Also Ibn Kathir’s commits the same “mistake” and says since the Jews went fishing during the Sabath “Allah cursed them for it and transformed them into real despised apes ….They were doomed TO STAY AS APES FOR THREE DAYS without food, drink or reproduction, TILL THEY DIED” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, second edition 1998], pp. 146-147; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Don’t you think the reason all these great luminaries of Islam are mistaken is because the Quran is either not clear or is wrong?
Do not get excited for seeing these narrations. We both know they are wrong. The question is why so many people misunderstood the Quran that is supposed to be clear and without any doubts? The question is about the Quran not about the hadith.
I do not have such ideas about revelation. You are making up ideas in my name. I do not blame you for this since you have encountered so many Sunni Muslims or Shiite Muslims you may be excused to confuse a “muslim muslim” with them.
You are accepting one of the biggest lies about Muhammad. Muhammad was literate. He wrote the Quran with his own hands. The Arabic word UMMY does not mean illiterate, it means gentile. For my logical and scriptural reasons for literacy of Muhammad please visit my website at: http://www.yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm
How do you know Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hands? Are you speculating or have you read it somewhere? How do you know that your sources are not corrupted? Why you allow yourself to pick and choose what you like and reject what you don’t? I never read such a story. How do we know that this story is more accurate than the sources that you disparage? Mind you, I actually think Muhammad knew how to read and write and he simply lied to impress others. However, his ignorance shows that he was not in love with books. I often receive many protest emails from Muslims who claim to be young adolescents. One such person signed off, “by the way I am only 10 years old”. They think with these silly misrepresentations I will be impressed thinking they are prodigies. Our discussion does not interest children even older than that. My question is why do you allow yourself to pick and choose narrations about Muhammad that you like and discard those that you don’t?
You claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but it means gentile. The verse 2:78 is an alleged speech of Allah with the Jews.
“And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.”
وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَابَ
If ummi means gentile, in this verse Jews are called ummayoon (plural of ummi). Does this mean that Allah thought Jews are gentiles?
I think 2:78 makes the meaning of this word clear. Ummi is one who “knows not the book” in other words one who can’t read.
I went to the link you provided to your article and there I found the following:
|“The very first revelation from the Angel Gabriel was, Muslims believe, “Read!” And the first five verses of that revelation encourage reading and writing (96:1-5). The second revelation was “The pen and writing” (68:1). These facts compel some questions that orthodox scholarship would rather avoid. Does God command an illiterate man to “read”? If so, could Muhammad read after Gabriel’s instruction to do so? The story told in Hadith books about the first revelation asserting that Muhammad could read only after three trials ending by an angelic “squeeze” contradicts the other stories claiming that Muhammad died as an illiterate!”|
How do you know that the first five verses supposedly “revealed” were sura 96:1-5 and that sura 68:1 was the second? Where does the Quran say this? Aren’t you getting this information from the very hadiths you berate? And didn’t you say that we either accept all the hadiths or none of them, but we can’t simply pick and choose?
|Second, if Omar supported Muhammad for 23 years of his messengership he must have known that Muhammad prohibited his companions from writing his hadith all his life. He must have known that the Quran was the only source to be followed and associating man-made teachings to it was another form of polytheism. If I were in Omar’s sandals, I would too reject Muhammad’s request to prescribe another source for our guidance, especially knowing that he was terminally sick and had high fever.|
This is the fallacy of presupposition. You presuppose that Muhammad prohibited his companions from writing hadith all his life. There is no basis for that claim. People used to tell stories about the kings and Biblical prophets and Muhammad did not like competition, he denigrated the scriptures of previous messengers who he had already acknowledged as true and said they are corrupted. Then he said that the Quran is “the best story” (haidth) (39:23) meaning instead of paying attention to other traditions, listen to me only. But he never said don’t write anything about me and my life. Muhammad was a narcissist. He considered himself to be the center of the universe. He told everyone to emulate him. Do you have a verse of the Quran to prove your claim? As I quoted from the Quran, Muhammad claimed to be a “good example to follow” and have “an exalted standard of character” 68.4 How can Muslims follow his examples if they are not recorded?
A member of the forum (this debate was discussed in the forum of faithfreedom.org) made an inane statement that I am forcing you to accept the hadith so I can attack you easier. This is what this person wrote:
“I suspect that he does this only because it provides him with an easier stick with which to beat Islam. I find the attempt to force Yuksel to accept the ahaadeeth as a straw man approach.”
Of course this is nonsense. I already stated that I am not going to need the hadith to prove the Quran is wrong. It would be absurd to insist that someone admit to something that he obviously does not believe and then try to attack that belief. I am trying to prove that the Quran-Only crowd, have based their creed on false premises. The question is not which hadith is true and which one is not; the question is that without the hadith the Quran is meaningless. The Islam that thus is being constructed is fallacious and cannot stand the test of criticism.
|Third, you are confusing the early believers with later Sunni and Shiite Muhammad-worshipers. They were free minds. They did not follow Muhammad as a cult leader, but they accepted his message by using their God-given reason. As you are confusing me or wish to confuse me with a blind follower of a particular sect or cult, you are also confusing or wish to confuse those brave and progressive souls, those freedom fighters with them.|
The discussion of whether Islam is a cult or not, or whether the early believers were free minded or not is long. I am not going to discuss that here. But if anyone is interested I have drawn the parallel between Islam and the cult of Jim Jones in a chapter of my upcoming book Understanding Muhammad. All cults are alike. Once you read that chapter, you’ll never call a Muslim free minded. Those early believers were absolutely cultists.
You share a strikingly similar poor knowledge of the Quran with Sunnis and Siites. You use the same lousy argument. If you were able to read the Quran without smelling the garbage of hadith, you would easily notice that 33:21 had preceding and succeeding verses and the example of prophet was his bravery in defending Muslims against the aggressor army of Meccan oligarchy. If your knowledge of the Quran was a little bit beyond the surface, you would also notice that verse 60:4 uses exactly the same description, “good example”, for Abraham and his supporters. Using your logic Muslims should have had the hadith of Abraham and his supporters too! Perhaps, you will find the story of another hungry holy goat eating those hadith collections to be “not illogical”
Dear Editp. The sura 33 is not self explanatory. Without tafseer (relying on hadith and sira) there is no way to know who are the “confederates” mentioned in verse 20 and from where they are not withdrawn. There are many unknowns in this sura. For example, verse 11 says “In that situation were the Believers tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking.” Without referring to tafseer can you explain what situation is Muhammad talking about? That sura does not contain a single reference to Muhammad’s examples. The examples of Muhammad are not given or supposed to be given by Allah. They were witnessed by his followers. There was no need for Muhammad making his Allah describe him for his followers when they could witness that on their own. On various occasions he made his Allah extol him and talk about him superlatively, but apart from those self adulatory pompous bragging there is no mention about his life and his examples in the Quran.
In the same sura verse 33:37 there is a mention of a certain Zaid. It says “Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons,” Can you please explain the story behind this verse without any reference to the hadith? What was the example set by Muhammad mentioned in this sura that need to be followed?
As for following the example of Abraham, Abraham’s character was known to Arabs through the fables that they used to tell each other about the prophets of the past. Without Arab’s knowledge of Abraham the Quran would not have made sense to them. For example if I advise you to be like Job, and if you never heard of Job and what happened to him my words to you mean nothing. For Muslims, to be able to follow the examples (sunna) of their prophet they need to know about his life. The reason you are so adamant to reject all the hadiths is because you already know this man was a criminal. Why do you want to lie to yourself and cling to this thug, is beyond any reason. Suppose you save face in front of others pretending that you think the hadiths are all false, what are you going to say to your own conscience? Have you already thrown it out along with the hadiths?
I use that hadith to show a conspicuous internal contradiction in hadith books. I say, “if you believe this hadith, you must reject all other hadiths. If you accept other hadiths, then you must reject this one. You cannot believe all to be authentic!” I am surprised that you did not understand this common and simple rhetorical device.
We already know some of the hadiths are false. This hadith is not only apocryphal but it has nothing to do with rejecting the hadiths. Muhammad asked a pen and paper not to write something. This hadith is invented by the Shiites to give the suspicion that he wanted to write his will and appoint Ali as his successor, but the “wicked” Omar said “hasbuna Kitab-ullah”. The intent is to vilify Omar. This has nothing to do with Muhammad rejecting hadith.
Do you really hear what you are saying? What about the Quran? The book that preceded the hadith books by centuries! The Quran refers to all major wars and conflicts and even generously quotes the allegations and accusations of opponents. But, you are addicted with the stinky smell of hadith narrations and you try hard to engage me in a wrestling match in that location. No, my dear friend. I had been there and I am grateful to God for saving me from that. You might, however, continue enjoying your mud-slings with Sunni and Shiite opponents there. If I have time, I will be watching you with a smile on my face.
The Quran is allegedly the message of God to Man. It is certainly not a book of the history of Islam. From the Quran alone you can’t learn about Muhammad, his companions, his linage, his wives and family, his deeds, his wars, his rituals and many other stories that make Islam understandable. The Quran makes some passing mentions of the wars, but certainly it is not a book of history about Muhammad’s prophetic career. I have no intention to “wrestle” with you using the hadith as the proof in order to defeat you, like it was suggested in that inane remark about the “straw man”. The point that I am trying to make is that without the hadith your Islam is self made. Can you explain sura 111, sura 9 and sura Sura 38:41-44, or for that matter any sura, without referring to the hadith? You have no way to do that. Then what you say about the claim of the clarity of the Quran? (5:15) Or when it says that it is “easy to understand” (44:58 ,54:22 , 54:32, 54:40), is “explained in detail” (6:114), is “conveyed clearly”, (5:16, 10:15) and there is “no doubt in it”? (2:1).
If these verses are true, can you explain the above suras? Let me remind you once again. I am not trying to make you revert to a hadith-believing Muslim. You have done already half of the job by rejecting the garbage of hadith. Now is time that you reject also the garbage of the Quran. I want you to see that the Quran is linked to hadith. That both of them are garbage and both of them must be thrown in the dustbin of history.
Furthermore, how do you know that the Quran preceded the hadiths by centuries? All you have is an undated book. You don’t know how and when it was written, unless you rely on the very hadith that you disparage.
Can you tell me what century Muhammad was born? Without hadith and sira how can you tell? You may say that this data is available from the history written by Persians and Romans. Why would you take the Persians and Romans sources as more legitimate than the sources written by Muslims?
Without the haidth, Islam can easily be dismissed as a myth. If the “corrupt leaders” were capable to fabricate so many hadiths with so much detail about a man and his people, (a miracle in itself) why couldn’t they fabricate the Quran? The Quran is sheer nonsense. Any fool can write such a book. But the books of hadith are history containing thousands of names that relate to each other. It would have required a powerful computer and a team of experts just to relate those people to each other. This alone invalidates the all those theories that doubt the existence of Muhammad.
Finally, a good I would like to reserve a separate discussion on question, a fair criticism protection of the Quran via its numerical structure.
I look forward to that!
Again, you are confusing me with your Sunni friends! If I were in an island and found the Quran there among other books, and if I were able to understand its message and blessed to witness its scientific accuracy, prophecies and mathematical structure, I would not need anything else to believe in its accuracy. Do you hear me? Do you understand me? Besides, I am not a Muhammadan. Islam, as the system of peace and submission to God alone, existed long before Muhammad and will continue exists as a path for the truth-seekers long after him.
I think we should end your agony and get to the “scientific accuracy”, “prophecies” and “mathematical structure” of the Quran now. But it was important that our readers see where you are standing and how “solid” is your position. I believe that is already established. So let us move on to the next topic. Let us talk about the Quran. Please answer the question I asked in the previous round.
The Quran does not claim that Muhammad was illiterate, but only illiterates of the Quran claim such. Quran claims that Muhammad was not reading any scripture, in other words, he was a gentile. Muhammad was a literate gentile, like many of his contemporary prominent Meccanians.
Let us say your interpretation of illiterate is the correct one and all other Muslims are mistaken. Can you please tell me why so many Muslims misunderstand a book that claims to be clear and easy to understand? Isn’t it fair to believe that those claims of the clarity of the Quran are exaggerations?
|The Quran does not claim that Muhammad split the Moon, but only the splitters of holy lies claim such. The Quran refers to the end of the world and gives the splitting of the Moon as a sign for its coming close. I understand it as reference to the splitting the Moon surface by Apollo astronauts in 1969 when they took rocks from the Moon. I have a detailed argument on this in my Turkish books and inshallah you will find it in my upcoming Reformist Translation of the Quran.|
Let us see what the Quran says and let us use your own mentor Rashad Khalafa’s translation
The Hour has come closer, and the moon has split.
Then they saw a miracle; but they turned away and said, “Old magic.”
They disbelieved, followed their opinions, and adhered to their old traditions.(54:1-3)
Muhsin Khan translates this verse as follow:
The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder (the people of Makkah requested Prophet Muhammad SAW to show them a miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon).
The commentator of the Quran Maududi writes: “The amazing and wonderful phenomenon of the splitting of the Moon was a manifest sign of the truth that the Resurrection, of which the Holy Prophet was giving them the news, could take place and that it had approached near at hand. The great sphere of the Moon had split into two distinct parts in front of their very eyes. The two parts had separated and receded so much apart from each other that to the on-lookers one part had appeared on one side of the mountain and the other on the other side of it. Then, in an instant the two had rejoined.”
Obviously you will dismiss Maududi’s comment. The problem is that he was not the only one:
Bukhari 6.60.387 says, “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle the moon was split into two parts; one part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond the mountain. On that, Allah’s Apostle said, “Witness this miracle.”
The same theme is repeated in other hadiths: Bukhari 6.60.388, 6.60. 389 and 6.60.391
How can you explain that a book that is supposed to be clear and easy to understand with no doubt in it could mislead so many great scholars including Rashad Khalifa and every other translator of the Quran? Today the great majority of Muslims believe that splitting the moon did actually happen. Isn’t it fair to say that the Quran is not as clear as it claims?
You say this splitting the Moon is a prophecy to the splitting of the moon surface by Apollo. You seem to be willing to accept anything just to convince yourself that the Quran contains miracles. No Apollo split the moon surface. But the event in the Quran is described in the past tense which was given to people as a miracle and they still turned away and said “old magic”. Also the word used is Shaqqa شَق which means split and not landing, or anything else.
Only an Inquisition or Taliban court would accept your evidence as credible. But, in case you find such a court in Texas or Saudi Arabia, please let the judge appoint me as Muhammad’s attorney! I would be glad to represent him against Bukhari, Tirmizi, Ibni Majeh, Ibni Hanbal, Taberi, Waqidi and Ali Sina, combined.
You are acting as Muhammad’s attorney in this court of the public opinion. So let us see how you fair.
Now this is really funny. I never stood on that stool or wanted in the first place. You are the one trying to push it under my feet and each time I kick it you have being trying harder. Now, you are taking credit for your failure to insert that stinky stool under my feet? What logic are you using? In my first letter to you I invited you to discuss the Quran and you managed to extend the introduction with silly arguments from silly books.
The stool I am talking about is the claim that the Quran is self sufficient. That is a fallacy as it has been demonstrated.
I know you do not base your faith on hadith. The point is that with hadith you believe in lies and without them you believe in lies. Just because you rejected the hadith you are not out of the woods. You have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Your total freedom will come when you reject Islam.
|So, it should be the last round that we discuss hadith. We should now move to the real argument. Are you ready for that, or you want to dwell more on hadith? You will not receive any response from me if you continue your bizarre insistence to force me to accept hadith. Then, you may claim your victory and continue your debates based on hearsay and ignorance.I hope you will kick that stinky stool under your feet. Hope Jthat it is not the only stool keeping you standing|
We are already talking about the Quran. I think I have made my point clear that those who believe in the Quran only have no leg to stand on. This is to show that even if the Quran were a true book of God, the position of the Quran Only crowd is fallacious. That is established already. By this exercise I do not want to make you believe in false hadiths. I want you to be honest.
Let me put your mind at ease. I make a solemn pledge that I will not use any hadith to prove Islam is false. I have not done it with you and will not do it. That would be foolish. It is like holding a gun to the head of your enemy and threatening to shoot if he does not surrender. Please give me a little more credit. If I use the hadith it would be in conjunction with a verse of the Quran and to explain the context of that verse. You are not required to accept that context/tafseer. You would be required to give your own interpretation of that verse without using the hadith. Then we leave it to our readers to decide which interpretation is more plausible. All I am trying to do is to discredit your position and demonstrate that the Quran without hadith is incomprehensible.
The fallacy of the Quran will be demonstrated by the contradictions within the Quran and by the use of logic. No hadith will ever be used as the authority to disprove the Quran. I will use the hadith for clarification, just as I did with the word ummi. You are entitled to reject that and present your own version. I hope now you can breathe easier.
|In our previous rounds of debate, Ali Sina used his favorite fabricated hadiths to insult and condemn Muhammad. His zeal in relying on hadith was no less than of a fanatic Sunni. Before starting discussing the Quran, I decided that it would be unfair and unjust to Muhammad, the last prophet of islam, to leave his name and message be stained by those trashy narrations and allegations. So, here I post an excerpt from the beginning of my upcoming book, “Code 19“, which summarizes Muhammad’s struggle against ignorance, arrogance, selfishness, violence and injustice:
A Revolution Led by a Gentile Against the Mollarchy of Medieval Arabia
It was 570 years after Christ when Muhammad was born in Mecca . At age 40 he made a declaration that shocked his people. During the month of Ramadan of 610, he claimed that he was visited by Holy Revelation (a.k.a. Jibreel or Holy Spirit) delivering him a message from God. This claim was first kept secret he shared only with several close friends and relatives. A few years later he publicly declared his messengership and his opposition to the religious and political establishment of Mecca . An era of revolution and reformation that would change world history had started.
Muhammad, a member of a powerful tribe and a successful international businessman, was not an ordinary citizen of Mecca . With his sound judgment and trustworthy personality, he had won the respect of the theocratic oligarchy. His uncles were the leaders of one of the prominent tribes and were active in social, political, economic and religious affairs.
Arabs living in the Hijaz region were brethren of Jews, and Abraham was their common forefather. Mecca or Bacca was the valley where Abraham had immigrated, after his exile from Babylon . There is only one reference to this important city in the Old Testament:
Meccan Arabs had deep respect to the struggle of Abraham whose courageous stand for his monotheistic belief was a legend. Therefore, they were very protective of his reputation, religious practices, and the Kaba. Knowing that Abraham rejected worshiping the statutes besides God, Arabs never worshiped statutes, or symbolic objects. (FN1)
Nevertheless, they had holy names, such as Al-lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat from whom they would ask intercession and help. Their association of other authorities and powers to God and their fabrication of myriad prohibitions and laws in the name of God is called shirk (FN2) and the Quran repeatedly criticizes this mindset and practice as polytheism, the source of all evil.
However, those who accepted other authorities besides God, never accept their crime. They vehemently deny their shirk. Though majority of “believers” follow the teachings of their clergymen and assign divine authority to others besides God, they usually do not accept that they are committing shirk; they claim to be monotheists. If you question a Hindu who worships hundreds of gods and goddesses, you will learn that he or she is really a monotheist! A Christian who puts his full confidence in St. Paul ‘s polytheistic teaching which was formulated 325 AC by the Nicene Council as the Doctrine of Trinity (i.e., God with three personalities) will still claim to be a monotheist! (FN3) Muslims who elevated Muhammad to the level of God by making him the second source of their religion and by putting his name next to God in the Statement of Testimony, will also insist that they are monotheists.
Arab mushriks (those who accept other authorities besides God) never claimed that those holy names were gods, they were merely praying for their intercession. They believed that the saints and angles were mediators between them and God.
The Quran clearly rejects association of any authority besides God, whether in making the religious laws or providing eternal salvation.
According to the information given by the Quran, Meccan Mushriks preserved the forms of religious practices while they lost its monotheistic and spiritual meaning. They were praying, fasting, and going to pilgrimage. (FN4) It was the most popular religious practice.
Mollarchy in the City State of the Arabian Peninsula
There were some characteristics of Mecca that distinguished it from other Arabian towns and cities. Mecca , with the Abraham’s temple, was the center of religion, politics and business. Abraham’s temple, the Kaba, is described by the Quran as “People’s House” or “Sacred Place of Prostration.” Abraham, as I mentioned above, was a legendary ancestor for both Arabs and Jews. During the four consecutive sacred months, (FN5) Arabs dwelling in the region would visit Mecca for pilgrimage. Meanwhile, the occasion was also used for an international trade fair. Merchants from neighboring countries would participate in a lengthy business and cultural activity. During these religious months, besides trading, cultural and athletic competitions such as poetry, competition, and wrestling would take place. Mecca was the center of economic, political, and cultural activities of a vast land.
Prominent tribal leaders like Abu Hakem (a.k.a., Abu Jahel), Abdul Uzza (a.k.a., Abu Lahab), Abu Sufyan, Umayy Ben Halef, Nadr Ben Haris, and Valeed Ben Mugiyra, could not tolerate any reformation movement that would change the status quo and risk Mecca’s crucial position in political and economic landscape. They were determined to follow the traditional religion they inherited from their ancestors who had distorted Abraham’s monotheistic religion to shirk. Preservation of the traditional religion and the status quo was vital for the theocratic government of Mecca . Questioning the orthodox belief system and the common practice could be interpreted as a foreign attack to the unity or as a betrayal to the fabric of the society.
A teaching that rejects the idea of intercession and the sacred role of professional clergymen, a teaching that promotes the human rights of slaves and the oppressed, that seeks economic justice by objecting monopoly and usury, that is concerned about the poor, that condemns ethnic and racial discrimination, that protects the rights of women, that advocates democratic governance through consultation, and encourages people to use their reasoning and questions the tradition, surely, such a religion would pose a serious threat to the economic and political interest of the ruling elite.
Social, economic, and political structure criticized
It is a well-known fact that the early revelations of the Quran use a strong language in criticizing the theocratic oligarchy, which did not care about the poor, orphans and aliens; did not free the slaves; did not treat women equal to men; and did not consult people in public affairs.
Life Style and Harmful Tradition Criticized
The population of Mecca was afflicted with many social problems caused by individual abuses of time, money, brain, body, and exploitation of God’s name.
For instance, gambling was transferring money from the poor to the wealthy, thereby creating financial nightmares for many families. Alcohol was the cause of many personal and social problems such as domestic violence, inefficiency, loss of intellectual capabilities, alcoholism, rape, criminal activities, accidents and myriad of health problems. The Quran, though acknowledged some financial and personal benefits of gambling and alcohol, encouraged believers to abstain from these addictions without criminalizing them via penal code.
Sexual promiscuity or adultery was contributing in the destruction of families and was a major health threat for public by transmitting sexual diseases. The Quran encouraged men and women to be loyal to their marriage contract. Though polygamy is permitted to take care of fatherless children and their widowed mothers, monogamy was encouraged.
Lengthy list of dietary prohibitions concocted in the name of God was wasting many food resources. The Quran prohibited only four items related to animal products and considered any additional religious prohibitions to be fabrications and shirk.
The Quran dealt with many other issues such as protection of environment and ecological balance and protection of God’s creation from unnecessary mutilation. For instance, the Quran prohibited hunting during pilgrimage (5:95-96). It also criticized Meccan Arabs for cutting the ears of animals for religious reasons, which has negative implication regarding the custom of circumcision.
The chapter “Ben Israel” (Children of Israel) contains a series of commandments aiming to change the mindset, attitude and actions of individuals:
The Quran aimed to reform both the society and the individual. The Quran invites individuals to undertake a substantial reformation. The description of believers in the last verses of chapter “Al-Furqan” (The Distinguisher) reveals the desired characteristics of muslims:
Meccan Leaders are Losing Their Sleep
Mecca could remain an independent center of commerce because of its unique geopolitical situation. Mecca was located in a region where the influence of the two super powers of the era, Byzantine and Persian Empires, collided. This balance of powers created such a vacuum that Mecca could survive without submitting herself to either hegemony. Mecca was a default capital of the Arabian Peninsula . The population of Mecca and surrounding towns did not follow any scripture, but only oral traditions and practices. Religion and politics were inseparable affairs. Though Meccan population had many literate people, they were considered “UMMY” (gentiles) for not having a scripture or a written law like their Christian and Jewish neighbors. Muhammad was a literate gentile. (FN9)
When Muhammad declared that he received a message from God, the Meccan oligarchy first did not take him seriously. They just ignored him. However, when they noticed the potential power of his message and the rate of the new converts, their reaction varied between mockery and insinuation. Soon their reaction escalated to slander and threat of eviction and death. Though Muhammad’s personal history and his tribal relationship was providing a kind of protection against physical attacks, some of his followers did not have tribal support. For instance, among those who were subjected to torture was Bilal, an Ethiopian slave who was freed by one of Muhammad’s friend. The first convert (FN10) who was killed was Sumayya, a woman. Slaves and women. Victims of racist and misogynistic laws and religions.
Clergymen who had economic and political interest in their corrupt religious teachings, augmented and manipulated the religious fanaticism of ignorant masses. The fatal combination of ignorance and arrogance, which in the past had taken the lives of many messengers and prophets, from Socrates to Jesus, was again at work. The words uttered against previous messengers were repeated against Muhammad, this time in Arabic. Muhammad’s situation was no different than Saaleh, a messenger to a community perished long time ago.
Muhammad’s message was focused on monotheism (tawheed), which is the main theme of Mosaic teaching that crowns the Ten Commandments.
Ironically, despite the popularity of Ten Commandments among Jews, Christians and Muslims, the faith and practices negating and defying the first two commandments have become their basic dogmas.
Muhammad delivered the words of the Quran critical of the traditional religion of Meccan people who had transformed Abraham’s monotheistic religion to polytheism by blindly following their ancestors, inheriting innovations, superstitions, numerous cleric-made religious laws falsely attributed to God, and the belief of intercession.
Flocking on the Glorious Path of their Ancestors
Mushriks, be it of ancient times or modern times, attempt to justify their religions by the number of their members, by the glory of their ancestors and by the fame of their “saints.” In arguments based on logic, scientific investigation and analysis of historical documentation, their common defense is the miserable argument from authority: “this and that holy clergymen said this,” or “most of our ancient scholars have decided this way.”
Idolizing their ancestors under different titles and following the dogmas and superstitions that are attributed to them as a religion is the universal characteristics of mushriks. Religious idols vary according to religions and languages. For instance, idols, in Americaare Jesus, Mary or Saint; in Turkey are Ata, Evliya, Sheik or Hazrat; in India Mahatma; in Pakistan Maulana; in Iran Imam, Hussein and Ehl-i Bayt. Religious masses do not seek the truth by using their brains and senses. Instead, they blindly follow the teachings bearing sanctified signatures. Mushriks are like parrots; they repeat words without understanding their meaning.
Ironically, it is the religious leaders who promote blind imitation. By institutionalizing ignorance via religious terms, the diabolic saints lead astray masses from Truth. (FN11) The messengers and prophets, who invited people to question their popular religion and traditions, almost invariably found the clergymen fighting and plotting against them.
The Black Campaign Waged by Those with White Turbans
The message delivered by Muhammad baffled and bewildered the bearded and turbaned Meccan clerics. They first tried to attack his character. They accused and insulted him to be a “wizard,” a dreaming “poet,” or “a crazy man.”
The Quran encourages Muhammad not to give up against this negative propaganda. Muhammad’s mission was to deliver the message at the cost of losing his popularity.
The Reaction and Plans of Disbelievers
Tyranny and terror is a prevalent characteristic of mushriks. Terror and violence is a defense mechanism of many who prefer not to use their brains. The polytheistic elite of Athena convicted Socrates to death for questioning the absurdity of their religion. Persian priests tried to get rid of Zoroaster. Jewish clerics conspired with Romans to kill Jesus for his threat to their abuse of religion. In defense of his theocratic and oppressive regime, Pharaoh mobilized his generals and religious leaders to eliminate Moses. Shuayb’s life was threatened by his people. Noah was stoned. Abraham was rejected by his own father and was thrown to fire. Some messengers were evicted and others were killed. Muhammad, who declared intellectual war against slavery, subjugation of women, racism, superstitions, ignorance, illiteracy, ancestor-worship, and exploitation of religious beliefs, would not be treated differently.
The forerunners who took all kinds of risks by siding with Muhammad, encountered difficult tests. They were excommunicated. They were rejected by their families and relatives. They experienced economic hardship. They were subjected to the insult and torture of mushrik Arabs. They were oppressed, banished from their land, and were viciously attacked. Many were killed; but they did not give up from their conviction and cause.
Muhammad was the main target of mushrik Arabs. Not only he had lost his popularity among his people; his life was in danger. However, he was ordained by the Lord of the Universe. He was commissioned to deliver the Message without compromise. He became the recipient of the greatest possible honor, receiving revelation from God.
While the multifarious aggressive campaign of the Meccan government and its allies in the region continued, Muhammad and his comrades promoted the freedom of expression and religious beliefs.
The leaders whose political and economic interest was at risk, and the ignorant followers, whose conformity was disturbed, responded this message of “leave us alone” with violence. But, their bloody terror and noise could not prevent the light from piercing and destroying the layers of darkness.
2. Shirk is described by the Quran in various contexts. Setting up partners with God, or accepting prophets, clergymen and scholars as authorities in God’s religion is considered as an unforgivable sin. See 42:21; 9:31; 3:18; 2:48; 6:21; 6:145; 7:17-37; 17:46; 45:6; 16:89; 6:112-115; 19:82; 46:6; 25:30; etc.
3. See the author’s book, “19 Questions For Christian Clergy.”
4. The detailed argument on this subject can be found in author’s Turkish book, “Errors in the Translations of the Quran.”
5. They were originally Zilhija, Muharram, Safar, Rabi 1, and later their order was changed by mushriks.
6. The purpose and practice of polygamy is another distorted issue in islam (submission). Though the Quran discourage polygamy with two verses (4:3 and 4:129), it allows it as a social and economic institution to take care of orphans in a family environment. The Quran allows polygamy with widows who have children. This permission allowed those who could afford to marry with widows to provide a father figure to their children and take care of their needs. Interestingly, the verse clarifying this limited permission is traditionally mistranslated despite its clear grammatical structure. The correct translation of the verse:
7. The examples of this category are listed in verse 5:3.
8. Many speculations made by Muslims to provide medical reasons for prohibition of meat of pig. Though, I consider it as a divine commandment to be followed for just the sake of obeying the Creator of the Universe, I think one of the reasons might lay in the waste of resources and environmental pollution. It is a well-known fact that pigs produce 6 times more waste than other domestic animals. Pig farms have caused serious environmental problems in some States, such as in North Carolyna . Besides emmitting disturbing smell, pig waste has contaminated the underground water in many nerby towns.
9. Muslim scholars, among many facts, have distorted this one too. They fabricated and narrated stories claiming that Muhammad was an illiterate man and maintained his illiteracy until his death. This claim not only contradicts the Quran and the historical facts, but it is also an insult to Muhammad. Was the prophet who brought a book and dictated it for 23 years not able to recognize the 28 letters of Arabic alphabet? How come a prophet who brought a scripture, which its first revelation starts with the word “READ,” did not try to learn how to read? Why a prophet who encouraged his friends to learn how to read and write himself did not practice what he preached to others? If Muhammad was illiterate, then he was either a crook trying to fool people that he could not read (which is impossible since there were literally thousands of people who knew him since his childhood) or he did not have the intelligence to learn how to read and write! To support their claim of “Literal Miracle” Muslim Scholars resorted to this obvious lie and interestingly reached consensus on it!
10. Meccan Arabs initially called Muhammad and his followers, “Sabeen” meaning “followers of other religions.”
11. The famous atheist philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, was so fed up with the abuse and exploitation of the Church, he opened a scorching attack on clergymen. He wrote, “As long as the priest is considered a higher type of man–this professional negator, slanderer, and poisoner of life–there is no answer to the question: what is truth? For truth has been stood on its head when the conscious advocate of nothingness and negation is accepted as the representative of “truth.” … In Christianity neither morality nor religion has even a single point of contact with reality.… This world of pure fiction is vastly inferior to the world of dreams insofar as the latter mirrors reality, whereas the former falsifies, devalues, and negates reality. Friedrich Nietzche, The Antichrist, in The Portable Nietzche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954).
12. The following verse, 9:99, makes an exception of this statement.
You started your argument by saying I use hadith to insult Muhammad. Can you please show one instance of that?
In this debate with you, knowing perfectly that you deny the legitimacy of hadith, I have refrained bringing the hadith as the evidence of my claim against Muhammad. When I use hadith it is in support of the verses of the Quran.
I started my debate with you showing that the Quran and Islam cannot be understood without reference to hadith and sira.
The proof of that is in this last long response of yours. Here you went off tangent and instead of answering any of my points you started copy-pasting from one of your books, giving details of the life of Muhammad without attempting to counter my claim that the Quran without haidth cannot be understood and Islam without the biography of Muhammad is meaningless. Since you completely ignored the topic at hand and contended yourself with copy-pasting from your book, I am inclined to believe you have no answer to the points I raised.
However, you made statements that are not in the Quran.
|It was 570 years after Christ when Muhammad was born in Mecca . At age 40 he made a declaration that shocked his people. During the month of Ramadan of 610, he claimed that he was visited by Holy Revelation (a.k.a. Jibreel or Holy Spirit) delivering him a message from God. This claim was first kept secret he shared only with several close friends and relatives. A few years later he publicly declared his messengership and his opposition to the religious and political establishment of Mecca . An era of revolution and reformation that would change world history had started.Muhammad, a member of a powerful tribe and a successful international businessman, was not an ordinary citizen of Mecca . With his sound judgment and trustworthy personality, he had won the respect of the theocratic oligarchy. His uncles were the leaders of one of the prominent tribes and were active in social, political, economic and religious affairs.
Arabs living in the Hijaz region were brethren of Jews, and Abraham was their common forefather. Mecca or Bacca was the valley where Abraham had immigrated, after his exile from Babylon . There is only one reference to this important city in the Old Testament:
How do you know all these things? This information is not given in the Quran. It can only be found in the hadith and the Sira. But you say that your Islam does not have any need for these “garbage” and the Quran is enough. Then how do you know Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. in Mecca and at the age of 40 he made his declaration, etc?
In this book that you are writing, you are providing a lot of information about Muhammad, about Mecca, about his uncles and you even name his enemies. You know exactly at what age and in what year Gabriel paid him a visit. You said Abraham was the legendary ancestor of the Jews and the Arabs. How do you know these things? This information is only available in the Bible and haidth. But you said hadith is a load of garbage that would sink a city. Do you accept the Bible? You talked in detail about the customs of the Arabs in those days and the fact that the time of pilgrimage was also used for trading purposes. You said these occasions were used for cultural and athletic competitions such as poetry and wrestling and that Mecca was the center of economic, political and cultural activities of a vast land. You even talked about Bilal and the fact that he was saved by “one of Muhammad’s friends” and you rehashed the apocryphal hadith that claims Summayyah was the first Muslim martyr. There is a wealth of information in this book you are writing that is not available in the Quran. Where did you get those data?
You sneaked into the books of hadith and Sira didn’t you? You naughty little devil you! You shouldn’t have done that, you know that. You waddled into that load of garbage to find the goodies for us and save us from seeing that fetid pile of filth accumulated on top of the prophet. How nice of you! You are really the savior of Islam.
Apparently you say something and do something else. So you don’t reject the hadith and Sira entirely. You simply reject the parts that don’t suit your agenda. None of these things you have written are in the Quran and you keep telling me the Quran is sufficient? If the Quran is sufficient why did you have to dig into the garbage of hadith to write your book?
Why not be honest here? Let us say that you agree with the part of the hadith that is not embarrassing and incriminating but when a hadith becomes too scandalous then that is garbage. The fact that Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. is not embarrassing, so you have no problem with that. But when the same sources say that he massacred the Bani Quraiza or raped a 9 year old child then that is all fabrication and garbage. Thank you for teaching us Islamic honesty.
In round III and IV I raised a series of questions. You did not even touch them. Here is a list of them:
1- How can Muhammad’s character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatans and cult leaders lie to manipulate and control the foolhardy?
2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history? You reject Muhammad’s biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example are all fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)” seriously or not?
3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them.
4- We also talked about the Quran’s claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said “Be ye apes” (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said “We will get to the scientific accuracy… of the Quran”. Explain this please scientifically.
5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read? 7:157 , 6:22
6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they can’t read their book. What is your response?
7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the “confederates” mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or to tafseer.
|To the Power of 666!
Edip Yuksel, 19.org
If Muslims are Terrorists, then Jews and Christians are Terrorists to the Power of 666!
The verse 9:5 does not encourage Muslims to attack those who associate partners to God, but to attack those who have violated the peace treaty and killed and terrorized people because of their belief and way of life. The Quran does not promote war; but encourages us to stand against aggressors on the side of peace and justice. War is permitted only for self-defense (See: 2:190,192,193,256; 4:91; 5:32; 60:8-9). We are encouraged to work hard to establish peace (47:35; 8:56-61; 2:208). The Quranic precept promoting peace and justice is so fundamental that peace treaty with the enemy is preferred to religious ties (8:72).
The verse 9:29 is mistranslated by almost every translator. The correct translation of it should be:
“You shall fight (back) against those who do not believe in God, nor in the last day, and they do not prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, and do not abide by the system of truth among those who received the scripture, until they pay the COMPANSATION, in humility.”
You have noticed that I inserted a parenthesis since the context of the verse is about the War of Hunain, and fighting is allowed for only self defense. See: 2:190-193, 256; 4:91; and 60:8-9.
Furthermore, note that I suggest COMPENSATION instead of Arabic word Jizya. The meaning of Jizya has been distorted as a perpetual tax on non-Muslims, which was invented long after Muhammad to further the imperialistic agenda of Sultans or Kings. The origin of the word that I translated as Compensation is JaZaYa, which simply means compensation, not tax. Because of their aggression and initiation of a war against muslims and their allies, after the war, the allied community should require their enemies to compensate for the damage they inflicted on the peaceful community. Various derivatives of this word are used in the Quran frequently, and they are translated as COMPANSATION for a particular deed.
Unfortunately, the distortion in the meaning of the verse above and the practice of collecting a special tax from Christians and Jews, contradict the basic principle of the Quran that there should not be compulsion in religion and there should be freedom of belief and expression (2:256; 4:90; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21,22). Since taxation based on religion creates financial duress on people to convert to the previliged religion, it violates this important Quranic principle. Dividing a population that united under a social contract (constitution) into previliged groups based on their religion contradicts many principles of the Quran, including justice, peace, and brotherhood/sisterhood of all humanity.
Some uninformed critics or bigoted enemies of the Quran list verses of the Quran dealing with wars and declare islam to be a religion of violence. Their favorite verses are: 2:191; 3:28; 3:85; 5:10,34; 9:5; 9:28-29; 9:123; 14:17; 22:9; 25: 52; 47:4 and 66:9. In this article, I refuted their argument against 9:29, and I will discuss each of them later.
Some followers of Sunni or Shiite religions, together with their like-minded modern Crusaders, abuse 9:5 or 9:29 by taking them out of their immediate and Quranic context. Sunnis and Shiites follow many stories and instructions falsely attributed to Muhammad that justify terror and aggression. For instance, in a so-called authentic (or authentically fabricated) hadith, after arresting the murderers of his shepherd, the prophet and his companions cut their arms and legs off, gauge their eyes with hot nails and leave them dying from thirst in the dessert, a contradiction to the portrayal of Muhammad’s mission in the Quran (21:107; 3:159). In another authentically fabricated hadith, the prophet is claimed to send a gang during night to secretly kill a female poet who criticized him in her poetry, a violation of the teaching of the Quran! (2:256; 4:140; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22). Despite these un-Quranic teachings, the aggressive elements among Sunni or Shiite population have almost always been a minority.
Six Diabolic Steps to Distort and Discredit
The following six steps are cleverly utilized over and over by the enemies of islam, including Christian missionaries, to discredit the Quran. For the 3rd and 4th steps they find great ammunition inside the volumes of hadith and sectarian jurisprudence books. (No wonder they like those books very much). For the 5th and 6th steps they find many allies among Sunni or Shiite versions of Hislamics who are extremely intoxicated by those anti-islamic sectarian teachings. Here are the repeated sixes:
(1) Ignore the fact that the Quran is a self-sufficient, self-explaining and detailed book, and destroy its semantic network by deliberately disconnecting its verses. Take a portion of the Quran and ignore all other verses that explain, supplement or bring limitation to that verse. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(2) Reduce your reference to a smaller portion; take a Quranic verse or part of it out of its immediate context. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(3) Twist the meaning of some words. You may even find a sectarian book or a website that has done that before you. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(4) Refer to the mishmash collection of fabrications called hadith and sunnah; there you will find a treasury of trash to stink an entire city. Claim that the Quran is useless and unintelligible without these sources. Some Hislamic people will be confused by your love of those “holy” teachings! That is a good sign. If you cannot convince, you must confuse… But, your goal is to convert as many as possible. So, find as much as garbage out of the Hislamic sources and introduce it as Islamic. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(5) Pick some examples of Sunni or Shiite idiots or terrorists, from among more than a billion Muslims, and generalize it to all Muslims. Especially, choose your examples from traumatized populations that have been abused and oppressed under the occupation of USA, UK, Israel, or Russia, or under the tyranny of a puppet dictator supported by one of these nations. While doing this, you must entirely ignore all the wars, destructions, massacres, tortures, and terrorist acts committed by the Judeo-Christian forces. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(6) Exchange words of hatred and bigotry with some intoxicated Sunni or Shiite Hislamics. Then go to your church, sing songs about love and Jesus, and do not forget asking forgiveness for your sins. You will start your next day clean and ready to commit more sins. Your Hislamic partner (!) will be waiting for you since they do not have confession sessions. If this is not enough to make it ugly and scary, then you have picked a very wrong verse. Choose another verse from the Quran, and go back and start from step one!
Let’s apply it to the Bible: “Jesus and His Disciples were a warmongering gang!”
Almost any big size book can be discredited by this dishonest and deceitful method; any book! By following these steps, I could easily depict Jesus, one of the messengers of peace (islam), as a divider and a trouble maker, rather than a peacemaker. Let’s take one example from Bible:
By using the Evilgelical’s own methodology of treating the Quran, I came up with a peace-hating, anti-family, troublemaker called Jesus! All I did was to take the verse out of its context. I did not even resort to twisting its words or adding some trash from secondary sources, or giving some examples from crusades, inquisitions, slavery, or irritate and provoke some crazy people among Evilgelical Crusaders.
By using the first two of the six steps, I could claim that the disciple of Jesus were, in fact, a dangerous gang who were planning to shed blood in that peaceful region. They were savages who cut the ears of their opponents:
I could depict Jesus and his disciples as a gang of blood-thirsty troublemakers, by adding verses justifying violence, blood-shed, massacres and tortures from the Old Testament, which was heavily relied by Jesus and his supporters for their mission. I could even reasonably speculate that Jesus and his few followers were planning a huge massacre in the region, but the Roman Empire stopped them before the cult reached to a dangerous number (Luke 21:24);. Knowing that they were provoked prematurely, Jesus reminded Peter:
I could reasonably ask a Christian who claims his religion to be the religion of peace: “You will agree that this event happened in the last days of Jesus. Why then did Jesus never tell his disciples not to carry SWORDS before one of them cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest? Or, do you want us to believe that Peter, who was putting his life at risk by trying to defend Jesus did not give a hoot to the instruction of his leader? Was Peter carrying the sword to peel cucumbers? Obviously, Jesus had seen that his disciple(s) were carrying swords and he did not mind. However, here he knew that tactically using sword would not save them from the Roman army and it would be a futile and premature fight.” Perhaps, my argument to depict Jesus as another potential Samson who killed a thousand men with the jaw of an ass (Jg 15:16) would receive cheers from the enemies of Jesus.
To depict Jesus as a rebel who planned a bloody revolution, I could cite Mt 21:12; Mr 11:15; Jo 2:19 and claim that he attacked the temple and destroyed its properties. I might have even continued the attack by quoting him:
However, if I had done this it would be unfair to the teaching of Jesus, one of the messengers of islam (peace and submission to God), delivered by the New Testament. It would be unfair because I would be taking them out of their context. Without even mixing them with the verses of the Old Testament that usually published in the same volume and frequently referred by the New Testament.
Modern Crusaders, Allied with Big Corporations are Orchastrating a Deceptive Propaganda and Misinformation Campaign to Promote their Bloody Cause to Colonize New Lands and Convert More People
Modern Crusaders distort verses of the Quran, exaggerate the deeds of terrorists and even attribute some events motivated by nationalism or other motives to islam. Their propaganda machine never referred to the Serbs as Christian Rapists and Christian Terrorists. Their propaganda machine never referred to the torturer and murderer Zionist occupying forces as Jewish Terrorists, or Jewish Murderers. Their propaganda machine never acknowledge the Christian faith and zeal behind Nazi crimes. But, they frequently associated any act of terrorism to Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, they cleverly managed to depict the freedom seeking victims of brutal occupying forces as agrressors in conflicts such as Chechenya, or Palestine.
They try to depict islam as a violent religion, thereby seeking to justify their own terror, massacres, pre-emptive wars, which are cunningly promoted in a euphemistic language through their propaganda machines. They don’t kill and terrorize civilians; they just produce collateral damage and they just perform colorful shows of “shock and awe.” They do not torture prisoners; they either interrogate them or turn them to anecdotals. They do not destroy cities; they do surgical and smart operations. They do not occupy others’ lands; they liberate them. They do not take revenge; they take justice to their enemies. Thus, media is cleverly used to hypnotize masses and get their support for neo-colonialism. The ruling class in democracies use media to “manifacture concent.” In order to plunder the resources of other countries, greedy corporations and their unholy allies replace one dictator after another, create wars and conflicts, undertake covert operations, and if they are bored, they play liberation games for fun and profit, big profit.
Crusaders have directly participated or supported many atrocities and wars in the last millennium; they have killed many more innocent people than their counterpart Sunny or Shiite warmongers. Inquisition, crusades, witch-hunt, World War I and II, holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, Nikaragua, Arjantine, Iraq are just few words in the long list of wars and massacres that are committed or supported by those who call themselves Christians. Nazis used the traditional Christian hatred of Jews as fuel and a twisted Cross (swastika) as the symbol for their racist ambitions. The list of British and American wars, occupations, massacres, slavery, covert operations that were conducted with the approval and support of the Christian church or masses is too long and too gruesome. You can still find many Christians justifying the biggest terrorist attack in the history, the destruction of two big cities with their hundreds of thousands civil population, as a retaliation to the Japanese attack to an American military base. American government has not apologized humanity for this horrific and cowardly act of terror. The mentality of these Crusaders is no different than those of al-Qaida militants who justified the destruction of the World Trade Center as retaliation to the American support for the Israeli’s racist policy of occupation, massacres and terror in Palestine.
Evilgelical Christians or Modern Crusaders Use Proxies for their Bloody Cause
Evilgelicalism is a growing radical movement in Christendom, officially known as Evangelical Christians. They are also known as Left-behind Rapture Freaks. Here, we will refer them by mutating several letters in their name so that their name will fit their deeds: Evilgelicals. Yes, Evilgelicals have recently mobilized all their sources to launch a campaign against the Quran in order to convert Muhammad-worshipers to Jesus-worshipers. Though there won’t be much difference, since both populations are like identical twins, but the plan is to start a new era of colonialism and slavery through holy Trojan horses.
Bishop Desmond Tutu, the South African civil right leader, once articulated the method of colonialist Evilgelicals in nutshell: “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said: “Let us pray.” We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
But, Crusaders are no more relying on prayers or the closed eyes of their victims to grab their lands. Many people nowadays are no more closing their eyes while praying, especially when there is a priest around. Since public learned that some priests grab other things besides lands, there is more reluctance to close eyes. So, the priests and their followers have mutated since last century and have transformed to modern Evangelicals.
This new strand of crusaders use all kinds of media for propaganda, combining their mesmerizing effect with the devastating impact of smart and dumb bombs and modern weapons. They call themselves pro-lifers, but they are always for increase in military budgets, they chant “God bless America” whenever USA-Inc invades a country and kills tens of thousands of its population, and they are more likely support capital punishment. Though they claim that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mt 19:24; Mr 10:25; Lu 18:25), in reality they support policies that make rich richer and poor poorer
They no more adhere the highest ethical standars thought by Jesus. To the contrary, for centuries they made a travesty out of it. Before they suck the blood of their victims, they no more use the pain-reducing and sleep-inducing formulas, such as, “right-cheek, left-cheek” or “coat after cloke” (Mt 5:39; Lu 6:29). They claim to bring peace and liberty to barbarians by invading their lands through proxy fighters, such as the armies of corporate-nations. While barbarians terrorize, they do awing and shocking. They destroy their homes, smack their heads, kill their children, torture, rape, and sodomize those they have captured. They further justify their method by comparing their action to the ones committed by the “few thugs” who were ironically their former allies in their preivous operations, and they look adamant to outdo those barbarians in the acts of shedding blood and inflicting pain.
Repeating the Old Habits
In the lands they occupy they kill 666 times more innocent people than their counterpart Hislamic barbarians. They excuse themselves by babtising those dead and mutilated bodies with the holy word “collatoral damage.” If one of them or an innocent person is beheaded by Hislamic radicals by sword, they complain from barbaric nature of this and go on killing spree and shatter their heads together with the heads of many collatoral lambs.
Evangelical Christians have last year got a great doze of virtual blood and passion by watching several hours of brutal beating of their idol on the screens. While their mouth uttered peace songs, they dreamed blood and more blood. They drank wine pretending to be the blood of their sacrifical lamb, they ate bread pretending to be the flesh of their idol, but pretence was not satisfying them like actual blood and flesh. They are now determined to direct their anger away from Jews to Arabs. Sucking the blood from Jews is no more feasable since Jews have cleverly taken the top seats almost everywhere. For its unending apetite to suck more semitic blood, this dangerously mutated strand signed a contract with a newly mutated blood-sucking strand of Children of Israil.
Sure, on the other hand, there are many peacemaking Christians who follow the teaching of Jesus in this regard (Matthew 5:9), such as Jehovah Witnesses and Quakers, who have consistently and bravely opposed aggression and unjustified wars. Similarly, among the Jews too there are many peaceful people bravely condemning Israel’s fascist policy. Nevertheless, the Old Testament, which is accepted by most Christians as verbatim word of God, is filled with horrific and racist instructions to commit terror, massacres and genocide that cannot be attributed to a Caring and Merciful Lord of all people. It is a great wonder that those Christians and Jews, who take this and few other Quranic verses out of their context in the hopes of misrepresenting the peaceful message of islam, do not see the sword in their own bloody eyes. I do not think that any contextual argument would be able to transform the following blood-sucking beasts to the knights of peace:
Despite their bloody and horrific holy teachings, and despite their practice of colonialism, slavery, discrimination, occupations, destructions, covert operations, productions of weapons of mass destruction, making great profits from production and sales of weapons, plunder of natural resources of earth, terrorizing nations, and massacring poor populations, Modern Crusaders and their allies are successful in portraying one billion Muslims as terrorists and themselves as people of peace and freedom!
Terrorists to the Power of 666!
Why terrorizing an entire nation, destroying their cities, killing, torturing, raping and sadomizing their children and youth in the name of “democracy and liberty” should be treated lightly? Why killing tens of thousands of civilians should be forgiven if the murderers, who are also proven congenial liars, use the magic word “collateral damage?” Why smashing the brains of children with bombs or severing their legs and arms should be considered civilized and treated differently than beheadings? Why destroying an entire neighborhood or city and massacring its population by a push of button from the sky should not be considered equally or more evil than the individual suicide bomber blowing himself or herself among his powerful enemies who snuffed out all their hope? Why surviving to push another button to kill more people should be considered a civilized action not the action of those who gave their own lives while doing the killing? How the smile of a well-fed and well-armed mass murderer be deemed more sympathetic than the pain and anger of a poor person? How can one honestly call an occupying foreign military force to be freedom fighters? How can one call the native population to be terrorists just because they are fighting against an arrogant and lethal occupation army which was mobilized against them through lies and deception? Why the children of poor Americans are used to kill the children of poor countries?
We should not favor one criminal over another because of their religion or nationality. However, state terrorism, regardless of the nationality and religion of the population, is much more cruel, dangerous, and sinister than the group or individual terrorism. In our stand against war, violence, and terrorism we must be consistent and fair. Peacemakers and promoters must also PROTEST and CONDEMN the atrocities conducted by the Evangelical-Zionist coalition in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, etc., as they condemn the atrocities committed by Sunni or Shiite radicals in Afghanistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
So, if Muslims are called terrorists because they killed several thousand civilian people in last decade, Christians and Jews must be called “terrorists to the power of 666″ since they killed hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and just recently they killed tens of thousands civilians in Iraqi, and wounded even more.
What is happening dear Edip? Why is it that I feel like talking to an answering machine? You have completely ignored my questions and like all your fellow co-religionists resort to copy-pasting. What is the relevance of these to our discussion? Where are the answers to my questions?
Now you start with a new topic. That is okay. I will dance to all your beats. Let us talk about the verse 9:29 in its context.
You claim that all the translators were drunk when translating this verse or did not know proper Arabic, but you, who have decided to become the Martin Luther of Islam and have embarked on writing a “reformist” translation of the Quran”, can translate it better.
According to Dictionary.com reform means: “To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.”
Can you please tell us by what authority are you trying to “alter, correct the errors or remove the defects” of the Quran? If the Quran is perfect, why it needs to be reformed? Are you claiming to be superior in rank and knowledge to the original author of the Quran? Do you know more than Allah? Or, are you the new Mahdi?
Since by your own admission, your translation of the Quran is reformist, it is logical to conclude that it is the least accurate of all the existing ones. You are deliberately trying to alter, correct the errors and remove the defects of the Quran according to your understanding. You are not translating it faithfully. You want to change the meaning of the Quran to suit your “reformist” agenda. Please tell us, why should we not read the Quran in Arabic directly, or in one of its more faithful non-reformist translations, and why should we rely on your “reformist” translation which is twisted and altered?
Now let us study the Sura 9. The first 29 verses of this Sura were written by Muhammad a couple of years after he conquered Mecca and they are allegedly his last “revealed” words. He did not go to hajj that year but he sent Abu Bakr in his place. Then he dispatched Ali to follow Abu Bakr and publicly announce these injunctions to the pilgrims who were composed of Muslims and pagans.
This Sura is called Bara’at or “declaration of immunity”. In this Sura he claimed Allah allowed him to break all his treaties with the Pagans. He gave the pagans four months of grace or immunity to go to their homes and after that they would be fair game for the Muslims. After these four months, they must accept Islam and pay the tithes or they would be hunted wherever they are found and put to death.
As for breaking his oaths, Muhammad had never shown any scruples. He broke his oaths any time it suited him. To justify his treachery he would often claim that others would break their oaths too and hence he is justified to do that preemptively.
They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah). 8.56
If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.”8.58
This is the typical mindset of the pathological narcissist who projects his own lack of honor on others and then feels justified to avenge for the breach of an agreement that has occurred only in his paranoiac mind.
In this Sura Muhammad said that if one among the pagans asks for asylum it should be granted so he can convert to Islam. Therefore, victims of Islam cannot ask for asylum and live their lives freely. They should only be given asylum provided they convert to Islam and pay zakat or become dhimmis and pay jizyah.
In verse 7 he makes a pledge to spare the lives of those who still had not believed in him for a period of four months. In the verse 8 he tries to justify his treachery by blaming the victims and claims that they would have done the same. But do we have any incidence where the pagans ever broke their treaties with Muhammad? None! The history of Islam is written by Muslims and shows that only Muhammad was the one who broke all his treaties, and yet in every occasion he blamed his victims accusing them of “plotting” and “contemplating” to break the treaties and thus leaving him no option, but to breach his treaties and attack them preemptively.
In verses 9 and 10 he accuses the pagans of not respecting even kinship. This is utterly a lie. The pagans loved their own sons and daughters who had fallen prey to the cult of Muhammad. They did not want to kill them and this was their vulnerability and weakness. This gave Muhammad extra power who told his followers that they should shun their own fathers and brothers who don’t believe and even kill them.
Today, this very dynamism is the cause of the weakness of the civilized world. While the civilized world is unwilling to deal with Muslims harshly and tries to respect their human rights, Muslims have no such twinges and are ready to kill any number of non-Muslims with total ease of mind. `
A good example of that is the Battle of Badr. Abu Sufyan was forewarned of Muhammad’s plan to attack the caravan under his leadership. He asked for help from the Quraish. However, he managed to escape by rerouting the caravan. When he reached Mecca he learned that the Quraish had already left to confront Muhammad. He sent an emissary asking them to return. The men of the army debated and many of them returned. But encouraged by Abul Hakam and weary of Muhammad’s constant taunts, some of them proceeded forward. Before squaring off with the Muslims, again another group of them, headed by Haakim ibn Hizam, the nephew of Khadija (who supplied food to Muhammad and his party when shut up with Abu Talib a few years earlier) is mentioned as urgent in offering this advice: “When we have fought and spilled the blood of our brethren and our kinsmen,of what use will life be to us any longer? Let us now go back, and we will be responsible for the blood-money of Amr, killed atNakhlah.” Amr was killed by Muhammad’s marauding gang a few months earlier and he was the first blood spilt in Islam. Abul Hakam demanded that the army should advance. “If we turn back now” he said, “it will surely be imputed to our cowardice.”
So you can see that despite the fact that Muslims had killed a Meccan, the Meccans still did not want to kill the Muslims for these benighted men were their own sons and brothers and this was really the main cause of their defeat in Badr. They were hesitant to kill their own kin while Muslims had no such compunction.
Interestingly, Haakim ibn Hizam was captured in the battle and despite his previous services to Muhammad was ungratefully slain.
Compare the attitude of the Meccans to what Muhammad told his followers about how they should treat their non believing kin. The Quraish, goaded as they were by the repeated attack of their caravans, and the bloodshed at Nakhlah, were yet staggered by the prospect of the battle, and nearly persuaded by their better feelings to return to Mecca. The Muslims on the other hand, though the aggressors, were hardened by the memory of former injuries, by the maxim that their faith severed all earthly ties without the circle of Islam, and by a fierce fanaticism for their Prophet’s cause.
Waqidi (p.89) states that Muhammad led the Muslims in prayers and after rising from his genuflexion, called down the curse of Allah upon the Meccans and prayed: “O Allah! Let not Abu Jahl (Abul Hakam) escape, the Pharaoh of his people! Lord, let not Zamaa escape; rather let the eyes of his father run sore for him with weeping, and become blind!” Muhammad’s hate was unrelenting, and his followers imbibed from him the same inexorable spirit.
A story is told of Abu Hodhaifa, a young Meccan believer who participated in the battle of Badr and his father was in the rank of the Quraish. It is said that when Muhammad instructed his followers to spare Abbas, his own uncle, who was also among the Quraish, Hodhaifa raised his voice, “What? Are we to slay our fathers, brothers, uncles, etc., and to spare Abbas? No, verily, but I will slay him if I find him.” Upon hearing this impertinent remark, Omar, in his usual sycophantic gesture of loyalty, unshielded his sword and looked at the Prophet for his signal to behead the ill-mannered youth at once. [Waqidi p. 75]
This threat had immediate effect. A dramatic change happened in the behavior of Hodhaifa and we see him after the battle, a completely subdued and different person. When he found his father slain and his corpse being unceremoniously dragged to be dumped into a well, he was overwhelmed and started crying. “What?” asked Muhammad, “Are you saddened for the death of your father?” “Not so, O Allah’s Prophet!” responded Hodhaifa, “I do not doubt the justice of my father’s fate; but I knew well his wise and generous heart, and I had trusted that the Lord would lead him to the faith. But now that I see him slain, and my hope destroyed! —- it is for that I grieve.” This time Muhammad was pleased with his response, comforted Abu Hodhaifa, blessed him; and said, “It is well.” [Waqidi, p. 106; Sira p. 230; Tabari, p. 294]
The displeasure of Muhammad at Hodhaifa’s irreverence in defying his word and the swift reaction of Omar threatening to slay him on the spot, were such powerful stimuli that Hodhaifa immediately changed his demeanor and a day later he even saw the “justice” in his father’s murder. Once Hodhaifa lost his father, in whose killing he had conspired by ganging up with his murderers, then there was no going back for him. He had to justify what he had done and rationalize the slaying of his father. Coming to his senses and facing his own guilty conscience would have been painfully mortifying. He had to continue in the path that he had taken to justify his actions.
As these historic evidences demonstrate, Muslims were the aggressors not the pagans and it was Muhammad who told his followers to hate and kill their own kin and not the other way round.
After 9/11 the world was stupefied to see how unabashedly Muslims committed the crime and blamed their victims. However, this is a sunna set by their prophet. This is the way the Muslim mind works.
But of course since all these historic facts don’t conform to your self-made “religion of peace” you prefer to deceive yourself and ease your conscience by denying their validity. Yet what would you say to the following verses of the Quran that confirm the above and the fact that Muhammad told his followers to hate even their own fathers and brothers if they don’t believe? “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” 9:23
Muhammad repeatedly instructed his followers not to seek the companionship of the unbelievers 31:15 and even made his imaginary deity say: “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.” 9:113
Muhammad’s paranoia was so intense that he told his followers “those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile;” 8.72 and he went as far as telling them that if some of the believers return renegades “seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;” 4.89
You have chosen the path of self deception and denial of historic facts. You reject wholesale all the incriminating tales about Muhammad, (yet keeping the ones that are not incriminating) but what do you say to these hate mongering verses of the Quran?
Continuing with Sura Bara’at, verses 11and 12 say that only if the unbelievers convert to Islam they should be taken as brethrens (in faith) but if they decide to exercise freedom of belief they should be fought and restrained. The verse 13 spews more hate and goads the believers to be resolute in their enmity to the unbelievers and the verse 14 makes it clear that the unbelievers should be fought and punished by the hands of the Muslims. This is the verse that OBL and other terrorists use to justify their crimes against humanity. This verse makes clear that the punishment for disbelief is not left to God, but rather it should be meted by the Muslims. This answers all the hypocrite apologists of Islam who come to the West and deceitfully try to portray Islam as a religion of peace, claiming that the terrorists are misinterpreting the Quran.
In the verses 17 to 19 Muhammad prohibits the pagans to visit or maintain the grand Mosque of Ka’ba. This was the first time in the history of that temple that religious apartheid was ordained. For thousands of years the Meccans had allowed the followers of all faiths to come to Ka’ba and worship together their own gods in amity. That changed when Muhammad came to power and inaugurated an era marked by religious bigotry and hate, which has lasted up to this day.
The verses 25 and 26 talk about the defeat of Muslims in Hunain, despite their great numbers and then their victory, the details of this event is in the Sira and these verses really don’t belong to this Sura. How would we know what happened in Hunain and with whom Muslims fought without consulting the Sira? Isn’t this another proof that the Quran without Hadith and Sira is incomprehensible?
Here is the entire Sura Bara’at. The rest of the Sura is called Tauba and it refers to another unrelated event.
|A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-|
|Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood) but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him.|
|And an announcement from God and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, – that God and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.|
|(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.|
|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 God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.|
|If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.|
|How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous.|
|How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.|
|The Signs of God have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.|
|In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.|
|But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, – they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.|
|But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, – fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.|
|Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!|
|Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,|
|And still the indignation of their hearts. For God will turn (in mercy) to whom He will; and God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.|
|Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though God did not know those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends and protectors except God, His Apostle, and the (community of) Believers? But God is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do.|
|It is not for such as join gods with God, to visit or maintain the mosques of God while they witness against their own souls to infidelity. The works of such bear no fruit: In Fire shall they dwell.|
|The mosques of God shall be visited and maintained by such as believe in God and the Last Day, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, and fear none (at all) except God. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance.|
|Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in God and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of God? They are not comparable in the sight of God: and God guides not those who do wrong.|
|Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in God’s cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of God: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).|
|Their Lord doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of gardens for them, wherein are delights that endure:|
|They will dwell therein for ever. Verily in God’s presence is a reward, the greatest (of all).|
|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.|
|Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight – are dearer to you than God, or His Apostle, or the striving in His cause; – then wait until God brings about His decision: and God guides not the rebellious.|
|Assuredly God did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.|
|But God did pour His calm on the Apostle and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith.|
|Again will God, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.|
|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 God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise.|
|Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, 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.|
Now let us discuss the verse 9:29
- قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ
|“Furthermore, note that I suggest COMPENSATION instead of Arabic word Jizya.”|
Who are you to “suggest” such thing? How can you suggest that one word should mean something else? You obviously have taken the entire Quran as a book of jokes and you allow yourself to “suggest” meanings that are not there.
To justify your twisted translation you wrote:
|“The meaning of Jizya has been distorted as a perpetual tax on non-Muslims, which was invented long after Muhammad to further the imperialistic agenda of Sultans or Kings.”|
On what you base such claim? How do you know that Muhammad did not exact Jizyah tax on his subdued victims? The hadith and sira tell us Muhammad levied heavy Jizyah on his victims. We are told that for example in Kheibar he usurped their land and allowed the survivors to stay, provided they work the land and pay 50% of the proceeds to him. You deny all these because they don’t validate your fantasies about Muhammad. How can you prove to me that Muhammad did not demand Jizyah and all that was invented by the Sultans or Kings? When I say Muhammad charged Jizyah I quote various books of history written by Muslim scholars. Tell me on what do you base your wanton claim? Why should we reject the historians of Islam and accept your fantasies? You want us to throw out all the books of hadith and history because they were written a hundred or two hundred years after Muhammad but you expect us to believe in your words 1400 years later?
The verse 29 starts with قَـتِلُواْ This can only be translated as fight and not fight (back). It is an offensive order and not defensive. It is qatilu not dafeu. The verse goes on to say fight them until they pay الْجِزْيَةَ Jizyah. This word derives from Jaza. It means fine and punishment. The plural of that is mojazat. It does not mean compensation. The Arabic word for compensation is mokafat.
Your “Reformist Translation of the Quran” is not translation but “reformation” or in other words misrepresentation and soft selling of the Quran by twisting the truth.
According to wikipedia.org Jizyah is the Arabic language translation of Poll tax or “head tax”, a tax imposed on male individuals of other faiths living under Muslim rule.
Jizyah was applied to every free male member of the People of Book, non-Muslim communities living in lands under Muslim rule. The jizyah was levied in the time of Muhammad on vassal tribes under Muslim protection, including Jews in Khaybar, Christians in Najran and Zoroastrians in Bahrain.
Give me one reason why should we reject all these historic facts and explanations and accept your? Obviously you want to rewrite the history by reinventing it. And your only source is your fantasy.
The verse 28 of this sura says:
يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلاَ يَقْرَبُواْ الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـذَا وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَآءَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ
O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikin are impure. So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.)
Can you tell us how are you going to translate this in your “Reformist Translation”? The meaning of this verse is clear. Please let us see how you twisted it in your version of the Quran.
After mistranslating the word Jizya you made the following statement:
|“Unfortunately, the distortion in the meaning of the verse above and the practice of collecting a special tax from Christians and Jews, contradict the basic principle of the Quran that there should not be compulsion in religion and there should be freedom of belief and expression (2:256; 4:90; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21,22). Since taxation based on religion creates financial duress on people to convert to the previliged religion, it violates this important Quranic principle. Dividing a population that united under a social contract (constitution) into previliged groups based on their religion contradicts many principles of the Quran, including justice, peace, and brotherhood/sisterhood of all humanity.”|
What you have failed to see is the fact that the Quran was written over a period of 23 years and the early writings of Muhammad are very distinct from latter ones. When Muhammad started his prophetic career, he had no earthly powers and the verses that he wrote during that period are conciliatory and tolerant. During the early phase of his mission, he sounded almost like Christ. Well, not quite. His words were asinine and bereft of love.
In the verse 2.256 he says:
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error. And
If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! 10:99 Or
The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it) 18:29.
But these are the Meccan verses. He wrote these verses when he was weak. It would have been impossible for his handful of followers to wage war against thousands of unbelievers and win. In these verses the cunning prophet contented himself by telling his followers that the unbelievers will be severely punished in the afterlife as the verse 18:29 makes it clear where he tries to impress and frighten his gullible followers with his bogus lies about hellfire and his bugbear deity.
We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!
How can any sane person believe that the maker of this universe is a sadist with this much insanity and penchant for torture is beyond comprehension!
However, when Muhammad became powerful and managed to fool a sizable number of ignorant men who rallied around him and who were ready to kill at his behest, his “revelations” underwent a new twist and he took it upon himself to bring upon those who denied his claim the severest punishments.
So while in Mecca he said “Speak good to men… ” 2:83, “be patient with what they say” 20:103 , 73:10 , and preached about the virtues of Abel saying to Cain: “If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds” 5:28, when he went to Medina and became powerful he revealed his true self and a different kind of message. There he wrote: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you” 9:123 ; “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. ”8:12 , “Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him” 3:85 , “Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them” 66:9 , “When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” 47:4, “Rouse the Believers to the fight” 8:65,“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies”. 8:60.
In fact most of the Quran is filled with such violent verses. Definitely, the verses written in Medina contradict those written in Mecca. Which ones should we take? Logic says that if I tell you one thing now and another thing the next day, you should follow my last instructions. The latest verses of the Quran are those written in Medina and they are the harsh and violent ones. The very last sura of the Quran is Sura 9, the sura we discussed above. This sura is basically the Will and Testament of Muhammad. If any part of the Quran is in contradictions with what this sura says, it is obvious that the latest words of Muhammad (i,e. sura 9) should override the previous ones.
Dr. Muhsin Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English writes:
“Allah revealed in Sura Bara’at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon “the fighting” against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are STRONG and have the ability to fight against them. So at first “the fighting” was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory “[Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.]
Q 9:5 reads: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them“
According to Dr. Khan in 9:5 Allah ordered Muhammad to cancel all covenants and to fight the pagans, the Jews even the Christians. This is in contrast to what Muhammad wrote earlier.
“Thou wilt find the nearest of them in love to the believers [Muslims} are those who say ‘We are Christians'” (5:82)
Dr. Khan continues:
The “Mujahideen who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (alone and not for any other deity) and that the word is Allah’s (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be upper most.”
So first it was “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:265) and then
“O who believe! shall I direct you to a commerce that which will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Apostle (Mohammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That will be better for you, if you but knew. If you do so He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into gardens of Eternity – that is the great success” (61:10-12)
Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary academic, does not see in 2:256 and 9:73 a case of abrogation but a case of delaying or postponing the command to fight the infidels. To support his view he quoted Imam Suyuti the author of Itqan Fi ‘Ulum al- Qur’an who wrote:
“The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient. [ Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut , 1983, p. 269.]
Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said:
“Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims.”[ibid p. 270]
And Nahas writes:
“the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. (There is no compulsion if religion) Some said: ‘It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q. 9:73 ‘O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them.’ Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of authority.”[ al-Nahas, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p.80. See also Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, A-Nnasikh wal-Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, p.42.]
Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi writes:
“Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)” On the authority of Ga’far ar-Razi from Rabi’ Ibn ‘Ons, from ‘Abil-‘Aliyah who said: This is the first verse that was revealed in the Qur’an about fighting in the Madina. When it was revealed the prophet used to fight those who fight with him and avoid those who avoid him, until Sura 9 was revealed. And so is the opinion of ‘Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn ‘Aslam who said this verse was cancelled by 9:5 “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”[ bn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, P.27]
What these eminent scholars of Islam say make sense. Logically, the latter revelations override and cancel the previous ones, if they contradict each other. But what you say makes no sense. Your claim is informed by your zealotry and blind faith and not by facts.
You also copy pasted an argument you had with Christians. Although I find it irrelevant to our debate, I would like to point out the fact that you yourself are guilty of the same sins you blame your Christian opponents. Let us go over the six points you raised:
1) You are the one who denies the fact that the Quran is NOT self-sufficient. I asked you a few questions about the Quran. Explain them without referring to haidth. Explain how you know Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. and declared his message at 40 without referring to haidth. You can’t do that without the aid of the hadith and the sira and therefore, your claim that ALL haidths are garbage and the Quran is self-sufficient is balderdash.
2) It is you who reduce your references to smaller portion, take a few abrogated verses and disregard the rest of the Quran where it clearly calls for blood and violence. It is you who are scared to show the ugly part of the Quran for the fear of being shown that the man you have accepted to be a prophet was a psychopath. Let us say the Quran has also a good part. Is there a book, including Mein Kampf, that is completely bereft of any good part? What you fail to see is that a few “good” verses in the Quran are not enough to call it a divine book. A book of a perfect God should not have even one ugly or imperfect verse in it. And yet we find hundreds of ugly and terrible verses in the Quran.
3) It is you who twist the meaning of some of the words and suggest that they should be interpreted differently to suit your “reformist” agenda. To fulfill your agenda, you have sacrificed the truth.
4) It is you who selectively deny some of the hadiths but cling to others because you realize without them you can’t even establish the existence of Muhammad.
5) The argument used in point 5 is a logical fallacy called tu quoque. By using this fallacy you try to justify the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad and his followers with the wrongs committed by the followers of other religions. The followers of other religions were mere followers. Their actions should not reflect on their religion just as the action of the Muslims should not reflect on Islam. Followers can be misguided. We are not blaming the Muslims but Muhammad himself. If Muhammad was a prophet of God, he should have known and done better.
6) In point 6, again you attack the Christians and their conducts. Even if your accusations were true, how would this justify the crimes of Muhammad or the violence and absurdities of the Quran?
The rest of your message is a misplaced copy-paste. It has nothing to do with our discussion. It is a discussion you had with Christians. Why you bring that up here is not clear to me. But since you mentioned it let me dismiss it as another tu quoque fallacy. In that discussion you are trying to vilify Christianity and Judaism to get away with the sins of Muhammad. Suppose whatever you say about these religions is true. Would that prove that Muhammad was a prophet of God? Muhammad said Jesus and Moses were prophets of God. If you show they were not, then doesn’t this automatically make Muhammad a liar? Irrespective of the fact that you succeeded or not, by simply questioning their prophethoood you are challenging Muhammad and his authority and you are not a Muslim.
At this stage, I request you to please come back and debate the points that I am discussing, in the same way I am debating the points that you raise. If all you can do is copy paste irrelevant articles and rehash what you wrote in other occasions, I don’t see any debate. This is supposed to be a debate. If you are reluctant even to engage with me, if all you can do is copy paste irrelevant material and expect me to answer them without you contesting my points, is there any point in continuing? Weren’t you the person who accused the Christians of “parroting”? Aren’t you doing the same here?
You seem to have run out of arguments before we even engage and hence with these tedious copy pasting and filibustering tactics you try to bore the readers and find your way out of this discussion. Please prove to us this is not the case.
If this is what you intend, I suggest you would be saving face more by not responding at all. Dr. Zakir Naik, Prof. Michael Sells and Prof. John Esposito are far better now for not responding to me than if they did and failed to engage in coherent arguments. If you are gasping for relief, you may stop, but if you truly want to debate please don’t burden our readers with long tedious and irrelevant copy pastes.
Finally, I would like to speak to your heart. If you can’t defend Islam, why you cling to this sinking ship? Islam is a lie and this I have proven in numerous articles, time and again. Why hang to a doctrine that is so evil and so false? I earnestly urge you to leave Islam. You can’t save Islam nor can you reform it. Islam is based on total lies. It is not a religion of God, but a cult created by a psychopath to control and dominate the gullible. Its fruits speak for themselves.
I call upon all the Muslims to leave Islam. Islam is a lie. The sooner we face this truth the sooner we save our own souls and this battered world. By adhering to this cult we are lending our tacit support to the terrorists. We are committing a sin against our own soul and against our own children. You are responsible for what you believe. Do not be an instrument of hate and destruction. Be an instrument of love and unity of mankind. Let us rebuild this wrecked world together. Let us mend our tattered brotherhood. We are all brothers and sisters in Humanity. You know the maxim of “divide and rule”. How can you let yourself to become a victim of this evil ploy? The world is not divided between Muslims and Kafirs. It is not created as dar al Harb and dar al Islam. This is one planet for all of us to share, to cherish and to love.
Enough with insanity! Enough with hatred! Muhammad was a liar. Let us wake up from our slumber. Let us leave this doctrine of hate aside and let us step into the world of love and light. Let us do it now for tomorrow is too late.
In the forum of this site, one of the Submitters, follower of the same doctrine advocated by our friend Edip Yuksel, posted the information that I provided when I purchased the domain of this site for everyone to see.    Of course I had the presence of mind not to make public my real address and telephone number when I registered the domain. The information is not correct or I would have not seen this day.
The person that posted that information, thought that the information is correct and since he himself did not have the means to deal with me according to the Islamic principles, he hoped one of his jihadi brothers would see that and would take care of me. Who else could possibly be interested to learn about my whereabouts?
Ironically, this individual claims that as a Submitter his version of Islam is the reformed one and that the followers of this sect are humanized, that unlike their Sunni and Shiite coreligionists they don’t kill the apostates and reject all the barbarities of Islam denouncing them as the products of the hadith and that as the “Quran-only” Muslims, they are different.
To a person who does not know Islam and is not aware that the brutality of this religion stems from the Quran itself, this group seems to present a shimmer of hope. The Submitters, familiar with the Western mindset, know exactly what their audience wants to hear and they tune their instruments accordingly.
However, although dissimulation is an Islamic art, not all of them are good at it. Often they do and say things that reveal their true nature. For example, this Submitter with the illusion of endangering my life, thought that by revealing that fake information about me to the public he is going to give a hand to his terrorist brothers to assassinate me. When asked to explain his motives he wrote:
|Apostasy is not what gets one killed. It’s a combination of being controversial and having a high profile.Now if what you presented was not couched in so much hatred – and what you have written above is evidence of your single minded hatred of all Islam – because you make it patently clear regarding your disrespect for the common holy text of all Muslims – then you might be able to do what you do and not be so controversial.
However your post above is enough to convince me that you are absolute in your hatred and that your posts about love and mending are hollow.
Most people give you the benefit of the doubt and wish you guidance but I have an altogether different prayer in relation to you Ali –
O Lord, you have given Ali Sina and his followers freedom of speech and action in this world. O Lord, they only use them to repulse others from Your path. O Lord, wipe out their actions, and harden their hearts to prevent them from believing, until they see the painful retribution.”
So it is clear that Submitters, just like all other Muslims, think it is perfectly justifiable to kill someone if he is “controversial” i.e. speaks against Islam and has high profile.
This reckless behavior brought the condemnation of the FFI members. Of course that information was phony, but he did not know. When he posted that information, he did it with the intention to put my life in danger.
When our dear Edip Yuksel, the grand Imam of the “reformed” and “humanized” Submitters learned about the incident, at first he thought the information was leaked by a Sunni member of the forum and he strongly condemned it. He wrote:
|“Exposing” or more accurately unveiling the identity or whereabouts of a person who is out there not to create a personal cult, but to debate important theological issues with great political and social ramification is irrelevant.But, it is more than irrelevant, it is irresponsible
So, I condemn the acts of those who want to indulge in detective or police work, rather than intellectual debate.
If I want freedom and security for myself, I have to want the same thing for others, including my enemies who are not in act and mindset of physical hostility. To do the opposite is hypocricy.
I believe that Ali Sina’s voice, regardless of its truth-value, is precious and should be protected. We cannot find truth without people like Ali Sina.
Personally, I do not care a bit, whether Evilgelical organizations, Zionist organizations, CIA, or any other power pays or uses Ali Sina. To me, it is not relevant and important, since Ali Sina is raising important issues, and voicing important problems with a religion that is followed by more than a billion people.
We are all brothers and sisters from Adam and Eve. We cannot be muslims (submitters to God alone, and men of peace) if we do not act like humans. To be a human, and care about the life of every single human being is a prerequisite of being a muslim. I have no connection with those who ignore and violate this sacred bond among human beings, a bond that was established by our Lord and Creator in the moment and fabric of our creation.
I want people read my position, which I argue with passion that it is also the position of the Quran, regarding the freedom of faith, opinion, philosophy, etc, and their expression.
Well how can you argue with that? Here our Edip Yuksel, the grand theologian and arguably the ultimate authority of the Sect of Submitters, the group that thinks only they are the true Muslims and other Muslims are misguided and heretics to the extent that they disparagingly call them “Hislamists”, (probably, hadithi Islamists) is reassuring us that he is on the side of freedom of speech and condemns the “irresponsible and even evil” act of whoever revealed my information. I was so moved with this gesture that I was about to write something praising him for his humanistic stance. But as I checked again I was surprised to find that he had retracted already and in fact he even issued an apology to the culprit once he learned that the person who had tried to get me killed was no one but one of his own sect members.
|Apology to Mirror of Truth:Without knowing the real nature of your so-called “exposition”, I reacted immediately and condemned your action with strong language. When I first read the reactions of others, I thought that you had indeed announced a privately held information about Ali Sina and thus endangered his safety and security.
However, now, I learn that what you posted was available for public. If it is the case, which now it seems that it is the case, then you did nothing wrong, and I apologize for condemning that action.
Though your posting did nothing to endanger the life of Ali Sina, since it was himself who publicized that fake yet revealing address in the first place, I still believe that it was an irrelevant posting. You gave an excuse to some trolls who took advantage of your posting and twisted and depicted it differently. They created a storm in an empty tea spoon. I am learning more about the nature of this site and its fanatic supporters and actors. They are just making too much noise…
Yes indeed that information was not private, it was fake information and my life was not put danger. However, the person who posted it in the forum did not know that. What counts here is the intention. His intension was to get me assassinated. And that is exactly what I wanted to unmask about these self proclaimed “reformed” and “humanized” Muslims. In fact he confirmed his intension when he stated that those who speak against Islam, (are controversial) and have high profile have to be put to death.
This was an important discovery. Despite their claim to be against terrorism, the Submitters also endorse terrorism. No Muslim can be against terrorism because he would be against the Quran and Islam.
Now, let me answer to the first letter of Edip Yuksel, who said “I stand for freedom of expression” and added that “If God Almighty let even Satan express himself and let people choose whatever religion, opinion, philosophy, or faith they want, then it would be against God’s system and will to create a hostile environment and conditions that would suppress dissent and oppress some people because of their belief or disbelief.”
Very well said! But is this what the Quran teaches? In round V of this debate I quoted the Sura Bara’at in which we saw Muhammad giving four months of immunity to the pagans to convert or else prepare to be slain wherever they are found. We also know that Muhammad expelled the Jews and the Christians out of Arabia and prohibited the access of the unbelievers to the holy mosque in Mecca. These were all expressed in the Sura Bara’at. But there are more verses that make it very clear that no other religion but Islam is acceptable neither by God nor by his messenger. In fact this is the whole theme of the Quran and I only quote a few of them.
3:90 “Verily, those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief – never will their repentance be accepted [because they repent only by their tongues and not from their hearts]. And they are those who are astray.
The above verse reveals the vengeful nature of Muhammad – a characteristic shared by all those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. Once you reject a narcissist he can’t forgive you and the above verse fully supports that prognosis. The verse makes it clear that repentance will not be accepted because it is only by tongue and not from the heart. Of course this does not apply to the repentance after death because then one can supposedly see the truth and his repentance cannot be insincere. In the above verse Muhammad is saying that HE (Muhammad) would not accept the repentance of those who rejected HIM. In the succeeding verse he says that the repentance of a disbeliever will not be accepted even by God. Are we to believe that the maker of this universe is just as psychopathic and vengeful as his petulant prophet?
Verse 3:85 is self explanatory:
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
So how can we still believe that Islam allows freedom of belief and expression?
The following verses are further indications of Muhammad’s intolerance of and his inability to deal with freedom of thought let alone dissent,
2: 27 Those who break Allah’s Covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder what Allah Has ordered to be joined, and do mischief on earth: These cause loss (only) to themselves.
2:39, “But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.”
In the following verse he even instructs his followers to cut their ties with their friends and other Muslims “till they forsake their homes” and leave Mecca joining the renegades in Medina.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,”
All cult leaders separate people from their families and they often assemble them in a compound so they can control and indoctrinate them and they do not tolerate dissent or desertion. After Muhammad arrived in Medina, he transformed that town into his compound. He even changed the name of the city from Yathrib to Medinatul Nabi (Prophet’s Town). Interestingly, Jim Jones created his own town too calling it “Jonestown”.
Here are more verses that show violence and murder of disbelievers is part of the Quran and Edip’s claim that Islam allows freedom of expression is baseless.
9:66, Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin
9:74, 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.
47:25,26 Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them, the Evil One has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes.
The above verses are all about the apostates and dissenters. But there are numerous other verses that condemn the disbelief. Here are a few:
2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them
2:193, And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression
2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you
3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah
4:48 “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.”
4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause – Thou art held responsible only for thyself – and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.
5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
It is important to clarify that according to Muhammad anyone who opposes Islam is deemed to be “waging war against Allah and his messenger”. Therefore, according to this verse I am waging war against Allah and his messenger, even though all I do is write against Islam and expose its deceitful nature. I am only exercising my freedom of expression. I am fighting an ideology of hate with my pen. Nonetheless, I am a candidate to be killed or crucified, and my hands and feet be cut. This is the kind of punishment that Muslims must exact on those who speak opprobriously against their religion. You can’t criticize Islam. This is the only ideology that regards itself above criticism and provides no proof. With all these verses how are we supposed to believe that in Islam freedom of thought and expression are acceptable?
There are more verses that prescribe gruesome acts of violence and torture against those who reject Islam and like me oppose it.
8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them
8:15-16, O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!
8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself.
8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers
Let us make it clear that Muslims were never under attack. These wars that Muhammad is mentioning were offensive wars initiated by Muhammad himself. In fact war is a misnomer; they were raids. They were called ghazwah, which means raid, ambush or sudden attack. Muhammad hardly ever announced his plans to attack his victims. He took them by surprise when they were out attending their farms, looking after their herds or taking care of their daily business, when they were unarmed and unprepared. This is how a tiny army of heavily armed Muslims was able to slaughter a huge population of unprepared and unorganized civilians.
At first even his followers were taken by throes of conscience. But soon they were reassured, first by divine confirmation revealed to Muhammad and then by the booty and women that they captured. Thus their conscience was put to rest by their greed of the booty and the rewards of the next world.
The Sura 8, from which the above verses are taken is called Al-Aanfal (spoils of war, booty) and it was written in conjunction with the Battle of Badr. This battle was a raid staged by Muhammad on a Caravan carrying the goods of the merchants of the Quraish from Syria to Mecca. This Sura is a pep talk of Muhammad, on behalf of his Allah to his marauding gang. It is not about self defense. Muslims were always the aggressors. Today we are in war with Muslims. But as usual they are the aggressors. They have started it and they are the ones who are not letting it go.
The entire Quran reveals the aggressive nature of Islam but there is a hadith that sheds light on the fact that these wars were not only offensive but also unannounced and unexpected. The Submitters have taken the position to reject all the hadiths that they don’t like while they cherry-pick the ones that are not incriminatory, to establish the existence of Muhammad. The following haidth is for the benefit of the readers and I am not asking my opponent to respond to it or accept it. What I quoted from the Quran is enough to show the violent nature of Islam and there is no such thing as freedom of expression or belief in Islam. Here is that hadith:
Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.” Book 019, Number 4292:
While Edip is not required to acknowledge or respond to the above hadith, he must answer for the following verse that confirms the above hadith,
7:4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. (Pickthal)
With all these evidences and by what we find in the Quran, we can conclude that killing the apostates is very much in sync with what Muhammad taught, and raiding civilians and murdering them was the way Islam expanded. We have also established that the Submitters or the “Quran Only” Muslims follow these very violent verses of the Quran that other Muslims follow and their talk of reformation is nothing but propaganda. When push comes to shove a Muslim is a Muslim and he will do what Muhammad instructed him to do.
Islam cannot be reformed. The violence of Islam is not limited to the hadith. The hadith merely reports the details of the brutalities committed by Muhammad. The whole Quran is replete with violence and terror. The reason these Quran Only Muslims don’t want to accept a part of the hadiths is not because they are reformed or humanized or they don’t agree with them. It is not because they are not violent or would not commit murder in the name of their religion. They are merely practicing another teaching of Muhammad and that is “deception”. They perfectly know that Islam without the hadith is meaningless. That is why when a person like Edip Yuksel writes a book on Islam he goes to the hadith and sira to take all the details of the life of Muhammad. But when it comes to other less savory tales of his prophet that portray him as an assassin, a warlord, a mass murderer, a lecher or a pedophile, he refuses to accept them as authentic. This is hypocrisy. This is deception. But nonetheless, it is a facet of the same Islam.
The sooner the world comes to the realization that Islam is not a religion like the ones we know, that it should not be accepted or tolerated, that it must be condemned and rejected, the sooner we will be able to end this insanity and save lives.
Edip also wrote:
|Ali Sina, by acknowledging today that he is open to make alliance with ANY group against Hislam and islam, did not surprise me. Just by looking at the position of his supporters one must be stupid not to understand where he is standing.|
Edip is absolutely right. I am not only willing, but striving to bring all the people of the world together and make them see that humanity is under attack by a common enemy who does not see us as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, or Animists but merely as kafirs and as such deserving to die. Their enmity is with Mankind.
You may say but Muslims are humans too. Is having the human appearance enough to make us humans? The sign of humanity is in our humanness. No person who believes in those inhumane teachings of the Quran that calls for killing and murder of innocent people deserves to be called human. Therefore, this is a war between humanity and a spiritually underdeveloped subhuman species. The actions of Muslims are barbaric. Their thoughts are beastly. They have no human conscience and they are preying on us humans. So this is a war between humans and Muslims.
I see the role of FFI (faithfreedom International) as a catalyst or a peacemaker. This is a time that we humans must put aside our differences and come together to fight Islam. This anti human ideology of hate, this last bastion of evil, this great menace to the survival of humanity must be defeated or we all lose our humanity.
The job of FFI is twofold. One is to educate the humans and make them see the gravity of our time. Make them aware of the danger that is hovering over our head and make them realize that our only hope for survival is to stick together and fight our common enemy together. The debate about whose religion is better must cease. The finger pointing and fault finding must end. Today, we all must jointly face our enemy and destroy it before it can destroy us.
Our other task is to rescue the humans among the Muslims and make them enter into the fold of humanity. The majority of Muslims are salvageable. They are humans just like the rest of us. They abhor killing and violence. Their hearts are filled with love for the rest of the people. They are us. These are the people we have to reach and rescue. Time is of the essence and we can’t afford waiting for another day. Everyone must do his or her share and everyone must reach out to these good people caught in the claws of Islam and set them free. Those who still cling to Islam and cherish these savageries, who rejoice when they hear their brothers have murdered innocent people, are not humans. They are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. They are the enemies of mankind. They must be stopped. These wolves must be separated from the sheep and sent back to where they came from.
Interestingly, when I wrote this, the same Submitter who thought I should be killed because what I say about Islam is controversial highlighted my words in red and wrote the following:
|Here is the real hypocrisy of Ali in a couple of sentences.
Ali wants to switch roles – he wants to take on the role of those he declares hatred for. He wants to do the things he allegedly hates. That is clear-cut unadulterated hypocrisy. Where is the Golden Rule here?
In this debate there is only one hypocrite – and he is Ali Sina – and his posts make that abundantly clear.
Any reasonable person should see this.
Ali Sina is an exposed hypocrite.
Isn’t this an admission that Quran’s treatment of non-Muslims is inhumane and barbaric? All I said is to treat Muslims the way the Quran says the kafirs should be treated and this Muslim was noticeably upset. He highlighted my words to show how heartless and hypocrite I am. Doesn’t this prove that Muslims know very well that the treatment of the kafirs according to the Quran is barbaric and unjust? Doesn’t this prove that they lie when they say Islam is a tolerant religion? Do we need more proof? The same person added:
|The ‘dhimmitude’ that Ali depicts is unfortunately a reality that I agree must be eliminated.My point was that Ali detests and is full of hatred for the present treatment of ‘dhimmi’ – it is a hated thing.
But he is advocating this hated thing for others as “punishment”.
Of course I detest the way non believers are treated in Islam. Oddly, this Muslim see is too. However, isn’t the Quran responsible for this inhumane treatment? We already quoted so many verses from the Quran that talk about the slaying of the unbelievers. The verse 9:29 that we read in Sura Bara’t establishes the way the Christians and Jews or the so called people of the Book should be treated. Lt’s read it again.
“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, 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”.
I would like to pose this question to Edip. Do you agree with your friend that the treatment of the dhimmis in Islam is wrong and dhimitude must be eliminated? Do you agree that the verse 9:29 is unjust?
Edip Yuksel is no longer interested defending Islam He wants to talk about me instead. He wrote:
|He (Ali Sina) has no integrity in his position, since he justifies some atrocities, terror, murder, deception and opposes some based on the identity or religion of their doers. So, he already lost his claim of being a HUMANIST; he is an Evangelical Crusader!|
All I am asking is that Muslims in non-Muslim countries be dealt with in accordance to their own holy book. You say this is justifying atrocities, terror, murder, deception based on religion. You say by advocating the Islamic tenets I have no integrity and have lost my claim of being a humanist. If you truly believe this is the case why you defend the Quran? Why you think non-Muslims should be subjected to these inhumane teachings? Your fellow Submitter protested:
|What Ali espouses is not the Golden Rule at all, but the tit-for-tat rule.Note that the tit-for-tat rule advocates- “Do unto others as they do unto you” – and this is Ali’s position. A position that the “church of Satan” holds dearly.
The Golden Rule is rather – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Ali is therefore either confused in relation to the Golden Rule or a liar.
No, I am neither confused nor a liar. I want Muslims to have a taste of the same medicine they prescribe for others. This Muslim is of the opinion that dealing with Muslims the way his prophet said non-Muslims should be treated is “tit-for-tat” and a position of the “church of Satan”. He says the “The Golden Rule is rather – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Isn’t that something? He is fully aware that the way Islam treats others is utterly inhumane and satanic.
When I read the Quran and learned the evilness of this book, I could no longer accept Muhammad as a prophet of God. I denounced him as an impostor and set out to expose the deception of Islam. I thought if I don’t want to be treated like a kafir or a dhimmi, then I don’t want to be a Muslim. Our Muslim friend also does not want to be treated like a kafir or a dhimmi, but instead of denouncing this sick ideology of hate and apartheid, instead of following the Golden Rule, he is asking the non-Muslims to live by the Golden Rule and treat Muslims the way they want to be treated, while as a Muslim he is pushing his violent and discriminatory Quranic agenda.
This is the problem with Islam and Muslims. They demand that you treat them the way you want to be treated and live by the Golden Rule but they don’t see themselves bound by the same rule. They feel that by virtue of having embraced the “religion of truth”, they are the master race and hence entitled to treat you like animal, slay you, subdue you, rape your women, enslave you and reduce you into dhimitude. It is utterly shocking that a true Muslim feels no compunction in doing all that. To assume that Muslims have human thoughts and emotions is a gross mistake. They are simply bereft of human feelings. If they are true Muslims they rejoice and celebrate when they hear the news of your death. Spiritually, Muslims are so much underdeveloped that you could say they belong another species..
The minds of Muslims reflect the mind of their prophet, and Muhammad being a psychopath narcissist, genuinely believed that he is entitled to special treatment. His followers evince the same pathology. Muslims, truly believe that it is their right to come to the West, to use the benefits offered to them, take advantage of all the bounties provided to them thanks to their tax-paying hosts and return nothing in exchange. There is not a single Muslim who would question the absurdity of the fact that non-Muslims are not allowed to practice or preach their faith in Islamic countries. If you ask them why non-Muslims cannot visit Mecca or Medina, they look at you as if you have asked the most absurd question. Muslims treat non-Muslims with disdain, but they expect to be received with utmost respect and even preferentially and they feel no compunction in that. You can never win the hearts and minds of Muslims by being kind to them. They consider your kindness and generosity as their right and your duty.
No my respected and erudite friend Edip! You are mistaken. I do have integrity and that is why I am not a Muslim. I merely say deal with Muslims the way the Quran prescribes the non-believers should be dealt with. Why are you so upset? Don’t you believe in the justice of the Quran? Don’t you think the Quran is merciful?
I am not an evangelical crusader. I am a human, fighting for the human cause. I see all humans as my brothers and sisters. But if someone thinks I must die for what I say, I will have to defend myself. Between Theo Van Gogh and his assassin, Mohammed Bouyeri, I choose to side Theo Van Gogh.
Van Gogh was butchered because a subhuman fellow coreligionist of yours believed in the very book you call “miracle”. He did what that psychopath you call prophet told him to do. Now we have a confession form the Submitters who also believe those who criticize Islam must be killed.
This man and many more are beheaded because some of your subhuman coreligionists believe in this verse:
8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.
Why? Don’t you think non-Muslims should start applying these wonderful teachings on Muslims? So please stop this deception. Come back to the fold of humanity. Denounce the Quran and the savagery that it teaches. This is a satanic book. If you don’t want to be treated the way the Quran says non-Muslims should be treated, why do you follow this book? Abraham Lincoln said: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master”. Lincoln was a good man. He understood the Golden Rule and he lived by it. Are you capable of doing the same?
Edip Yuksel wrote:
|You fell for it, Ali Sina. Indeed, on your face. I posted that article to provoke you to make such an attack; a knee-jerk attack. You demonstrated that I did not underestimate your “mistunderestimation”. Let me explain and offer you first-aid:|
You wrote a book quoting all those details about the life of Muhammad and you say that was a trap for me? In that case this trap probably was misplaced because it looked like you fell on it yourself.
|Now identify all those extraneous information that do not exist in the Quran, and take them out of my article, and you will see that nothing would be lost regarding my claims and arguments about the last prophet’s character, mission and message. If I do the same thing to your previous claims and arguments about Muhammad’s character, mission and message, nothing would stand. That is a big difference. How could I have accomplished something like this? What are you missing so that you are confusing knick with knack? Why you are not able to distinguish the hay from grain? Discard the eyeglass of hatred and fanaticism and this simple issue will become as clear as Tucson’s sky.Let me put in other words so that some of your fans too will understand: Replace 570 with any other date, or replace Mecca with any other city name, or even replace Muhammad’s name with any other name. Yes, not a single personal, moral, and legal principle advocated in my article would change or lose its Quranic foundation and truth-value.
As for your assertion that I could not have known that Abraham was a legendary ancestor of Jews and Arabs from any other source besides Bible and Hadith. Well, somehow you forgot the Quran, as you cunningly and frequently do so. See The Quran: 2:132; 22:78…
You still do not get it, dear Ali. You use THE STINKIEST SUBSTANCE out of the Sunni holy trash as the MAIN MENUE in your round table. As for me, I arguably picked some material too from the same can; but they were CLEAN PLASTICS; I used them as ORNAMENTAL or STYLISTIC COSMETICS on my round table. I can easily trash them if my guests dislike their color, as I did it right now; but if you discard those stinky items from your table, you and your beloved friends will starve to death. Do you smell and see the difference dear Ali? Do you understand metaphors? I bet you do. But, you may act as if you do not understand or hear me.
Perhaps you are still confusing me with some of your Hislamic opponents. Or, you are praying that I would just devolve to one of them so you could pull my beard smack my medieval head with those volumes of holy trash! Bad luck! When I say the Quran is sufficient, I say it within the context of the Quran’s mission, which is to guide us to eternal salvation. When I say the Quran is sufficient, I do not mean that I do not need or enjoy salt or pepper for my food, car for my transportation, plastic for wrapping, or other sources of information. I do not mean that. I simply mean that anyone who follows the instructions and principles of the Quran ALONE will be guided to the straight path and will attain eternal salvation. I do also believe that people do not need even to know the Quran to free them from the hypnosis of devil by submitting themselves to God–who is the Truth, lead a righteous life and believe in the Day of Judgment (2:62).
None needs to know the birth year or place of Muhammad, nor the name of his enemies, etc, to be a muslim, that is, submitter to God alone and promoter of peace; they are trivial information. Even if those information were wrong, it would not change any tenet of my faith or practice. Are you following me?
The birth year of Muhammad has no substantial contribution to my argument, but your arguments are based on dubious sources with numerous contradictions and ridiculous stories. Besides, reasonable people–not fanatic skeptics or evilgelicals–would easily concede that there is no a reasonable and actual motive behind distorting the birth year of Muhammad, but there are many reasons and motives to fabricate lies about Muhammad’s personal life, about his treatment of women, or his treatment of a tribe banished from Medina because of their betrayal during a war of self-defense. There are plenty of motives for those who reverted to the days of ignorance and established kingdoms in the name of God to distort the original message to justify their corrupt acts in public.
The message of Islam is not self evident. For example, Daoism is self evident, because Dao is the natural way – the way things are, the way things happen. You don’t have to be indoctrinated to understand the Dao. All you need to do is to observe and see how winds blow, how sun rises and sets, how rain falls, how flowers blossom, how children learn to smile, how people get sick and die, etc. Anyone can discover the Dao by himself. You may need a coach but not indoctrination. It’s like learning to swim. Drop a baby in a pool and he will start swimming naturally.
Islam, like all other monotheistic religions is not that way. It has a set of rules and principles that you on your own can’t know unless someone tells you. This is precisely the role of the messenger. He is allegedly the one who brings a message to mankind and unless you don’t follow his instructions you can’t know the right way or what God wants from you. That is not the case with Daoism where there are no messengers and you are basically a guide unto your own. So, you don’t have to know anything about Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi or any of the masters of Dao to become a master yourself. Daoism is an art of living. Just like music, you can become a master musician without ever having heard of Mozart or Beethoven.
Islam is not that way. You can’t master Islam if you don’t know what the Quran says. Despite the comical claim of its adherents who say everyone is born Muslim, Islam does not come natural to us. People must be indoctrinated. The very concept of monotheism is not natural to humans. It is indoctrination and conditioning. Although for Muslims, born and brainwashed since infancy in Islam, monotheism seems to be the most logical and self-evident fact, it really is not. Many people are not theists and many of them are polytheists. The concept of monotheism is relatively new and it dates back to Akhenaton, a pharaoh who lived in 14th Century BC.
The very fact that monotheist religions are prophet based, is proof that they are not natural or self evident. You must believe in those prophets and follow their teachings and you are not allowed to change an iota of what they said. This is not the case with natural “religions”. For example, in Buddhism you are encouraged to question everything. You must love more the art than the teacher. The motto of Buddhism is: “if you meet Buddha, kill him”.
In Islam everything hinges on Muhammad. Muhammad claimed to have “sublime morals” 68:4 and ordered his followers to emulate his “good examples” 33:21 because, as he claimed, he was “as a lamp spreading light”33:46. While in Buddhism the practitioner must rely on his/her own understanding, in Islam the believer must stop reasoning and submit his understanding to what Muhammad said, and no contradiction is allowed or tolerated.
The message of Islam is not also logical. You can’t arrive at it through induction or deduction, such as postulating assumptions and axioms and sequentially deriving at a conclusion. It is a belief system. It boils down to the fact that Muhammad made his claim and demanded people to believe. No logical argument or proof was ever given. Whenever people asked for proof, he called them, “Deaf, dumb and blind” 2:18, 2:171 or “Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.” 2:7, 4:155, 6:46, 7:101,
These are called logical fallacies. They are argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad baculum. He either insulted his opponents calling them blind and deaf with no understanding or threatened them with hellfire. Muslims keep rehashing the same logical fallacies ever since. But there is no logical argument presented in the Quran to convince us that Muhammad was indeed a messenger of God.
Therefore, since Muhammad presented no proof to back up his claim all we have are his words and his credibility as an honest or sane person. The sanity of Muhammad, his character and truthfulness are central to his claim. As we discussed this before, we don’t question the credibility of a mailman when he hands us a sealed envelope that has not been tampered. But if someone brings you a verbal message you want to know how credible is this person, especially when you see he stands to benefit immensely from that message. If someone comes to your door and claims to have a warrant to search your house you want to see that warrant. His words are not enough. Muhammad, not only did not produce any warrant, he actually convinced the inhabitants of the house to become his slaves, to worship him and to submit to his demands. In exchanged he promised them a bogus reward after death and threatened them of the consequences if they question him. What if he was an impostor? Imagine the embarrassment and the loss.
You say Muhammad and his life have no bearing on the message of “salvation” that he delivered. What was this message of salvation? The only message that Muhammad gave is “BELIEVE IN ME”. That is in nutshell all what Muhammad said. He wanted people to believe in him. That is the message. He was the message. Of course he had to present himself as the mouthpiece of a very powerful and tyrannical deity to instill fear in people and manipulate them. God was a tool with which he could manipulate people and make them do anything including killing their own fathers.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, a psychologist and an expert in narcissism writes: http://samvak.tripod.com/journal45.html
“God is everything the narcissist ever wants to be: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, admired, much discussed, and awe inspiring. God is the narcissist’s wet dream, his ultimate grandiose fantasy. But God comes handy in other ways as well.
“The narcissist alternately idealizes and devalues figures of authority.
“In the idealization phase, he strives to emulate them, he admires them, imitate them (often ludicrously), and defends them. They cannot go wrong, or be wrong. The narcissist regards them as bigger than life, infallible, perfect, whole, and brilliant. But as the narcissist’s unrealistic and inflated expectations are inevitably frustrated, he begins to devalue his former idols.”
The idols of Muhammad were the Biblical prophets. In his quest to become godlike, he tried to impersonate the prophets of the Jews and Christians. But when the followers of these prophets rejected him, he became vengeful, changed the qibla and went on a killing spree of the Jews and Christians. Of course he could not disparage Moses and Jesus. That would have given away his plot. So instead he decried their scriptures claiming they are corrupt. Furthermore, we can see Muhammad’s problem with authorities in Mecca as you yourself pointed out in your book.
“Now they are “human” (to the narcissist, a derogatory term). They are small, fragile, error-prone, pusillanimous, mean, dumb, and mediocre. The narcissist goes through the same cycle in his relationship with God, the quintessential authority figure.
“But often, even when disillusionment and iconoclastic despair have set in -the narcissist continues to pretend to love God and follow Him. The narcissist maintains this deception because his continued proximity to God confers on him authority. Priests, leaders of the congregation, preachers, evangelists, cultists, politicians, intellectuals – all derive authority from their allegedly privileged relationship with God.
“Religious authority allows the narcissist to indulge his sadistic urges and to exercise his misogyny freely and openly. Such a narcissist is likely to taunt and torment his followers, hector and chastise them, humiliate and berate them, abuse them spiritually, or even sexually. The narcissist whose source of authority is religious is looking for obedient and unquestioning slaves upon whom to exercise his capricious and wicked mastery. The narcissist transforms even the most innocuous and pure religious sentiments into a cultish ritual and a virulent hierarchy. He preys on the gullible. His flock becomes his hostages.
“Religious authority also secures the narcissist’s Narcissistic Supply. His coreligionists, members of his congregation, his parish, his constituency, his audience – are transformed into loyal and stable Sources of Narcissistic Supply. They obey his commands, heed his admonitions, follow his creed, admire his personality, applaud his personal traits, satisfy his needs (sometimes even his carnal desires), revere and idolize him.
“Moreover, being a part of a “bigger thing” is very gratifying narcissistically. Being a particle of God, being immersed in His grandeur, experiencing His power and blessings first hand, communing with him – are all Sources of unending Narcissistic Supply. The narcissist becomes God by observing His commandments, following His instructions, loving Him, obeying Him, succumbing to Him, merging with Him, communicating with Him – or even by defying him (the bigger the narcissist’s enemy – the more grandiosely important the narcissist feels).
“Like everything else in the narcissist’s life, he mutates God into a kind of inverted narcissist. God becomes his dominant Source of Supply. He forms a personal relationship with this overwhelming and overpowering entity – in order to overwhelm and overpower others. He becomes God vicariously, by the proxy of his relationship with Him. He idealizes God, then devalues Him, then abuses Him. This is the classic narcissistic pattern and even God himself cannot escape it.”
The above perfectly explains the phenomenon of Muhammad. Vaknin says: http://www.toddlertime.com/sam/47.htm
“The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of “being chosen” or of “having a destiny”. He believes that he has a “direct line” to God, even, perversely, that God “serves” him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.”
From this mental junction, the way is short to entertaining the delusion that God (or the equivalent institutional authority) is an active participant in the narcissist’s life in which constant intervention by Him is a key feature. God is subsumed in a larger picture, that of the narcissist’s destiny and mission. God serves this cosmic plan by making it possible. Indirectly, therefore, God is perceived by the narcissist to be at his service. Moreover, in a process of holographic appropriation, the narcissist views himself as a microcosm of his frame of affiliation, of his group, or his frame of reference. A narcissist is likely to say that he IS the army, the nation, the people, the struggle, history, or (a part of) God. As opposed to healthier people, the narcissist is not talking about representation. He is talking about the embodiment of his class, his people, his race, history, his God, his art – or anything else he feels a part of. This is why individual narcissists feel completely comfortable to play parts usually reserved to groups of people or to some transcendental, divine (or other), authority. It also sits well with the narcissist’s all-pervasive feelings of omnipotence and omniscience. In playing God, for instance, the narcissist is completely convinced that he is playing himself. The narcissist does not hesitate to put people’s lives or fortunes at risk. He preserves his sense of infallibility in the face of his mistakes and misjudgments by distorting the facts, by evoking mitigating or attenuating circumstances, by repressing memories, or by simply lying.”
As we can see, all these traits were present in Muhammad. So it is logical to conclude that if Muhammad was not a prophet, he was probably a pathological narcissist. Apart from thinking to be the anointed messenger of God, he called himself Khayru-l-Khalq “The Best of the Creation” and claimed to be exalted above other prophets in degrees (2:253); to be the preferred one (17:55); to have been sent as a “Mercy to the worlds” (21:107); to have been risen “to a praised estate” (17:79) a station which he said none but he would receive and this is “the Station of Intercession at the right of the Glorious Throne”. In other words he would be the person whom God will consult in the Day of Judgment to decide who should go to Hell and who should be admitted to Paradise.
But when you look at the essence of the message itself you find nothing. There is no message. The message is to believe in him and accept him as the best of creation, obey him and love him. The message is “submission”. So when you say it is possible to believe in the message of “salvation” of Islam without any regards to the messenger, can you explain what that message is? Where is the message of salvation in Islam?
You also stated that the corrupt rulers had many reasons to fabricate lies about Muhammad’s personal life. Although it is true that various schools of thought fabricated many hadiths to support their position, it is unreasonable to believe all the hadiths were fabricated. If so what happened to the real history of Muhammad? Why no one reported his life accurately? And what was the gain in portraying Muhammad as a pedophile, a rapist, a lecher, an assassin or a mass murderer? Can you even imagine that such thing could happen today? Is it possible, for example, that gay Muslims fabricate hadiths portraying Muhammad as a gay man just to justify their position? This argument is ridiculous. Was the entire umma stupid for allowing this kind of hijacking of their religion under their nose? The only logical conclusion is that Muhammad did really commit all those crimes.
I agree that if a hadith is utterly contrary to the Quran, it should be suspected. For example, the Quran denies that Muhammad performed miracles, so all the haidths that claim Muhammad performed miracles are fabricated. It is also understandable why people would fabricate such hadiths. But if a hadith is confirmed in the Quran, there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. In the previous round I quoted a hadith about Muhammad raiding towns. Is this haidth fabricated? No, because it is confirmed in the Quran by verse 7:4 . In other hadiths we read that Muhammad killed and enslaved people. Are these all fabricated? No, because we find Quranic verses that confirm them:
33.26 And those of the People of the Book who aided them – Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners. 27. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.
33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:
61. They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
62. (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
Sira and haidth tell us these verses refer to the massacre of the Bani Quraiza and the enslavement of their wives and children, who lived at the outskirt of Medina for nearly 2000 years 1800 years before the arrival of the Arabs. In the above verses Muhammad says they shall be seized and slain without mercy and the Sira and the Hadith tell us this was the fate that these Jews suffered in the hand of Muhammad. As you see, there are hadiths that are fully confirmed. We can’t deny these hadiths without denying the Quran itself.
There are hadiths that say Muhammad cut and burned trees. One such incident happened when he laid siege on Taif and the other when he declared war on Bani Nadir. In the case of Bani Nadir they agreed to surrender and leave town carrying with them whatever they could carry on their camels. We can’t deny these hadiths because they are confirmed in the Quran:
59.2 It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!
3. And had it not been that Allah had decreed banishment for them, He would certainly have punished them in this world: And in the Hereafter they shall (certainly) have the Punishment of the Fire.
4. That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if any one resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in Punishment.
5. Whether ye cut down the tender palm-trees, or ye left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgresses.
There are many more examples and I will refer to them as we go on. I think these should suffice to prove that Muhammad was a ruthless man. This can be shown from the Quran itself. However, it is obvious that when one writes a book about himself he tries to justify all his actions and crimes. From the above verses we can see Muhammad is trying to explain his horrendous and treacherous actions for those of his followers who still could not reconcile their blind faith with their conscience. He gloats over the fact that the poor Jews were subdued and were exiled. In their rage they destroyed their houses behind them, carrying the wooden lintels. The Sira tells us that Muhammad wanted to massacre them and Abdullah Ibn Ubay, a chief of an Arab tribe of Yathrib intervened and did not let go of Muhammad’s arms until he relented. The confirmation of that is in verse 3 (above) where he reveals his original intention to “punish them in this world”. Verse 4 makes it clear that these poor people did not wage any war against Muhammad. Their crime was to “resist Allah and His Messenger”. That is exactly the crime all of mankind is guilty of and that is why the jihadis think it is right to kill the kafir. The terrorists are attacking us not because what America, Israel or any other country has done to the Muslims. They are just killing us because we resist submitting to their religion. Verse 5 is a confirmation of the fact that Muhammad cut down tender palm trees.
|I gave some examples of such motives but you ignored them by a silly Martian remark. Soundbites might save ones career in political arena, church, or mosque but not in the market place of ideas. You ignore the fact that many Islamic and Hislamic scholars have written volumes of books to identify and expose the piles of stories imported from Jewish Mishna, Gamarra and Old Testament, which were called ISRAILIYAT. Sunni and Shiite Muslims adopted many Jewish stories and practices via those imported Jewish and Christian fabrications. Knowingly or out of ignorance, you wish to blame Muhammad and Quran for the deeds of their enemies, that is the fabricators and followers of hadith (6:112-115)!|
I did not ignore your argument. But did not buy it. They are ratified in the Quran. Blaming the Jews for fabricating these hadiths is indeed very Islamic. Muslims blame even the 9/11 on the Jews. Dr. Mahathir, the ex Prime Minister of Malaysia thought that 12 million Jews control the rest of mankind and rule over 1.2 billion Muslims by proxy. Only Muslims are so paranoid that they can indulge in these kinds of fantasies.
It would have been impossible for the Jews who were banished and massacred to have taken control of the Islamic academia and have written all those incriminatory hadiths without any Muslim noticing the plot. Even if they could have done such a thing through a mysterious technique of mind control, I see no gain for the Jews and the Christians to fabricate hadiths that would make them more vulnerable to Islamic violence. It would have made more sense if they fabricated hadiths saying Muhammad said respect, love and serve the Jews and never hurt them. It is just ludicrous to think that Jews entered in the house of every Muslim who had a book of history and replaced it with a fabricated one without anyone noticing it. If Jews are capable of that may be you should worship them. They certainly seem to be more powerful than Muhammad, for having hijacked his religion without any bloodshed and without anyone noticing.
|For instance, the Quran does not contain STONING TO DEATH as punishment for adultery. Guess what we discover when we search the source of this punishment? We learn that it was the practice of Jews and ancient pagans. The so-called converted Jewish scholars inserted their distorted Biblical practice into Islam by fabricating hadith and fictional chains of narrators. In order to defend that hadith against the objections of early Muslims, they even went further by fabricating Quranic verses that do not exist in the Quran.How a verse instructing such a big punishment would be removed from the Quran? Well, there is no limit for imagination of clergymen, and there is no shortage of gullible people. The “authentic” hadith books justify the so-called “literal-but-not-legal” abrogation of the stoning verses by the following story: “After the Prophet Muhammad’s departure, a hungry holy goat ate the skin where those verses were written on!”
Now, you would like us to believe the first half of this Jewish story and ignore the other half! Circumcision is another of numerous Jewish practices that were centuries later imported to Islamic faith, after the fertile era of hadith fabrication ended. They imported that bloody Jewish practice via sectarian jurisprudence. But, you wish to take Muhammad and Quran responsible for this unnecessary and harmful Jewish practice that has survived until modern times.
Stoning the adulterers is a law ordained in Deuteronomy 22:23. What Muhammad said about this Book? He said:
46.12 And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: And this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.
Elsewhere he said:
21:7 And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. Ask the followers of the Reminder if ye know not?
Muslim scholars, therefore, instructed by these verses, use Judaic laws wherever Islamic laws are not clear. Muhammad acknowledged that Moses was inspired and that the Quran confirms the Torah. Therefore, even if you deny the Sunna still the Judaic law is to be applied.
Now, you may say this is a misunderstanding of the ulama. That does not seem to be the case but if so the fault is with the Quran for not being clear on this matter and for telling Muslims that the Quran is a confirmation of that book without explicitly saying which parts of the Torah is abrogated. So if Muslims are misled, Muhammad is responsible.
|Here, I am going to touch them with my fingers by tickling the twenty-six letters and punctuation marks of the loyal keyboard of my Muslim laptop. I hope some of these letters will touch your heart, if you have any, and mind too, and perform some remote healing
I am not an Evangelical Christian or a Hislamic who believe blindly (euphemistically: on faith) in the claims of someone because they just trust that person or the chain of trust that goes back for many generations. If I were a comrade of Muhammad, I would perhaps have some idea about his character and intelligence, but hey, I came to the world centuries after him and I am not even an Arab. I cannot trust any person whom I have not seen and lived together especially in a matter that involve my eternal salvation. I may not even be hundred percent sure about the trustworthiness of any person, even if I share the same room with them for all my life. Even if I trust someone hundred percent, that does not mean whatever that person is claiming is true. Many people whose honesty we may not reasonably doubt, yet they may honestly assert nonsensical claims, believe in their hallucinations, superstitious and false ideas.
So dear Ali, as a philosopher, I demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. If trusting Muhammad’s character were the only thing I could have as evidence, I would not be considering myself of having even an ordinary evidence for Muhammad’s extraordinary claims, let alone an extraordinary one. I would not be a Muslim. So, go and ask me the follow up question! Need a clue? Well, it starts with the following phrase: “Then why do you believe in….”
Okay, so please give us the reasons for which you believe in Muhammad.
|It seems either you have amnesia or you do not really read my answers. I had, in the past, answered the same question of yours. Let me cut and paste my answer here, again. (Well, I confess that I made to minor changes in spelling and grammar. This will leave something for those Christian detectives who have ample time and curiosity for the frivolous; they will find the corrected words and will accuse me in other threats of this forum for changing my past answers to their guru! Seriously, Ali, how could you attract so many followers with such a hobby and so much time?). Yes, here is the answer:
You share a strikingly similar poor knowledge of the Quran with Sunnis and Shiites. You use the same lousy argument. If you were able to read the Quran without smelling the piles of hadith, you would easily notice that 33:21 had preceding and succeeding verses and the example of prophet was his bravery in defending Muslims against the aggressor army of Meccan oligarchy. If your knowledge of the Quran were a little bit beyond the surface, you would also notice that verse 60:4 uses exactly the same description, “good example”, for Abraham and his supporters. Using your logic Muslims should have had the hadith of Abraham and his supporters too! Perhaps, you will find the story of another hungry holy goat eating those hadith collections to be “not illogical.”
We already discussed this point. Yes, people had heard many stories about Abraham and when Muhammad said he was a good example, they could relate to it. Abraham was famous through the Old Testaments, Jewish sources, Christian sources etc. Many of these sources found their way in the Quran, e.g. the story of Abraham’s dad being an idol maker and of Abraham smashing the idols come from preexisting Jewish sources. But, where do we find Muhammad’s example set forth in the way that Abraham’s example had been committed to writing? The Quran vaguely mentions him. It only says he is a good example to follow but no details. Why is he a good example?
As I said before, if someone says be like Job, we all know he means be patient in adversities. That is the quality Job is famous for. But if I tell you be like Jack, you have no clue what I am talking about because you don’t know who is Jack and what he did. We surly cannot follow the example of Muhammad as instructed by verse 33:21 without knowing anything about him.
Now let us think about it. Suppose you are a detective investigating a crime. You approach someone who is uncooperative, evasive and refuses to answer certain questions. Doesn’t this immediately raise the red flag that he is hiding something? The very fact that the submitters insist that no one should bring up any of the incriminatory tales of their prophet and do all the mental gymnastics to avoid them, is proof that they are hiding something.
This Book (the Quran) was written by someone. Who was that person? It claims to be a book of salvation and morality and demands us to follow the example of its author. It is very much different from a book written on science. I can study a book of mathematics, geometry, chemistry or computer and don’t need to know anything about its author. The difference is that I am not submitting my intelligence and will to someone else. I am not required to believe anything. Everything is explained to me and I can verify them on my own. But in the case of a religion such as Islam you are asked to submit your intelligence and believe in a man who claimed to be the mouthpiece of God. It is important to verify whether he is a liar or a truthful person. If I claim to be a prophet, would you believe? Why not? What proof should I give you to convince you that I am a prophet? What if I am a psychopath, promising you the moon and taking you to hell? It would be foolish to follow me without verifying my claim and my character.
You say the character of Muhammad is absolutely irrelevant and you are not even willing to discuss it. This very attitude is indication that you are hiding something. Why Christians don’t mind to talk about their prophet? They have obviously nothing to hide. I believe Jesus is a mythological personage. Nonetheless, he is a saintly figure. So why are you so embarrassed to talk about Muhammad? You say let us examine his claim only. That is fine. Let us do it. Can you tell us what makes you believe that he was a prophet of God and not a messenger of Satan?
Imagine someone knocking at your door saying he has a great tiding from God. You say, oh yea? What is it? He responds: I have come to tell you that God said you should believe in me, follow me, sacrifice your money and life for me, kill your neighbor and bring his wife and money to me. This is the message. Will you believe him? This is the essence of the message of Muhammad.
|Let me add this too: according to the Quran, Muhammad could never have claimed to be the best of the creation, since as a Muslim, he was ordered not to distinguish among God’s messengers (2:285), and be humble (32:11-20). This is a lie fabricated by Muhammadans in their polytheistic competition to top the idols of Christians. Ignorant Hislamic scholars even fabricated many miracles, from splitting the moon to jumbo sexual powers for Muhammad in their zeal to turn him to a holy superman.|
Well as I quoted above, he actually did claim to be exalted above other prophets in degrees (2:253); and a “Mercy to the worlds” (21:107). These contradictions can be easily explained when you see him as a pathological narcissist.
The narcissist flaunts his virtues such as his humility or his generosity as bait. He impresses others with his selflessness and virtues and lures them into his lair; entraps them and manipulates them. He brainwashes them to become subservient, compliant and obsequious collaborators.
Furthermore, you are forgetting that Muhammad of Mecca and Muhammad of Medina were two different persons. In Mecca Muhammad portrayed himself as a simple prophet, only a warner. But when he came to power and found many people are under his command, his ego swelled. A lot of discrepancies in the Quran can be explained by knowing the period that they were written.
I asked you to explain sure 111 and 38:41-44 without hadith and you wrote:
|Now it is clear that your Hislamic disease is still in your heart and mind. Your approach to the Quran is exactly similar to that of the Sunni or Shiite ones. Without being brainwashed by these teachings, any reasonable person would and should understand the meaning and message of those verses. Sure, we can ask more questions regarding the details WE WISH to see, but there is no end of demands for more details, especially irrelevant details. Bring me any explanation, and I bet that I will shower you with too many questions that you will never be able to satisfy my demand for more details. Here is the translation of these verses from the translations of Rashad Khalifa and Layth of Progressive Muslims, respectively:
Remember our servant Job: he called upon his Lord, “The devil has afflicted me with hardship and pain.” “Strike the ground with your foot. A spring will give you healing and a drink.” We restored his family for him; twice as many. Such is our mercy; a reminder for those who possess intelligence. “Now, you shall travel the land and preach the message, to fulfill your pledge.” We found him steadfast. What a good servant! He was a submitter. (38:41-44)http://19.org/km/RK/38
And recall Our servant Job, when he called upon his Lord: “The devil has afflicted me with an illness and pain.” “Strike with your foot, here is a cold spring to wash with and to drink.” And We restored his family to him along with a group like them, as a mercy from Us; and a reminder for those who possess intelligence. “And take in your hand a bundle and travel with it, and do not break your oath.” We found him steadfast. What a good servant! He was obedient. (38:41-44) http://19.org/km/PM/38
I do not understand which part you do not understand. Since the followers of hadith and sunnah blindly accept the lies of their clergymen, they do not trust the Quranic verses asserting that the Quran was detailed, complete, easy-to-understand, and should be the only authority (12:111; 45:6; 39:23; 30:28; 16:89; 7:2-3; 17:46; 27:6; 11:1; 75:19; 54:17,22,32,40; 5:48-49; 6:112-115; 18:109; 10:15; 6:159; 19:64; 10:15; 41:3; 25:30; 17:39; 36:2; 5:101; 42:21; 33:38; 35:43.). To prove their point, they asked numerous IRRELEVANT questions or the questions where they found their answers in mishmash collection of Hadith and Sunnah. As an ex Sunni or Shiite, you have not yet washed your brain from the pollution inflicted by these sects.
Ali, which part of these verses you do not understand? Perhaps, like your Sunni and Shiite evil twins you are wondering with which foot Job hit the ground. The followers of hadith and Sunnah take the right-hand and left-hand, right-foot and left-foot issue more seriously than Dr. Seuss had taken. They try to enter bathroom with left foot, clean themselves with left, and eat with right. Right foot, left foot. Wet foot, dry foot. Low foot, high foot. True foot, lie foot. Here comes the Evilgelical-Sunni sly soot!
Let us compare the above translations (which are already different among each other) with Shakir’s
38:41 And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment.
42. Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink.
43. And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding.
44. And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent in returning (to Allah).
Compare the verse 44 in both translations. They are certainly not the same. Which one is correct? Let us see the Arabic version.
وَخُذْ بِيَدِكَ ضِغْثًا فَاضْرِب بِّهِ وَلَا تَحْنَثْ إِنَّا وَجَدْنَاهُ صَابِرًا نِعْمَ الْعَبْدُ إِنَّهُ أَوَّابٌ
If you understand Arabic a little you certainly can see that Shakir is accurate and Khalifa is completely off the mark.
However, the story is not clear at all. Why it is not clear? Because it was Muhammad’s habit to ALLUDE to the stories that everyone knew passingly without giving any details. If I tell you the emperor is nude you know what I am talking about because you know the story of the emperor and his invisible mantle. But if you had never heard that story, you would not understand what I am talking about. Everyone knew about Job. Job was a saintly man described in the Bible. Muhammad erroneously thought Job was a prophet. The tale of his suffering was known to the Arabs as it is known to us. Even people who have never read the Bible have heard of Job.
As for the verse 44 Ibn Khatir in his commentary explains:
“(And take in your hand a bundle of thin grass and strike therewith (your wife), and break not your oath.) Ayyub, peace be upon him, got angry with his wife and was upset about something she had done, so he swore an oath that if Allah healed him, he would strike her with one hundred blows.”
This is really the context of that verse. Of course ضِغ means fresh bouncy brunch. This is much more painful than the rigid branch. Ibn Khatir is playing apologist by translating it as thin grass. Without knowing this context, it is not possible to know what the oath was, who should be beaten and why. In fact the entire story remains an enigma. Obviously Rashid Khalifa did not know this background and not properly understanding the meaning of that verse he made up something that still makes no sense. That is why you need tafseer and sha’ne nozool and can’t dispense the hadith.
|Turning to monkeys and swines is an allegory indicating their spiritual and intellectual regression. Similar allegorical language can be found in the New Testament. For instance, Jesus likens his own people figuratively to swine and dogs (Matthew 7:6; 2 Peter 2:22 ). Swine was regarded as the most filthy and the most abhorred of all animals (Le 11:7; Isa 65:4; 66:3,17; Lu 15:15-16). The Talmudic liturgy contains narrations about people who transformed into apes because they attempted to build the tower of Babel .|
This is already discussed. You are not adding anything new to the discussion. I see you are quoting from that “distorted” book of Bible. Obviously you have no problem using any “fabricated fairytale” as long as it suits your argument.
The Quranic verses are not making a comparison of Jews with apes. They are saying “be ye apes” and “they were transformed into apes”. All one needs is to understand English Arabic, to see there is no allegory in these verses.
|As for your claim that “no scholar has understood them as metaphors” is simply false. Though my understanding of the Quran does not depend on this scholar or that scholar or the number of their votes, I will give some examples to demonstrate that you frequently make false claims with hyperbolic pontifications.
For instance, Muhammad Asad, in his renowned translation of the Quran, The Message, makes the following comments on verse 7:166:
According to Zamakhshari and Razf, the expression “We said unto them” is here synonymous with “We decreed with’ regard to them” – God’s “saying” being in this case a metonym for a manifestation of His will. As for the substance of God’s decree, “Be as apes despicable”, the famous tabi’i Mujahid explain it thus: “[Only] their hearts were transformed, that is, they were not [really] transformed into apes: this is but a metaphor (mathai) coined by God with regard to them, similar to the metaphor of `the ass carrying books’ [62: 5]” (Tabari, in his commentary on 2 : 65; also Mandr I, 343; VI, 448; and IX, 379). A similar explanation is given by Raghib. It should be borne in mind that the expression “like an ape” is often used in classical Arabic to describe a person who is unable to restrain his gross appetites or passions.
Obviously many Muslims realized this is plain nonsense and did their best to explain it off, but the text is clear. The metaphor of ass carrying books is a clear metaphor and the verses saying Jews were transformed into apes and swine are not metaphors. The expression “like an ape” is used in all languages and it is clearly a derogatory comparison, but saying they were transformed into apes is a different thing.
|I did not know that you were also illiterate, more accurately a selective illiterate, since in my previous answer I made my case clear from the Quran that UMMY means gentile, not illiterate. In case you missed by accident, here is a more detailed argument on this case. I will copy and paste from the samples of our upcoming Reformist Translation of the Quran. You do not have the right for complaining from my copying and pasting, since I do not need to re-invent the same medicine for the same allergy:|
No I did not miss your statement. Nonetheless I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad calls the Jews ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ. Are you telling me that Muhammad thought that Jews were gentiles?
|The Arabic word “ummy,” however, describes people who are not Jewish or Christian. The meaning of this word, which occurs six times in the Quran, has nevertheless been rendered as “one who can neither read nor write.” This deliberate manipulation by Muslim scholars has become widely accepted as the true meaning of the word. For example Yusuf Ali, in his translation, follows this pattern:
“… So believe in God and His Apostle, the unlettered Prophet,….”
Marmaduke Pickthall’s translation also reflects the same manipulation:
“… So believe in Allah and His messenger, the prophet who can neither read nor write,…”
Our translation of 7:158: “… So you shall believe in God and His messenger, the Gentile prophet…” (7:158)
COMMENTARY ON 7:158
The Quran itself provides guidance for the true meaning of “ummy”. If we reflect on the verse 3:20 below we will easily understand that “ummy” does not mean an illiterate person:
And say to those who received the scripture, as well as those who did not receive any scripture (ummyyeen)… (3:20)
In this verse the word “ummy” describes Meccan idol worshipers. It is obvious that “ummy” does not mean illiterate because it has been used as the counterpart of the people of the scripture. If the verse was ” … And say to those who are literate and illiterate”, then the orthodox translation of “ummy” would be correct. According to the verse 3:20 the people of Arab peninsula were two main groups:
1. The people of the scripture, i.e., Jews and Christians.
3. Gentiles, who were neither Jewish nor Christian.
If the people who were neither Jews nor Christians were called “ummyyeen” (3:20; 3:75), then the meaning of “ummy” is very clear. As a matter of fact, the verse 3:75 clarifies its meaning as Gentile.
Mecca was the cultural center of the Arabs in the 7th century. Poetry competitions were being held there. It is a historical fact that Meccans were not familiar with the Bible, thus they were gentiles. So the verse 62:2 describes Meccan people by the word “ummyyeen”:
“He is the One who sent to the Gentiles (ummyyeen) a messenger from among them, to recite to them His revelations, purify them, and teach them the scripture and wisdom. Before this, they had gone far astray.” (62:2)
The disbelievers claimed that Muhammad was quoting verses from the Old and New Testaments (25:5; 68:15). The verse below refutes their accusation and gives the answer:
“You did not read any previous scriptures, nor did you write them with your hand. In that case, the objectors would have had reason to harbor doubts.” (29:4 8) border=0 >
This verse tells us that Muhammad did not read nor write previous scriptures. The word “min qablihi” (previous ) suggests that Muhammad did read and write the final scripture.
Muhammad was a literate gentile (ummy)
After this examination on the true meaning of the word “ummy”, here are the reasons and proofs for the fact that Muhammad was a literate Gentile:
• To magnify the miraculous aspect of the Quran, religious people thought that the story of illiteracy would be alluring.
• The producer(s) of the illiteracy story found it relatively easy to change the meaning of “ummy.” Nevertheless, the word appears throughout the Quran, and consistently means “Gentile” (2:78; 3:20; 3:75; 62:2). In verses 3:20 and 3:75, the Quran uses the word “ummy” as the counterpart of the “ehlil kitab” (“People of the Book,” a phrase that in both of these verses equates with “Jews and Christians”).
• The Quran describes Meccan people with the word “ummyyeen” (Gentiles). (62:2). According to the orthodox claim, all Meccan people must have been illiterate. Why then were the poems of pre-Islamic Meccan poets hung on the walls of the Ka’ba (the ancient monotheistic shrine of Abraham)?
• The Arabs of the 7th century were using letters as numbers. This alphabetical numbering system is called “Abjad.” The merchants of those days had to know the letters of the alphabet to record their accounts! If Muhammad was a successful international merchant, as is universally accepted, then he most probably knew this numbering system. The Arabs stopped using the “Abjad” system in the 9th century when they took “Arabic numbers” from India .
• The different spelling of the word “bism” in the beginning of the Basmalah and in the first verse of chapter 96 is one of the many evidences supporting literacy of Muhammad. It is not reasonable for an illiterate to dictate two different spellings of the same word which is pronounced the same.
• The very first revelation from the Angel Gabriel was, Muslims believe, “Read!” And the first five verses of that revelation encourage reading and writing (96:1-5). The second revelation was “The pen and writing” (68:1). These facts compel some questions that orthodox scholarship would rather avoid. Does God command an illiterate man to “read”? If so, could Muhammad read after Gabriel’s instruction to do so? The story told in Hadith books about the first revelation asserting that Muhammad could read only after three trials ending by an angelic “squeeze” contradicts the other stories claiming that Muhammad died as an illiterate!
• Traditional history books accept that Muhammad dictated the Quran and controlled its recording. Even if we accept that Muhammad did not know how to read or write before revelation of the Quran, we cannot claim that he preserved this illiteracy during the 23 years while he was dictating the Quran! Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that Muhammad was illiterate before the revelation of the Quran. Why then did he insist on staying illiterate for 23 years after the first revelation: “Read !”? Did he not obey his Lord’s command? Did he receive another command forbidding him from reading and writing?
• Was it so difficult for Muhammad to learn to read and write? If a person still does not learn to read and write after 23 years of careful dictation of a book, what kind of intellect is that?
• If Muhammad was encouraging his followers to read and write (which he did when he recited 2:44 to them), then why should he have excluded himself?
Muslim scholars, who are in disagreement on a bewildering array of subjects, somehow have managed to agree on the story of Muhammad’s illiteracy. Perhaps the glorification of illiteracy, using it as a positive attribute of a worshipped figure, is one of the causes of the high current level illiteracy in Muslim communities.
Let us discuss this word in detail.
Muslims call themselves Ummah. This word is of the same root of Ummi. Ummi is how Muhammad referred to himself and it means unlettered, unschooled, uneducated.
Therefore, Ummah means the community of the unlettered followers. In the case of Muhammad this implied that his knowledge was of a divine source. However, that distinction does not apply to the Ummah. Hence Ummah, by definition means the ignorant mass of believers.
The verse 3:20 reads:
And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: (Ummiyeen) “Do ye (also) submit yourselves?”
Here the word Ummiyeen الأُمِّيِّينَ which is the plural of Ummi is translates as:
Yusuf Ali: those who are unlearned:
Pickthal: those who read not
Shakir: the unlearned people
Let us take another verse (Imran 3:75):
قَالُواْ لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِي الأُمِّيِّينَ سَبِيلٌ
“They say, “there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans). (Ummiyeen)“
Yusuf Ali translates this word in this verse as ignorant.
Pickthal translates it as Gentiles.
And Shakir translates the word as unlearned people.
The noun “gentile” is generally applied to an individual who is ignorant of the Scriptures. In English the synonym for “gentile” is “pagan”.
Historically, the term gentile was used by the governing Romans for the non-Romans (foreigners); it was adopted by the Jews to denote the non-Jews; in turn the Christians used it for the Pagans. In the Qur’an the term al-Ummiyeen, is generally translated as “the unlettered folks”. The verse 62:2 reads,
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ
Yusuf Ali translates this thus:
“It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves,”
And in his commentary he writes: “The Unlettered: as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book…”
وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَابَ
And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book,
The root of Ummi is “Um” (mother). A literal translation of it into English would be “Natural”, although the two words have taken different meanings in time. Etymologically, Ummi is the natural state of being ignorant and unlearned, as when born from mother.
So, ummah are those who are ignorant of the scriptures and hence unable to find their way. The ummah is in constant need of guidance. Imam, also from the same root, is one who leads the ummah. This is basically the concept of sheep and shepherd. The entire community of Muslims is deemed to be sheep in need of shepherd.
I said the Sura 33 is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the “confederates” mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer
And you wrote:
|Why should I care what was the name of that group. I find no relevancy for the lesson I get from the verse. Let’s say the tribe’s name is “Ibn Fulan” or “Abu Falan” what would it change? First, the Quran is not a history book. Yes, it refers to historical events, but does not narrate them like a chronology, or like Hadith books or the Old Testament does by giving pages and pages of names, number of mules and horses… The Quran uses history or events to drive and convey lessons for those who have intelligence and good faith. But people like you (this include your twins, Sunnies and Shiites) miss the main point of the story in search for irrelevant details, for goose eggs.|
Of course you are not required to care or explain anything. The whole purpose of this exercise is to show that when you deny the historic background of the Quran, it become illegible and incomprehensible. You say the Quran is not supposed to be a book of history, but it refers to historical events. When I ask what those events are, you shrug. Now what is the lesson of the Sura 33? All we see are references to some enemies withdrawing and Muhammad slaying some people and enslaving some. What is it all about? What is the spiritual lesson in this Sura?
|To create an excuse and to mix pages of garbage to distort the meaning of a clear verse you asked the NAME OF A TRIBE. How clever you are! “Edip, your Quran does not tell me the name of the enemy tribe, so, I will go dig the mishmash collection of contradictory narrations and pig all the garbage I can, and use it to cover and distort the truth in the Quran.”
This is a very cheap game Ali. It might have so far worked against those who considered your pile of historical trash as their holy books, but you are still in denial: YOU ARE DEBATING WITH EDIP YUKSEL founder of 19.ORG, A MUSLIM, not A SUNNI OR SHIITE MUSHRIK. Why are you still trying to pretend that your filthy weapons are still efficient in this battle-ground is a subject I leave for psychologists. You PROMISED me several times that you would not use hadith and other dubious sources, but each time you sought a silly excuse to bring a truck-load of them.
Now let me play the game you are begging me to play. Just recently, a sunni posted an article at 19.org/forum asking us where in the Quran we could find how to sleep! He was living in another universe as you do, and could not fathom the simple concept of following the Quran alone to attain eternal salvation. Here are four of his seven challenging questions:
What are the Quranic ruling on the following things?
When I hear a Sunni asking me to provide irrelevant or stupid details to challege the sufficiency of the Quran alone, I remind them the story of Heifer or Cow mentioned in the Quran. When God asked Jews to sacrifice a heifer, rather than obeying God’s commandment, they asked irrelevant questions like you and Sunnys do. They asked is color, its age, etc. (See the Quran 2:67-71).
Some of his great scholars of the past even wondered about the name of the dog, which was the companion of the so-called seven sleepers of the cave. Not finding the name of the dog, they decided that the verses 18:9-27 were not detailed enough to be understood! So they went a head and fabricated a name for the dog: Qitmeer. With the name and color of the dog, the names of the youngsters and more similar details, now the story of the People of the Cave was finally detailed and comprehensible! Though your curiosity regarding the name of the aggressive tribe is one grade above than your Sunni or Shiite ditto-heads, unfortunately you suffer from the same disease. To understand, and hopefully to appreciate MONOTHEISM, you need to cleanse yourself from the logical fallacies which somehow you retain from your Hislamic past. You came to hate Hislam, but unfortunately, you hate it with similar logical fallacies that had led you to love it in the first place. Thus, you replaced Hislam with Evilgelical Christianity or Spiritual Humanism that is dedicated to promotion of hate, dehumanization and misinformation, which may lead to genocide.
Please do not tell me that you cannot see those viruses; I know, they are too little to be seen. Well, when you called me “little devil” you were under the influence of those little devils. So, you should think nineteen times before hurl someone, especially a monotheist, such a label. You need a philosopher, a logician, a monotheist, a miracle, or another act of God, to help you find and delete them. If you cannot delete them from hardware and software system that makes your personality, then the Ali Sina of FFI may end up in the Creator’s depository of “infected free-will programs” or “infected beta programs” and be deleted for eternity.
I almost forgot the game I promised to play against you. The name of the game is called BUMERANG or MIRROR since it mirrors the fallacious logic of the opponent and exposes the absurdity of their argument. Here we go:
“Okay, you are right Ali Sina, that the Quran does not contain the details you are asking for, and to understand the Quran we need hadith and tafseer (commentary) books you are so fond of. Now can you please tell me, how can I understand those books, since they do not contain many details that I AM CURIOUS about? For instance, which hadith or tafseer gives the numbers of those people? Which hadith or tafseer describes the flag of the Confederates? In which hadith or tafseer can you find me the temperature of that day? Don’t tell me that these are not important information, since you have not claimed to be an authority or the only authority in defining what is important or not. Thus, you have to find another source besides hadith and tafseer to find answers for my questions. If you lived in those times, you had the choice just to fabricate one with a chain of narrators. Otherwise, you have to say exactly the same thing about hadih and tafseer books: “We cannot understand them.”
No Edip, not all the hadiths are important and certainly not all of them are true. Nonetheless this is all we have to understand Muhammad and Islam. It is through these hadiths and their consistency that the picture of Muhammad emerges. A picture that you dread looking at, for what you see is the countenance of Devil. You may close your eyes and dig your head in the sand, but you can’t change the truth. You have no courage to look at the real Muhammad. You prefer to keep your mental image of him intact.
You can’t keep your head under the sand forever. Sooner or later you have to pull it out to breathe and then you’ll be very sorry for having wasted so many years of your life doing everything possible to keep yourself fooled.
I know, after receiving all my answers you will be repeating this. You know that if you repeat something many times you will find enough people to believe whatever you are saying. A working political campaign!
You got it all wrong, Ali. Go ask someone who knows English better than you the difference between “Reform in Islam” and “Islamic Reform.” You indicated that you have read some of my articles at my website. If you have done so, you should have learned that I do not suggest what you are trying to put in my mouth. Perhaps, you are deliberately trying to misrepresent my position to divert from the main issues. You have somehow succeeded many times by resorting to your favorite silly storybooks, and copying and pasting them here.
Dear Edip. In your website http://www.yuksel.org/ On the top of your handsome picture, it says “The Islamic Reformer”. So what is it that you want to reform? I am afraid I don’t understand what you mean by “Reform in Islam” and “Islamic Reform” and the difference between the two.
Can you please explain? If what you mean is to change the world according to Islamic precepts that is not reform. That is propagation of Islam and all other Muslims are hard at work doing it. Why then you are the reformer and not them? If you mean to reform Islam, then let us know what is your authority. You must have some divine rank and revelations to be able to reform what Muhammad wrote.
Martin Luther reformed the Christianity not the Bible or the message of Jesus. But your problem is the Quran and not the Ummah.
Again: left foot, right foot; wet foot, dry foot; true foot, lie foot; here comes the evilgelical-sunni sly soot!
After another lengthy diversion with a load of trashy references and lies, you finally make an argument, though a funny argument. First, the word MOKAFAT is modern Arabic and is not used in the Quran and hadith books. You are confusing a Modern Arabic word with classic Arabic. Second, the JAZA means recompense, reward. In fact, in haste I missed a better English term for Jizya: reparation. Various nouns and verbs derived from the same root, JaZaYa is mentioned in the Quran 118 times. If we exclude the JiZYa of verse 29 for the sake of the argument, NOT IN A SINGLE occurrence it has anything to do with TAXation. Furthermore, in dozens of verses this word is used to describe REWARD and COMPENSATION.
Here are some verses that falsify your claim 3:144-145; 10:4; 12:22; 12:74-75; regarding the modern Arabic word MOKAFAT 14:51; 18:88; 20:76; 28:14; 33:24; 37:80,105,110,121,131; 39:34; 55:60; and more.
First, your linguistic sources are little better than your hadith sources, but it is still the third rate source. Any person can go write an article and definition in wikipedia.org, including you and any of your followers. From your MOKAFAT, now your knowledge of classic Arabic becomes suspect, and from using wikipedia.org I know your level of academic gullibility becomes an issue. Please be serious Ali.
Besides, no scholar who is familiar with transformation of language will put his or her full trust in a dictionary, even if it is the most reputable dictionary. There are some Arabic words have changed their meaning through time and it does not take to be a rocket scientist or a monotheist to notice the traces of such change. We have many examples of such a change in English too. For instance, you cannot claim that a renaissance poet was homosexual because in his poems he called himself GAY several times. Wikipedia.org indeed does a good job in listing the early meaning of the word GAY. However, it fails to define word ELOI or ELI one of the few Aramaic words used in English translation of the Bible (Mat 27:46; Mrk 15:34). If I claim that the etymological origin of Arabic Elahi (my god) is the same with Aramaic Eloi (my god) or the origin of Allah (the god) is the same as the Aramaic Alohim (the god), you may refute me by referring to wikipedia.org, which defines Eloi as of the two post-human races mentioned in the novel The Time Machine. You might claim that Jesus was asking help from Eloi not Marlocks who lived in the year 802701 AD! Or you might just refer the quotation from Biblical verses and claim that it just means the God of Anglo-Saxon version!
The Devil’s Califs of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties had too much interest and motivation to change the meaning of a Quranic word and they had many hadith and sunnah fabricators under their service. So, changing the meaning of JIZYA from reparation to tax perhaps took some time, but considering their success in changing much important principles and practices it was not that difficult.
Ibn Ishaq gives us the historical context for the verse 9:29 and Jizya.
Then He said (v. 28): “The polytheists are nothing but unclean, so let them not approach the sacred mosque after this year of theirs, and if you fear poverty” that was because the people said “the markets will be cut off from us, trade will be destroyed, and we shall lose the good things we used to enjoy,” and God said, “If you fear poverty God will enrich you from His bounty,¨ i.e. in some other way, “if He will. He is knowing, wise. Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day and forbid not that which God and His apostle have forbidden and follow not the religion of truth from among those who have been given the scripture until they pay the poll tax out of hand being humbled,¨ i.e. as a compensation for what you fear to lose by the closing of the markets. God gave them compensation for what He cut off from them in the former polytheism by what He gave them by way of poll tax from the people of the scripture”.
So according to Ibn Ishaq, Jizya is the reparation paid to Muslims for losing the money they would have made from the pagans coming to trade and buying in their markets. Your own definition of Jizyah serves to prove my point, namely that this is reparation Muslims receive from the subjugated people in place of the financial loss they would have experienced due to Allah preventing the pagans from coming to Mecca .
Umar ibn Al-Khatab is reported to have said: “I advise you to fulfill Allah’s Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) ” Bukhari 4. 53.388:
But of course you may not know who Umar was since there is no mention of him in the Quran.
Forget about Ibn Ishaq and Umar. Let us stick to your own word: “reparation”. Reparation means compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation as indemnity for damage or injury during a war. In this case the aggressors were the Muslims who still demanded remuneration from their defeated victims. Would it be fair for non-Muslim countries to charge reparation from their Muslim subjects? Won’t you cry foal and call us fascists? What if they attacked the Muslim countries and demanded reparation from them after defeating them? This is what Islam did to its victims and what the Sura Bara’a instructs Muslims to do.
|First, I do not separate the verses of the Quran as Meccan on Medinan verses. Again, you are confusing me with Sunnis. The Quran does not contain such a distinction and a believer must follow ALL the verses of the Quran. You are a disbeliever of the Quran and you do not care about its internal consistency and integrity. You will divide and chop, mix and twist, take verses out of their context and do all the SIX STEPS to fulfill reach TO THE POWER OF 666! You, your Sunni and Shiite partners are warned by 15:90-99:
As We have sent down on the dividers.
Second, the trashy sources you are so fond of using against my faith, yes your favorite sources are reporting differently regarding the first verse in your reference: Verse 2:256 is listed as Medinan verse by the sources you wish me to believe. Again, you mix truth with falsehood, pieces of glass with diamond, poison with candies… Exactly like hadith narrators and collectors had done.
If you don’t read the Quran in its historic context you won’t be able to understand it. The Quran is not a novel, it is not a how-to book, it is not a scientific dissertation and it is not a philosophical exegesis. The Quran is a collection of many verses that were written in response to certain events in the life of Muhammad. A great part of the Quran refers to episodes happening to Muhammad and his followers. If we disregard this historic context or what the Muslim scholars call the sha’ne nozool, we miss the whole point. For example, the Surah 111 about Abu Lahab makes no sense unless one knows the context in which this Sura was written. Only when we read the tafseer and the sha’ne nozool of these verses we can understand why in one place Muhammad says:
73:10 Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously.
And in another place he says:
9:123 Oh ye who believe! Murder the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.
|The idea of abrogation is a Satanic idea, and it was fabricated by Sunni and Shiite mushriks who had problems with some verses when they tried to twist others. Ironically, your mentality is not much different. It seems that you have rejected the substance of your religion but you are keeping its mind set, its fallacious reasoning methods exactly. No wonder, the Sunnys who are following our argument have found you much closer to themselves!|
The idea of abrogation is confirmed in the Quran itself.
16:101 “And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, – and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth – they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.”
2:106 “Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?”
This verse shows that some verses of the Quran were abrogated and replaced with allegedly better ones.
13:039 Allah effaceth what He will, and establisheth (what He will), and with Him is the source of ordinance.
The word used in Arabic is Yamhoo يَمْحُو This is translated by various translators of the Quran as blot out, make to pass away, erase, abolish and abrogate. The proper word of abrogation is naskh, but the word mahv used above also conveys the same meaning.
17:086 “And if We willed We could withdraw that which We have revealed unto thee, then wouldst thou find no guardian for thee against Us in respect thereof.”
Apparently there were also verses that were abrogated, but never replaced. This information comes to us from hadith. You are not required to agree with it and in fact you may skip this part. I am only quoting it as a matter of interest. If you are allowed to write a book describing the details of the life of Muhammad using the hadith without placing any particular importance on them, why shouldn’t I?
Aisha is reported saying:
“The Prophet invoked evil upon those (people) who killed his companions at Bir Mauna for 30 days (in the morning prayer). He invoked evil upon (tribes of) Ril, Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. Allah revealed a Quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma’una, and we recited the Verse till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was:) ‘Inform our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him.”Bukhari 5.59.421
I can’t see how anyone could benefit from fabricating this hadith. The reason that verse was blotted out is the source of it. This “verse” came from the martyrs and not from God. The Prophet in his zest to fool his followers received this revelation from the martyrs telling other Muslims how pleased they are. But he forgot that the Quran is supposed to be the word of God and not that of martyrs.
He also forgot that since according to his own eschatology, all dead people remain in their tombs until the Day of Resurrection the martyrs could not have sent any message from the next word.
The case of the Satanic Verses was scandalous. In Sura 53:19-22 we read.
19. Have ye seen Lat. and ‘Uzza,
20. And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
21. What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female?
22. Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!
But Ibn Sa’d and Tabari, p. 140 report that the verses 21 and 22 were originally as follow:
21. These are the exalted Females,
22. And verily their Intercession is to be hoped for.
This open concession and the acceptance of Lat, Ozza and Manat, the three goddesses, daughters of Allah, surprised and pleased the Quraish who unanimously bowed in prostration when Muhammad ended his speech with these words: “Wherefore bow down before God, and serve Him.” Quraish were happy that Muhammad had ended insulting their gods and avowed to end hostility.
Some narrators say that on the very night of that day, Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and said: “What is this that thou hast done? thou hast repeated before the people words that I never gave unto thee.” And Muhammad realizing that these verses were put into his mouth by Satan, retracted from what he said, disowned the whole proceeding, and called those verses “Satanic Verses”.
However, the fact that the tidings of the reconciliation between the Muslims and the Quraish reached Abyssinia and many of the immigrants returned to Mecca makes us infer that Gabriel did not appear to Muhammad on the same night and this state of peace between the Quraish and the followers of Muhammad went on for a while.
Obviously, Edip, who is in utter denial of all the history of Islam does not know any of this and I am not holding him accountable of that either. Nonetheless, he must explain the gross contradictions in the Quran that forced the early scholars to invent an entire “science” called nasekh wa mansookh (the abrogators and the abrogated) just to study which verses are abrogated and by which ones.
Take for example the punishment of the adulterers.
”If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
16. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
Now compare that to:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
These are two different injunctions?
The “Dictionary of Qur’anic Terms and Concepts” (pages 5, 6) by Muntasir Mir says, “Quranic injunctions themselves may be abrogated, as has happened in a few cases. An example of this abrogation is 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, (q.v.) stated in 4:15-16. A study of the Quran shows first, that only a limited number of Quranic verses have been abrogated, and second, that the abrogation pertains to legal and practical matters only, and not to matters of doctrine and belief.”
The abrogation does not pertain only to legal and practical matters.
5:69 “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”
49:15 “Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones.”
9:29 “Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day… and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior”
Are the people of scriptures believers in God or not? Can they live in peace or they should be fought? Can they live without the fear of the Muslims or should they pay tribute for their safety? Will their religionsbe accepted or not? These verses contradict each other and there are many more. That is why Muslim scholars study for years to understand the science of nasekh wa mansookh. If such a science exists, it is because some of the scholars saw the discrepancies and tried to make sense of them.
We discussed this point in round V too.
You made me smile. Thanks. Do you remember the words PROJECTION?
I asked you to please engage in debating with me, instead of copy pasting, and you wrote
|Copy paste what? So far, I copied and pasted only ONE article of MINE to TRICK you in order to expose the real reason behind your indulgence in loads of trashy hearsays of hearsays of hearsays… You are the one who is continuously copying and pasting the hearsay books and you have the audacity to blame me for what you have been doing since the beginning of our debate. More than half of what you have included in your answers were COPY and PASTE from story books.|
You call the hadith and Sira “story books” and dismiss them as fairytales and yet you want us to believe that Islam suddenly fell from the sky and it is irrelevant to know anything about its author and its history? Now isn’t this the most fabulous fairytale of all?
Dou you have heart Ali Sina? Then why are you playing as a pawn of crusaders for their new colonialism plans? Why you distort facts, you introduce hearsays of hearsays as facts, and dehumanize the entire Muslim world? Don’t you know that your hatred might justify genocide against Muslims in the minds of some of your followers? I wish you could be brave enough to stand against the terror, destruction and massacres inflicted by evangelical crusaders and their Zionist allies as you demonstrate bravery to stand against the terror, destruction and massacres inflicted by Taliban and mullah hislamics. I invited you to condemn ANY ACT OF AGGRESSION, TERRORISM, ATROCITIES, VIOLENCE, and HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION regardless of the religion or nationality of the perpetrator. You should join me in using one standard if you have dignity and sense of justice.
Despite this bitter-tasting debate with you, I still pray for your guidance and I hope that one day you will see the truth that well set you free.
I condemn any act of aggression, terrorism and violence. However, I am not blinded by religious hatred and not completely bereft of decrement. I am not an “evangelical crusader” or a Zionist. I am a humanist and I am religion blind. I see no difference between people and don’t hate a particular group because of what they believe. I condemn aggression, terrorism and violence and I condemn those who perpetrate them. The Zionists or evangelical Christians are NOT terrorizing people like you Muslims do. If their beliefs are based on fairytales, that is up to them. I am not here to right everybody’s faith. I am not a religious crusader and I want to live in a world where everyone is free to believe in the faith of his choice. My fight is only against aggression, terrorism, violence and doctrines of hate that promote these evils. With all fairness I see only Muslims are violent. Only they commit atrocities motivated by an ideology of hate. Of course no one is without sin. Others also commit terrible things. But only Muslims do it because of their ideology. Only Muslims think bombing innocent people, massacring children, ramming passenger jets into buildings and killing some clerks, or beheading innocent people, truck drivers or health care givers are divine acts. Everyone else commits atrocities, but only Muslims praise Allah while doing it, consider it an ultimate act of worship and believe they will be rewarded for it.
If American soldiers mistreat and humiliate a bunch of terrorists in Abu Graib, the entire population of America is disdained; protests and the culprits are prosecuted. Today the very military court found one of the guards guilty and he may face 14.5 years of jail. If some Israeli soldiers abuse their power, the entire Jewish nation condemns them. If some fanatical Hindus retaliate against the Muslims for having killed their fellow co-religionists, the entire India is enraged. But when your terrorist brothers commit murder and kill thousands of people, the majority of Muslims celebrates cheers and rejoices.
There is something fundamentally wrong with Islam. That thing is the belief in the hatemongering book of Quran and the monster called Muhammad.
I am not distorting any facts. I am presenting them truthfully. I am convinced that only truth can set us free. The person who is distorting facts and tries to masquerade them with denials is you. What fantasy is more comical than claiming that Muhammad is utterly irrelevant to his message and even if he was a mass murderer, assassin, pedophile, thug it has no bearing on his message? Forget about Muhammad. What is the message of the Quran? Isn’t it anything but hate, terror and violence?
You say “Don’t you know that your hatred might justify genocide against Muslims in the minds of some of your followers?” First, I have no followers. People who read this site are rational and freethinking people with independent minds. Following is for the sheep. Second, I don’t promote hatred. I try to awaken Muslims so they leave the cult of hate and join the fold of humanity. There is nothing in it for me except the peace of mankind and a better future for our children. This is my contribution to humanity. It was Muhammad who promoted hate. It was he who divided mankind into Kafirs, vs. believers; “us” vs. them. I want to end this dichotomy. I want to bring the misguided followers of this madman back to the fold of humanity. I am a foot-soldier of love and unity of mankind and not a warmonger and hate monger. Third, it is not me who is justifying genocide. It is Islam that justifies genocide. The Quran is filled with violence and terror. What do you think is the effect of verse that say,
9:5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them
8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.
9:14 Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame,
9:29 Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day… and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior”
3:85 Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers.”
9:28 O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year, …”
And hundreds of other fiery verses like these?
But look at you! You are pouring your unbounded vituperation on the Zionists and the Christian “crusaders”, with sheer lies and slanders and instilling hate in the hearts and minds of the impressionable and benighted Muslims. It is you who encourage them to join the terrorist camps and become human bombs. You and your anti west, anti American, anti Semite and anti human rhetoric are the culprit, the hate monger and the corrupter of the minds not me. It is youyou’re your prophet. Talk about self-projection!
|I challenge you to use scientific evidence and reason for your criticism of the Quran. I will NOT continue debate with you if you ONE MORE TIME refer to or quote from hadith, Sira or tafseer books that I have rejected vehemently since 1986. If you cannot criticize the Quran without referring to hearsays of hearsays, then you will be proving to the entire world that you lost this debate against someone who followed the Quran alone.|
Scientific evidence and reason is exactly what I am using to reject that hodgepodge of absurdities of the book you call miracle? What is scientific about this book of idiocy? The Quran is an insult to human intelligence. Let us discuss the “scientific evidence” of the Quran. It is time to dismantle all the lies and remove all the veils, so haply some Muslims wake up and see how much they have been mislead. Islam sustains itself through brainwashing. There is nothing logical or scientific in this Islam and its book of terror.
I am not asking you to defend the Hadith and Sira. I am asking you to skip all the hadith and Sira that I quote. Disregard them completely. Those are for the benefit of the readers, to show them the fallacy of your position. You are not required to even acknowledge them. Keep your head in the sand and defend Islam in that position. Just respond to my accusations against the Quran. Can you tell us what did Muhammad mean when he said unbelievers are najis (filthy, impure, untouchable)? 9:28 or explain all the hundreds of other verses that do nothing but foment hate and violence? Can people become najis by virtue of what they believe? Is that scientific? Let us talk about science and Quran.
|Finally, I would prefer that you post my responses all together, rather chopping them and using them in your complete articles. You had eliminated some of the quotation in my responses and thus making it difficult for the reader to follow my response to each point. If you visit the forum of 19.org you will see what I mean.
I am interpolating your words and mine. Everything you have written is posted. This is the easiest way for the readers to follow this debate. It eliminates the need of quoting you and you quoting me, as it is done in the forum, which only creates useless duplications and repetitions and waste of people’s time reading the same things twice. I delete my words when you quote me but your text is clear. I leave them when your text is not independently clear. Unlike you I am fully aware of the importance of the “context” as we already discussed in this debate. Furthermore, your entire articles with my quotes are in the forum of this site as posted by yourself.
Now, please bring forth the “scientific evidence” of the Quran. I am sure our readers can’t wait to see how such a book of terror can be scientific and logical.
|Closing the Debate, Analysis of Ali Sina and His Mission , and the Surprise
January 17, 2005
On January 14, 2005 I wrote the following:
Well, now it is time for the ANALYSIS and the SURPRISE note. However, first I will explain what led me to end this debate:
Before we read your “analysis” and your “surprise”, let us be clear that the accusation that I “have not been able to get my nose out of the trash of hadith” is unfounded. I attacked the Quran and what I asked you is to explain the Quran only. At no time I held you accountable for any haidth. You wrote a book even before knowing me and you based your entire history of Muhammad on the same “pile of trash” of haidth and sira that you decry. Then you said you did that to trap me. I can’t see how. You said the details of that history are not important and what is important is the Quran. I did exactly what you did. My questions hinge around the Quran and never any hadith. You did not answer any of the charges I brought against the Quran and your only line of defense has been accusing me of relying on haidth. Anyone who reads our debate can see this is not the case.
|About a month ago, I accepted Ali Sina’s invitation to debate on Islam. I had limited time, so I invited him to debate face-to-face in public. I told him that I could arrange such a debate at the Universityof Arizona or Pima College . I was working to finish important projects such as the Reformist Translation of the Quran; a script for a political comedy; animation school; and establishing an alliance with other organizations under the name Islamic Reform; and teaching philosophy.
But, Ali Sina rejected to debate in public claiming security and his need for research; so, we ended up debating on Islam at his website, which took about a month. Despite my repeated reminder to debate on the Quran, Ali was obsessed with using hearsays of hearsays in his arguments. I was glad that finally, Ali Sina was offering to debate in a nicer language and focus on the Quran, and I congratulated him for that decision. Nevertheless, my happiness did not last long. On January 13, 2005, Ali posted a paragraph exposing his real face. I read the paragraph first at free-minds.org then I saw it published at his website, faithfreedom.org. I reacted to that in a language that it deserved. Here is the merged version of my successive two reactions. Note that for the first time I did not feel free to call Ali with the word “dear”:
I know that your mouth is filled with foam and venom against Muslims, but I do not expect you to be using the exact language of Fascists and Nazis. In case you have not written the above-quoted idiotic statements, which I hope that you have not, then ignore these words and let the real source get my message.
To the coward vampire, who is instigating wars and genocides:
You are the real subhuman, you are a vampire who is thirsty to suck the blood of more than a billion humans on this planet. If this is an irrational reaction to a terrorist event that killed several thousand people, then you should demonstrate many times more hatred and irrational reaction to the terrorism, atrocities, murders, and massacres committed by USA-INC, UK, USSR, and Israel; in the last century alone, in which they killed MILLIONS of PEOPLE and destroyed countries and annihilated entire cities! By calling destruction of entire cities, together with families and children, with the word WAR does not make a bit difference.
Though I condemn a warmongering group of hypocrite Christians by calling their name Evilgelical, I never justify killing Evilgelical Christians, let alone all Christians, or killing Zionist Jews, let alone all Jews. You are a monster using the mask of humanism. You cannot be a human; you are a hatemonger and bloodthirsty creature. I do not condone killing animals like you; but I might approve of putting a leash around your dirty neck.
Peace is our weapon against fascist warmongers. Yes, PEACE
I am waiting for Ali Sina’s answer for this matter, ASAP. This excerpt is not something simple to get away with it. I will explain after Ali Sina’s rejection or admission. And I hope he will reject or rescind it. I will accept his denial even if he was the one who had written in a moment of irrationality and rabid insanity.
So, Ali Sina, if it is not you who has written the above Neo Nazi remarks then who is posting articles together with you? If it is you, be brave and own your words.
Tell me whether it is indeed NOT you who have declared himself to be a promoter of genocide by dehumanizing all Muslims. Tell me that a TALIBAN or a NEONAZI hacker hacked your website and wrote answer in your name. I would be glad to accept this scenario. Because, I cannot believe that a person who is smart enough to engage in intellectual debates, though frequently sniffing and stuffing himself with holy trash, could be author of such rabid and diabolic words! SALAM, that is PEACE
On January 14, 2005 Ali Sina responded to my query as follows:
Ali Sina after condemning and convicting the entire muslim world to death and then as the judge of his court now he is contemplating to forgive my life if I can prove to him that I am not guilty, or subhuman. Though he had visited my personal website (yuksel.org), my organization’s website (19.org), read my life story, and learned my uncompromising standing against violence, terror, wars, human rights violation and suppression of freedom… Knowing that I had to flee my country because of my rejection of traditional corrupt Islam, knowing that my mentor and close friend was the first victim of al-Qaida terrorism in the USA, and witnessing that the rabid Sunnis and Shiites participating at his forum sided with him against me, knowing all of these, his majesty is not yet clear whether to distinguish me from other Muslims who are condemned to death by his “humanistic” decree of genocide. He needs more evidence, perhaps, me publicly begging for my life in his court of inquisition!
Thank God, this so-called Hislamic apostate who is openly supported by Evangelical Christians does not have power. He would be worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or his like-minded Taliban.
You seem to have a very high estimation of yourself. This was typical of Muhammad who killed and looted so many innocent people and had the chutzpa to call himself the best of the creation and a perfect example. As I explained during this debate, Muhammad was a narcissist and his followers, to the degree that they are influenced by him have the same pathological traits.
Dear Edip, what you say about yourself count very little. After all everyone thinks to be a superior person and the more he or she is a narcissist the more holier-than-thou he becomes
I am afraid you did not come across as a man who stands against violence, terror, human rights abuses or suppression of freedom. You are a staunch defender of the Quran and there is no question that this book advocates violence, terror and human rights abuses and it suppresses the freedom of its followers and particularly its opponents. You have been abused and persecuted. This is normal in Islam. All the Muslims are victims and victimizers at the same time. This is the nature of Islam. Muslims have killed and persecuted many more among themselves than the non-Muslims. We can’t say all the victims of Islam are innocent. When the tables are turned, they do the same things with others. Your total devotion to the cult of terror of Muhammad proves that you are far from being a peaceful and non-violent person. In fact you agreed with your friend who said my killing is justified.
Furthermore, you poured your unbounded vituperation on Jews and the Christians whom you disparagingly call “Evilgelical”. The interesting part is that you have escaped persecution from your Muslim brothers and here in America you found protection and freedom. And how you thank your hosts? You viciously attack them and incite hate against them. This is so typical of Muslims.
You seem to be obsessed about thinking of yourself as more distinguished from other Muslims. That distinction exists only in your mind. In fact show me one Muslim who does not think he is distinguished from other Muslims by virtue of the fact that his is the “right” version of Islam. Islam makes people haughty, self-righteous and arrogant. I see you as a Muslim and a Muslim is a Muslim. As long as you follow and worship a terrorist you are a potential terrorist. This debate has helped us see the real nature of the Submitters and show to the world that their claim of reformation and moderation is bogus and a cheap propaganda. In fact when I pressed you to explain what this reform means you were evasive and all you could say was to call me ignorant for confusing “Islamic reform” with “reform of Islam”. You refused to explain what you mean by Islamic reform because you knew you would expose yourself to further attacks.
Let us analyze this “surprise analysis”. Actually, I am not surprised at all. You refused to answer the charges that I brought against the Quran. You kept hiding behind your favorite line of defense, accusing me of using the “trash of hadith”, when clearly that has not been the case. So you had two options. A) Do the honorable thing and admit that the Quran is a book of terror and violence, take the side of the truth and denounce Islam, or B) find an excuse to save face and weasel your way out of this debate. Regrettably, you chose the latter – the less honorable route. Nonetheless, you are too transparent.
Do you call those who butchered the hundreds of children in Beslan were humans? I don’t! No one who is capable of such a monstrous act can be called human. Millions of Muslims are perfectly capable of that.
Everyday Muslims commit monstrosities across the world. Where do they get their inspiration from? They get it from the Quran. I already quoted many verses that incite terror and asked you for explanation. You never answered. All you said so far is that these are hadith trash.
I reiterate once again. “The sign of humanity is in our humanness. No person who believes in the inhumane teachings of the Quran deserves to be called human. This is a war between humanity and a spiritually underdeveloped subhuman species. The actions of Muslims are barbaric. Their thoughts are beastly. They have no human conscience and they are preying on us humans.
Now, you accuse me of including in this all the Muslims. Not so! I have stated time and again that most Muslims are not aware of the barbarity of the Quran and if they come to see what that book says they will not remain Muslims. One such example is Haifa , the lady I debated with a couple of days ago who after realizing that terrorism is not because of the misunderstanding of the Quran but a direct result of it. Her whole family left Islam in one day. Now I don’t expect everyone to go from blind faith to enlightenment in one day after being exposed to the truth. In fact if this were to happen it would make me very depressed. It took me nearly one year of study and another year or two of living in limbo until I finally made my mind. If everyone were as fast as Haifa and her enlightened family then I would start thinking perhaps something is wrong with me for taking so long. Nonetheless, the majority of Muslims, sooner or later, will realize that the problem is with Muhammad and will eventually leave this cult.
The majority of Muslims are good people. They are born in a wrong cult. They are not expert in religion and are unaware of what the Quran teaches. You can’t call these people subhuman. They are simply misinformed. I always talk about my Muslim grandmother whom I consider to have been a saint. There are millions of good people among Muslims like her. These people don’t know Islam. But if a Muslim believes in the inhumane teachings of the Quran, defends them and puts them to action, he can’t be called human.
I asked you to define your position. Which side are you standing? Are you a human or a subhuman Muslim? This can be easily determined by your degree of adherence to the Quran.
Do you agree with the following?
8:12 “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them ”
3:28, “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers”
4:84, “Then fight in Allah’s cause”
8:17, “It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah”
8:65, “O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight”.
9:5, “Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,”
9:14, “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame”
9:23, “O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith”
9:28, “O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean”
9:29, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day”
9:123, “O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you”
47:4, “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks; At length”
3:85, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)”.
8:39, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.”
This is just a token. The Quran is filled with this kind of trash. Now tell me! Do you believe in them? If so how can we call you a human? Nay, rather any person who believes in these evil verses is evil and a subhuman.
You called me a fascist. You never defended Islam so far. But instead you keep attacking me. Let us see how Dictionary.com defines fascism:
“A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”
Islam tries to establish a centralized authority under the dictatorship of a Khalifa. The socio-economical rules of Islam, i.e. the laws of the Sharia are extremely stringent. No opposition to Islam is tolerated and terror is exerted to silence any dissent and censorship is heavily practiced. This is all according to the explicit mandates of the Quran. Islam is belligerent by its nature as it is clear from many verses such as: 2:216 that says fighting is prescribed for you and it is good for you. Islam is also “racist” in a religious sense. The supremacy of the cult members is not determined by the color of their skin, but by their belief and submission to the cult. Another good definition of fascism is the following verse:
48:29, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”
Fascism conquers by dividing people between us and them and uses victimization and hatred of the outsiders to that end. It is an ideology of hate. It needs a scapegoat and an enemy to unite its members through their collective hate.
Muhammad promoted unbounded hatred of unbelievers to rally believers around himself. Anyone who compares the Quran with the Mein Kampf is surprised at the similarity of these two books.
However, I reject your characterization of me. I am not a fascist. I fight Islamic fascism. Just as it is absurd to call the Allies who fought against Nazism, war mongers and hate mongers, it is equally ludicrous to decry those who fight against Islamofascism as fascists. Islamic fascism is very much obvious to anyone who reads that tedious book of Quran. On the other hand our message at FFI is unity of mankind and abolition of all racial and religious hatred.
Islam is an anti human cult. This is clear from the Quran. Naturally we can’t tolerate it. Tolerating intolerance encourages intolerance. Civilized societies must not only tolerate but celebrate human differences. Diversity is good. Different races, different cultures and even different religions are like different flavors or different hues. The beauty is in diversity. At the same time that we celebrate this diversity, we have to protect it. Islam wants to eliminate this diversity. It wants to take away our freedom of thought and choice. It wants to enslave all of us under one fascistic rule and dominate through mind control. It wants to establish a Borg society. Islam is not another color of the rainbow. It is the darkness of the night that eliminates all the colors. We have to unmask this wolf in sheep’s clothing and slay it. This is not intolerance. This is protecting tolerance. It is protecting our freedom, our diversity and our lives.
In my previous write up I suggested that Muslims should not be treated according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but rather according to the mandates of the Quran. Don’t they think the Quran is superior? Don’t they say it is divine and perfect while the UDHR is manmade and imperfect? So they should be pleased if we treat them in exact same way that the Quran says the non-believers should be treated. Aren’t they striving to make the Sharia the law of land in non-Muslim countries? We have to make sure they get their wish. We will apply the Sharia on them. But when I suggested this, you and your friend were horrified and called me a fascist and a hate monger. How revealing!
All I am proposing is to take the verses of the Quran and replace the “unbelievers” with “Muslims” and vice versa. Let us see how they look:
8:12 We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
3:28, Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims.
8:65, Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims.
9:5, Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them,
9:14, Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame.
9:23, O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.
9:28, O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean.
9:123, O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you.
47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length.
Now, you think this is horrible? You think I am “the real subhuman, a vampire who is thirsty to suck the blood of more than a billion humans on this planet.”? Are you totally shocked of my inhumanity? Do you think this is horrendous?
I wonder why! In writing these new laws I have tried to emulate the man who called himself “the best of the creation” and “a good example to follow”. I tried to be as “compassionate” as he was. Don’t you say the Quran promotes peace? Don’t you say the Quran is the Message of Salvation? So why you call me a blood sucking vampire when I say exactly the same things your holy prophet said?
When I said anyone who truly believes in the Quran is subhuman you called me a fascist. But looks like you agree with me after all. In fact you went even one step further and wrote:
“To the coward vampire, who is instigating wars and genocides: You are the real subhuman, you are a vampire who is thirsty to suck the blood of more than a billion humans on this planet.” You said a person who can write “such rabid and diabolic words” is a “monster using the mask of humanism” who “cannot be a human but a hatemonger and bloodthirsty creature that needs a leash around his neck”
Very well said! I fully agree with you. Only a blood sucking vampire and a monster can have such diabolic mind to write such verses.
Do you realize the absurdity of your stance now? Do you still want to defend Muhammad and his Quran?
After calling me all these things for merely saying what the Quran says, you proceeded extolling your own virtues and your “uncompromising standing against violence, terror, wars, human rights violation and suppression of freedom”, etc. etc. What a great person you are dear Edip! Now can you please explain how a person of your caliber, someone who has an uncompromising standing against violence and terror, can think that the Quran is the word of God? Can you please explain to us why when these words are used against the non-Muslims they are divine and when I suggest we switch role and let Muslims taste the very medicine that they prescribe for others, I become a monster and a bloodsucking vampire?
When I said Muslims should be treated the way the Quran says non-believers should be treated, your fellow cultist said I am not following the Golden Rule. Well, maybe I am not! Who cares about me? I did not claim to be a prophet of God! But are you following the Golden Rule? Are the teachings of Muhammad based on the Golden Rule? How can you follow a religion with teachings such as these that only the mention of reversing the roles sends shiver down your spine and you call the person who makes that outrageous suggestion a vampire, a bloodsucking monster, a hate monger that needs a leash around his neck? If these teachings are so bad, why you prescribe them for others? If they are so evil why you follow them?
This is a very straightforward question, dear Edip. It has nothing to do with hadith. Can you please answer it?
|I am glad that I am in a country established by deists, monotheists, and muslims (submitters to God alone and promoters of peace), who escaped from religious persecution. The constitution of the United States is mostly in harmony with Quranic principles. I am blessed for not living in a country ruled by Pope, Evangelical Christians, Talibans, Mullahs, or fascist cult of Ali Sina|
So the constitution of the US is in harmony with Quranic Principle! Really?
Let us take a example and compare:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now let us see what the Quran says in respect to freedom of faith and speech.
3:85, If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
2:193 And fight them until there is no more fitnah (sedition), and religion is for Allah
2:257 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).
Is there any similarity between the American constitution and the Quranic principles? I don’t see any?
|Though the USA government is currently infiltrated by Evangelical Christians, there are still many institutions and majority of people who appreciate justice, equality, liberty, and the separation of church and state. I will fight against organized religion influencing the government of my country.|
In what ways Islam advocates separation of church and state? The whole concept of Islam is to bring Islamic rule and establish the Quran and Sharia as the law on Earth. Doesn’t the Quran talk about the rights of woman being half of that of man and their testimony also worth half? Doesn’t the Quran define the ordinances for thieve and adulterers? This is interference in the secular law. How can Islam advocate separation of church and state then? Probably you mean Islam advocates the separation of the “Christian church” from state, so that Muslims can control everything.
Then you talk about justice, equality, liberty. You must be joking. Is imposing Jizyah and humiliating the unbelievers, justice? Are people free to have a different religion other than Islam? Do Muslims and non-Muslims, or men and women in Islam have the same rights? You simply throw any fancy word you find without ever paying attention to their meanings. The concept of justice, equality and liberty don’t exist in Islam.
|Thus, Ali Sina’s theo-fascist remarks declaring ALL Muslims being “subhuman species” made me decide to discontinue the debate with him. His “subhuman” remark was the last, but a venomous drop that filled his cup of hatred and bigotry. He is not a person to reason with, since his mind is filled with toxic hate and his stomach is thirsty for fresh blood. I now regret calling him with the word “dear,” since he does not deserve even its first letter.|
You have been looking for excuses to get out of this debate. Everyone can see this excuse is not warranted.
|Those who are curious about my response to Ali’s “6-Step” criticism of the Quran will find our answer to his and many other criticism at the side notes of the Reformist Translation of the Quran, which will be published in the end of the year, inshallah.
As I promised, I am posting my analyses of the leader of this small cult. A SURPRISE note will follow these analyses:
1. Ali Sina is a smart, articulate and well-versed in classic Hislamic liturgy. Thus, I do not think that he was originally a Christian introducing himself as a former Muslim.
2. Ali Sina’s website, though frequented by cheerleaders and hatemonger drunkards, is indeed an open forum with no censorship, like our forum at 19.org. I have not yet seen a Hislamic or Evilgelical website with such an open door policy.
3. Ali Sina, though chopped some of my arguments by integrating/devouring them within his arguments, he demonstrated acceptable degree of fairness in posting them.
4. Ali Sina, having full control on the website, could have distorted my responses and he even could have posted some outrageous statements under my name. (This happened in an atheist Turkish forum several years ago!). Ali Sina seems to have integrity in this regard.
5. Ali Sina, though misguided, has complete dedication to his cause. (Since we do not know about his identity, we cannot verify nor falsify claims about his getting financial aid from Evangelical organizations or from CIA for his job to promote hate and genocide.).
6. Though Ali Sina appears to be thirstier for the blood of innocent people than his Hislamic clones, such as members of Taliban and Al-Qaida, he has a mediocre sense of humor that others lack. His sense of humor might be an indication that there is hope for his recovery from hatemongering.
7. Though, using his old sunni mentality, Ali frequently confuses the Quran with books of hearsay, Ali Sina does an excellent job in exposing the numerous problems in teachings of hadith, sunnah, and sectarian jurisprudence. (I have being doing this since 1986 and published more than a dozen books on this subject)
1. Ali Sina follows the Evilgelical-Sunny methodology of Right foot, left foot. Wet foot, dry foot. Low foot, high foot. True foot, lie foot. Here comes the Evilgelical-Sunni sly soot!
Ali Sina shares a strikingly similar poor knowledge of the Quran with Sunnis and Shiites. He uses the same lousy argument. He uses THE STINKIEST SUBSTANCE out of the Sunni holy trash as the MAIN MENUE in his round table. He is not able to read the Quran without smelling the piles of hadith. Now it is clear that his Hislamic disease is still in his heart and mind. His approach to the Quran is exactly similar to of the Sunni or Shiite ones.
Without being brainwashed by these teachings, any reasonable person would and should understand the meaning and message of verses. Sure, we can ask more questions regarding the details WE WISH to see, but there is no end of demands for more details, especially irrelevant details.
The idea of abrogation is a Satanic idea, and it was fabricated by Sunni and Shiite mushriks who had problems with some verses when they tried to twist others. Ironically, his mentality is not much different. It seems that he has rejected the substance of his religion but he is keeping its mind set, its fallacious reasoning methods exactly. No wonder, the Sunnis who are following our argument have found Ali Sina much closer to themselves!
I have no comments on the above. These are all your subjective observations of me. They are red herring. You need these logical fallacies because you have failed to defend Islam and don’t have the temerity to admit it.
We already talked about abrogation. I quoted several verses of the Quran that are contradictory. Without trying to refute me you repeated your original statement. You also keep accusing me of using haith, ignoring all the Quranic verses that I have quoted. My entire criticism is about the Quran.
I wish you engaged in some real debate and tried to refute my arguments instead of making psychoanalysis of me. Even if your prognosis of me were true, in no ways it disproves my argument. In logic this is called ad hominen. Ad hominem is when you, instead of discussing the subject, direct your attack at your opponent. Here, you and I are discussing Islam. I laid some serious charges against the Quran. Your job is to refute them. But you have not done so. First you falsely accuse me of using hadith and now you are finding faults about my person. Since this debate is not about me but about Islam and Muhammad, I present no defense of myself. What is clear is that you are dodging the questions that I am raising. You have not refuted any of my arguments.
|Ali Sina repeatedly claimed that the Quran was not detailed because it did not provide the real identity of person in chapter 111; he wondered about Abu Lahab and claimed that Quran is meaningless without hadith and other storybooks, since they provide much detail about that character. Well, I just proved the Quran, since according to the Quran fanatic disbelievers will never understand the Quran (17:45-46). The believers of the Quran find Abu Lahab (Father of Fire) a universal character. For instance, with his promotion of hate and violence against one fifth of humanity, Ali Sina is an example of prototype Abu Lahab. He is the Father of Fire. He will end up in his own hell together with his supporters who carry fuel for his fire.|
These are childish explanations that satisfy only the already convinced. I only quoted two examples, one about Abu Lahab and the other about Job. But there are many many examples where the Quran is not clear unless the context of those verses is known. A good example is the Sura Bara’a that I quoted earlier. For example, the Verse 5 of that Sura says when the “forbidden months are passed, then fight and slay the Pagans”. What are those forbidden months? This is not insignificant. This Sura is instructing Muslims to shed blood. So it is a matter of life and death to know what those forbidden months are. The Quran does not make this clear. Therefore without the tafseer the Quran is incomprehensible. I can bring hundreds of examples like this. No person can make sense of the Quran without the knowledge of the events surrounding it, not even you. That is why in your book, you relied extensively on hadith.
|2. Ali Sina frequently makes false claims with hyperbolic pontifications.
For instance, he claimed that verse 7:166 claims that God “literally” transformed Jews to monkeys and pigs and continued by saying that “no scholar has understood them as metaphors.” I quoted from Muhammad Asad’s translation, The Message, and proved that he was simply wrong.
Another example is his assertion regarding the Quranic verses promoting freedom of religion and expression. He claimed that all belong to Meccan era when Muhammad was weak. The trashy sources he was so fond of using against my faith, yes his favorite sources are reporting differently regarding the first verse in his reference. Thus, he misrepresented his own trashy sources. Verse 2:256 is listed as Medinan verse by the sources he wished me to believe. Again, he mixes truth with falsehood, pieces of glass with diamond, poison with candies… Exactly like hadith narrators and collectors had done.
The verse 7:166 is asinine. Of course not all Muslims are dumb. It is natural that some of them see the stupidity of this verse and try to reinterpret it. For example, Miraj is an absurdity and many Muslims, like Rumi gave “spiritual” meaning to it. Nonetheless the verses about the Jews becoming apes are not allegorical. That is why Rumi could not change them even though he was a brilliant man. Some scholars, like you, claim they are allegorical. But the verses are very clear. If these scholars insist that black is white that does not change the truth. There are also scholars that say, the Quran is a tolerant book. Does it make any difference? They are simply lying. Anyone can see the Quran is not a tolerant book just as anyone can see that those verses are not allegorical.
|3. Ali Sina has the habit of putting words in his opponent’s mouth.
For instance, regarding my promotion of Islamic Reform, he either from ignorance or deliberately switched my words around and described it as Reform in Islam.
I told him to go ask someone who knows English better than him the difference between “Reform in Islam” and “Islamic Reform.” He indicated that he has read some of my articles at my website. Has he done so, he should have learned that I do not suggest what he is trying to put in my mouth. Perhaps, he is deliberately trying to misrepresent my position to divert from the main issues. He has somehow succeeded many times by resorting to his favorite silly storybooks, and copying and pasting them here.
I asked you to explain what you mean by “Islamic Reform”. You are beating around the bushes but not answering my question. Why instead of accusing me of being dishonest, you just don’t explain what you mean? I asked you a simple question. What does Islamic Reform mean? I understand it as reforming Islam. You say I am ignorant and my understanding is wrong. So please explain it so even an ignorant person like me can understand.
You are following a pattern of evasion by resorting to ad hominem and introducing red herrings.
|4. Ali Sina lacks academic rigor, and when it is in his advantage, he confuses modern Arabic with classic Arabic, or uses third class unreliable sources.
His suggesting MOKAFAT in our debate on Jizya was interesting: After another lengthy diversion with a load of trashy references and lies, he finally made an argument, though a funny argument. First, the word MOKAFAT is modern Arabic and is not used in the Quran and hadith books. He is confusing a Modern Arabic word with classic Arabic.
Ali’s linguistic sources are little better than his hadith sources, but they are still third rate sources. He referred to vikipedia.org regarding our discussion on the word Jizya of verse 9:29. Any person can go write an article and definition in wikipedia.org, including him and any of his followers. From his MOKAFAT, his knowledge of classic Arabic became suspect, and from using wikipedia.org, his level of academic gullibility became an issue.
Another example: He criticizes the Quran for being unscientific by reading the verses of the Quran like a third grader. For instance, he refers to verse 18:86 and understand it as “Koran teaches us that the Sun sets in a muddy spring.” He ignores the fact the verse is not describing an astronomic event, but the PERCEPTION of Zul Qarnain (the one with two generations), since he verse introduces the perception as “HE FOUND”. I urge anyone to search google by putting the following words in quotation “sun set behind” and they will find that more than ten thousand sites, including modern universities astronomy sites “teaches us that the Sun sets” behind the mountains, clouds, trees, etc. If you wish you may search for “sun sets in” OR “sun set in.”
We already discussed the word jizyah and from the text of the verse 9:29 it is clear that this is not something desirable. It says: fight them “until they pay jizyah with their own hands and they are humiliated”. The word saagher means subdued and humiliated.
حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
We have not yet discussed the verse 18:86 or other absurdities of the Quran. This, I hope we start doing in our next phase of debate. So far we discussed the incomprehensibility of the Quran and its inhumanity. The absurdities of the Quran require a dedicated discussion.
|5. Ali Sina, instead of accepting his opponent as he is; he pretends what he should be and he debates with the imagined “little devil” character in his mind. He is like a cheap spelling program that cannot distinguish between screw and escrow, between hislamic and Islamic, between hadith and Quran!In our one-month debate, he confused me with some of his Hislamic opponents. Or he prayed that I would just devolve to one of them so he could pull my beard smack my medieval head with those volumes of holy trash! Bad luck!
For instance, I do not separate the verses of the Quran as Meccan on Medinan verses. Again, he was confusing me with Sunnis. The Quran does not contain such a distinction and a believer must follow ALL the verses of the Quran.
Ali Sina uses the common 6 STEPS to reach TO THE POWER OF 666, which I have explained in an article published at 19.org.
The first two paragraphs is mere ad hominem and there is nothing to talk about them. But as for the Meccan and Medinan verses, they ARE different. I showed the difference and asked you to explain the discrepancy of the verses that I quoted. You are totally avoiding the question and repeating your refuted assertion. You may repeat this a thousand times, but as long as you don’t answer the questions those questions remain unanswered. Often Muslims use this fallacy. They dismiss your question and say, “these are old”. Yes they are old. But what is the answer? These old questions have never been answered.
|6. Ali broke his promises frequently.
Ali Sina PROMISED me several times that he would not use hadith and other dubious sources in his criticism of the Quran, but each time he sought a silly excuse to bring a truck-load of them. He was like an obese person breaking his diet not to eat junk food.
Though he knew that I would not continue this debate if he one more time break his promise of not copying and pasting from the hearsay sources, yet he went a head and filled his latest response with those trash. I finished my previous response with the following challenge:
You have tried to weasel your way out of this debate after the third round when instead of responding you posted two irrelevant cut and pastes from your book. In this debate I never used any hadith to prove the fallacy of the Quran. I challenge you to show exactly when this breach happened. Every hadith I quoted was confirmed by the Quran. I quoted verses of the Quran talking about raid and then I quoted the haidth as the confirmation. I quoted verses about rape of the captive women, and only then I quoted the hadiths showing what the Quran says actually did happen. There are hadiths that cannot be confirmed in the Quran. For example, from the Quran we can’t know about Muhammad’s pedophilic relationship with Aisha. I never made mention of those hadiths. Your excuse it unfounded. You use this as a face saving pretext to get out of the debate because obviously you are intelligent enough to realize Islam has lost. But you can’t admit that because you stand to lose a lot. You call yourself “The Islamic Reformer” and envision yourself as the Martin Luther of Islam. No doubt you think a few hundred years from now you’ll be celebrated and remembered like the Christian reformer. I am sorry to shatter your sweet reveries. Islam is not going to be around for long. After this debate many of your own sect members will come to see the indefensibility of the Quran and after getting over the stage of shock and denial, that may take a while, they eventually will leave Islam. There is a limit to which we humans would go to fool ourselves, especially if there is no gain for us. For you of course, there is a gain. You dream to be the Islamic Martin Luther.
The truth is that it’s not just the religious leaders who mislead the masses but the masses also mislead the religious leaders. As long as these religious leaders find a host of followers paying homage to them, they will not be able to detach themselves from their position. But once they find themselves deserted, they too will be forced admit the truth. I believe this debate will cause many submitters who are not in the position of leadership to rethink their faith in the absurdities of the Quran and leave Islam. But you can’t do such thing because you have a lot of vested interest.
|“I challenge you to use scientific evidence and reason for your cricticsm of the Quran. I will NOT continue debate with you if you ONE MORE TIME refer to or quote from hadith, syra or tafseer books that I have rejected vehemently since 1986. If you cannot criticize the Quran without referring to hearsays of hearsays, then you will be proving to the entire world that you lost this debate against someone who followed the Quran alone.”|
So far I used logical evidence against the Quran. My attack of the Quran had nothing to do with hadith. Now let us continue and let us talk about the so called “scientific evidences”. Here is where we have to talk about science. So far we had no occasion to talk about science. There is nothing unscientific about killing, raping or looting.
Yes dear Edip. I have proven the Quran to be a book of terror without any need to rely on hadith. Your repetition of this lie proves how little you can say in defense of the Quran. You are attacking a straw man.
|7. Ali Sina is unaware that he might be heading to Prison:
Ali Sina should be glad that he is in a free and secular country that people are not penalized because of their opinion or belief, how outrageous and stupid they might be. Ali Sina is thinking that he can hide his identity behind the computer screens and continue spew the message of hatred and genocide against Muslims. However, things might change. What goes around will come around.
More ad hominem and more straw man, now spiced with a dash of ad baculum or threat of lawsuit. All you have to do is to disprove my charges against the Quran, and all you have done so is avoiding it and engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies.
|He has already mesmerized some impressionable imbeciles and they might soon start following his advice and committing acts like Nazi or KKK members. They will kill innocent Muslims and their children in the name of “spiritual humanism.” Ali Sina then will find himself in the defendant seat rather than covering his face behind computer screens. I will be there to present the jury with his “subhuman” remarks. I hope this will never happen, but if history any indication, Ali Sina’s bloody dream might become his nightmare.|
I look forward to that. You already heard my line of defense in round IX. This would give us an opportunity to bring the fascistic nature of Islam to the public attention. Maybe this will be the nail in the coffin of Islam.
|8. Ali Sina is a modern crusader, masquerading as a humanist.
Ali has double standard. While he exaggerates and generalizes the atrocities committed by Hislamic fanatic terrorists, he bypasses the bigger atrocities committed by Evilgelical Christians and Zionist Jews (I exclude some of the early Zionists) and their proxy forces.
I wish Ali Sina could be brave enough to stand against the terror, destruction and massacres inflicted by Evilgelical crusaders and their Zionist allies as he stands against the terror, destruction and massacres inflicted by Taliban and Hislamic mullahs.
In his latest answer, he briefly stated that he was against all violence and terrorism; but that was it. So far, he has never condemned a single concrete example of violence, torture, terror, occupations, unjustified wars, and atrocities conducted by Evangelical-Zionist alliance or their proxies.
Modern crusaders, allied with big corporations are orchestrating a deceptive propaganda and misinformation campaign to promote their bloody cause to colonize new lands and convert more people.
These are ludicrous charges. There is no such thing as evangelical (or as you put it “evilgelical”) crusaders today. Some Christians are fanatics but even the most fanatical Christian is not killing innocent people indiscriminately as Muslims do. As we see, no response to the charges I made against the Quran, but more straw man argument.
I find your accusations against Jews and Christians fallacious and typical Islamic hate mongering. Furthermore, they have nothing to do with this debate which is about the Quran and Islam. You are using tu quoque and red herring fallacies.
|Modern Crusaders distort verses of the Quran, exaggerate the deeds of terrorists and even attribute some events motivated by nationalism or other motives to islam. Their propaganda machine never referred to the Serbs as Christian Rapists and Christian Terrorists. Their propaganda machine never referred to the torturer and murderer Zionist occupying forces as Jewish Terrorists, or Jewish Murderers. Their propaganda machine never acknowledges the Christian church and zeal behind Nazi crimes. However, they frequently associate any act of terrorism to Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, they cleverly managed to depict the freedom-seeking victims of brutal occupying forces as aggressors in conflicts such as Chechnya , or Palestine .|
Just to show how your Islamic mind is biased and unable to see the facts, the Serbs were punished by a coalition of other Christian countries who came to help the Muslims. Such thing for Muslims is inconceivable. Can one even imagine that a few Muslim countries join force to fight another Muslim country that is oppressing a non-Muslim population? This is unthinkable. The entire Muslim world is united against Israel for no other reason than to support their Muslim brothers. They don’t give a damn who is right and who is not. As long as one side is Muslim they are with that side.
As for your diatribe on the Jews, this is typical Islamic hate. Jews are not murderers. They have occupied their own ancestral land after they were systematically persecuted and expelled from Islamic, communist and Nazi countries. If the Palestinians had stopped their relentless terror on the Jewish civilians, they would have had their country and land long time ago. Israel did not start the war. The Arabs invaded Israel and they lost. Weren’t you talking about “reparation”?
|They try to depict islam as a violent religion, thereby seeking to justify their own terror, massacres, pre-emptive wars, which are cunningly promoted in a euphemistic language through their propaganda machines. They don’t kill and terrorize civilians; they just produce collateral damage and they just perform colorful shows of “shock and awe.” They do not torture prisoners; they either interrogate them or turn them to anecdotals. They do not destroy cities; they do surgical and smart operations. They do not occupy others’ lands; they liberate them. They do not take revenge; they take justice to their enemies. Thus, media is cleverly used to hypnotize masses and get their support for neo-colonialism. The ruling class in democracies use media to “manifacture concent.” In order to plunder the resources of other countries, greedy corporations and their unholy allies replace one dictator after another, create wars and conflicts, undertake covert operations, and if they are bored, they play liberation games for fun and profit, big profit.Crusaders have directly participated or supported many atrocities and wars in the last millennium; they have killed many more innocent people than their counterpart Sunni or Shiite warmongers. Inquisition, crusades, witch-hunt, World War I and II, holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, Nikaragua, Arjantine, Iraq are just few words in the long list of wars and massacres that are committed or supported by those who call themselves Christians. Nazis used the traditional Christian hatred of Jews as fuel and a twisted Cross (swastika) as the symbol for their racist ambitions. The list of British and American wars, occupations, massacres, slavery, covert operations that were conducted with the approval and support of the Christian church or masses is too long and too gruesome. You can still find many Christians justifying the biggest terrorist attack in the history, the destruction of two big cities with their hundreds of thousands civil population, as a retaliation to the Japanese attack to an American military base. American government has not apologized humanity for this horrific and cowardly act of terror.
The mentality of these Crusaders is no different from those of al-Qaida militants who justified the destruction of the WorldTrade Center as retaliation to the American support for the Israeli’s racist policy of occupation, massacres and terror inPalestine . If Ali Sina lived in Afghanistan , with is hatemongering and pro-genocide mentality, he would be a Taliban or Al-Qaida leader.
Islam is a violent religion. No one needs to “depict” it as such. To see this truth all one has to do is to watch the Muslims and read the Quran.
You are now talking nonsense. The preemptive war is needed. We can’t live with those who think of nothing but to kill us. This is a war that you people started and we must fight it or we would be killed. We did not start the 9/11 you did. Now don’t start with this nonsense “reformed Muslim, terrorist Muslim”. In the course of this debate it has become obvious that as long as you believe and follow the Quran you are a Muslim and a terrorist. Islamic terrorism is redundancy.
These are mindless ravings of a hatemongering Muslim whose brain is on Islam, whose reasoning is marred by his hate and is unable of rational thought. Tell me why the Americans should keep enemies like you in their country? Your rabid squall at the country that has given you asylum is typical Islamic betrayal and ungratefulness. It is a disgrace that Islam robs the humanity of its victims and an educated person such as you lets his passion control his rationality.
Yes, the Westerners and especially the Europeans are guilty of supporting dictators. But those dictators are your own leaders. You brought them to power. You can’t have democracy. Asll your regimes are dictatorships. There is a nice poem in Farsi. I don’t know the poet. I will try to translate it as faithfully as I can because it beautifully describes the deplorable condition of Muslims.
Spoke on the way to his master, a donkey:
You are mean, cruel and a callous hunky
For how long will you keep me oppressed?
Till when, won’t you let me have some rest?
I pray God that you die and leave me in peace
For your ordeal has brought me to my knees
His master told him: Oh you miserable beast
Why in my death you haste and make a feast?
Find a way so you won’t be a donkey anymore
And won’t have to be loaded and used for such a chore
For as long as a beast of burden you remain
If not me, one else will charge you in this vein.
Lesser than donkey are the lethargic and ignorant masses
Who are always under someone’s load like asses.
Until you don’t wake up from your ignorant slumber
Your back won’t rest from the burden and the cumber
خری با صاحب خؤد گفت در راه
كه ای بی رحم بی انصاف بد خؤاه
مرا تا چند با جان كار داري
مرا تا كی بزير بار داري
خدا مرگت دهد آسؤده گردم
كه بار مهنتت فرسؤده كردم
بدو گفت صاحبش كه ای حيوان بد بخت
چرا در مرگ من نو ميكنی رخت
علاجی كن كه ديگر خر نباشي
كشيدن بار را درخؤر نباشي
و الا تا تو خر باشی به ناچار
چه من چه ديگرانت ميكنند بار
كم از خر ملت خواب و خمؤدند
كه دائم زير مهميزرنؤدند
نگردی تا ز خواب جهل بيدار
نبينی پشت خؤد را خالی از بار
The problem of Muslims is due to the fact that they are ignorant. This ignorance is Islam-induced. Islam does not allow people to think independently, be critical and question theories and authorities. Islam does not encourage dissention but enforces compliance. When there is no dialogue, and all contrary thoughts are censored, people remain ignorant and when they are ignorant anyone can take advantage of them.
Yes the Europeans are shameless opportunists. But if you leave your door open you can’t blame the thief. The solution to the problem of Muslims is not to plead the Europeans to be good and honest. This won’t happen because it is the nature of man to be dishonest. The French, the British, the Germans are not bad people, but when you show them money they will forget everything and will sleep even with devil. They are not prostitutes; they just do it for money.
The problem rather should be solved at home. Islamic nations are ruled by dictators. You can’t pillage democracies. In democracies the governments have to respond to people. So if you want to buy or sell anything you have to compete and this competition ensures that people get the best deal. In dictatorships, you can bribe the ruler and sell something twice or three times its value and no one would ever know or can protest.
So as you see the problem is in dictatorship and the solution is democracy. But Islam is against democracy. It favors dictatorship. This is why Islamic countries are dictatorial and poor. The Europeans deal with the rulers that you have. It is Muslims who have to wake up, liberate themselves from the shackle of Islam, build democracies and stop being taken advantage of. Once we get rid of Islam, we will get rid of dictators and their European accomplices.
Anyway, this entire charade about “Evilgelical” Christians, the crusaders and the Jews has nothing to do with our discussion of the Quran. This debate is about the Quran. You have talked about everything else but the subject that we were supposed to talk about.
Mr. Edip Yukesl has completely stopped debating the Quran. The rest of what he has written has nothing to do with the Quran.
In this round he explains why at first he accused the person who tried to make public what he thought to be my private information and when he realized this person was his own friend, he changed position, defended him and even apologized to him.
Then he has copy-pasted the comments of the disgruntled Muslims who were defeated in the debates in the forum of the site and went to Alexa.com to post their venomous comments against Faith Freedom International and myself. The vituperations of my enemies about me have nothing to do with our discussion of the Quran.
At the end he writes a “The SURPRISE NOTE and THE GREAT PROPHECY”. It is not clear what this “prophecy” is, but according to the new risen prophet something is going to happen to me on February 19. 2005. I hope this is not an assassination attempt. I suspect it is not because this “prediction” can be used against him to establish his culpability. But if this “prophecy” has nothing to with what he or his cronies are planning to do to me, I don’t think I should be very concerned. A man who has missed the basics of the truth, certainly has no “prophetic” powers to predict anything. If he were endowed with any insight, he would have realized that Islam is false and would not have clung to that cult of ignorance.
As for Edip, he will never leave Islam unless his followers come to see how he has been defeated and leave him. Only then, he will be able to see the truth. As long as he enjoys the respect and adulation of other submitters, he will keep seeing himself as the Martin Luther of Islam, without actually reforming anything. What Edip is going to reform is not clear not even to him. Nonetheless, the title “Reformer” sounds too attractive. It sure feeds his ego.
|I defended Ali Sina:Someone who supported me in debates with others, posted information about Ali Sina’s website and his affiliation with FFI, an Evangelical organization. Not knowing that the information was available in public, I condemned his action with harsh words:
“Exposing” or more accurately unveiling the identity or whereabouts of a person who is out there not to create a personal cult, but to debate important theological issues with great political and social ramification is irrelevant.
But, it is more than irrelevant, it is irresponsible and even evil, since it may jeopardize the live of a person whose all crime is to express his faith and opinion. Putting the life of such a person at risk contradicts diametrically with what I stand for. I stand for freedom of faith and expression. If God Almighty let even Satan express himself and let people choose whatever religion, opinion, philosophy, or faith they want, then it would be against God’s system and will to create a hostile environment and conditions that would suppress dissent and oppress some people because of their belief or disbelief.
So, I condemn the acts of those who want to indulge in detective or police work, rather than intellectual debate.
If I want freedom and security for myself, I have to want the same thing for others, including my enemies who are not in act and mindset of physical hostility. To do the opposite is hypocrisy.
I believe that Ali Sina’s voice, regardless of its truth-value, is precious and should be protected. We cannot find truth without people like Ali Sina.
Personally, I do not care a bit, whether Evilgelical organizations, Zionist organizations, CIA, or any other power pays or uses Ali Sina. To me, it is not relevant and important, since Ali Sina is raising important issues, and voicing important problems with a religion that is followed by more than a billion people.
We are all brothers and sisters from Adam and Eve. We cannot be muslims (submitters to God alone, and men of peace) if we do not act like humans. To be a human, and care about the life of every single human being is a prerequisite of being a muslim. I have no connection with those who ignore and violate this sacred bond among human beings, a bond that was established by our Lord and Creator in the moment and fabric of our creation.
I Scolded Ali Sina
But, after learning that the information was public and no additional harm could be done by something already given to the public by Ali Sina himself, I criticized Ali Sina and his attack dogs for accusing and insulting the person who posted that information:
Dear Ali Sina:
It seems that your hatred and emotions have turned you to those who you claim to hate.
Here is the difference between you and me:
I do not ally with a vampire or vampires to kill another vampire. I do not ally with Evilgelical Christians (you know which Christian groups I am referring to) who are supportive of wars and invasions that have been taking the lives of so many innocent people. I cannot. Throughout history they have been on the wrong side; they have been involved in many bloody and dirty tragedies in history.
However, it seems that you are following the Machiavellian path of St. Paul and you will accept any alliance to dehumanize all Muslims and making them the subject of another Holocaust. Your mindset and mission is no different from Hitler.
The guy who posted information allegedly proving your connection with Christians might have endangered your life, but with your propaganda of hatred and general condemnation, you are putting the lives of millions and perhaps billions of people at risk. You even show the audacity to put me in the same category of terrorists! I very rarely use this word. But, I think you deserved until you notice your problem: “shame on you, Ali Sina!”
It is hypocritical to applaud the massacres, terrorism, occupations, exploitations, covert operations around the world supported by super powers and its supportive Evilgelical Christian organizations, while condemning the terrorism, violence committed by a group of Sunni or Shiite extremists. This is a diabolic double standard!
If you are a humanist as you claim, you should join me to fight ANY act of terrorism, violence, injustice, regardless the identity or religion of the criminal.
Justice and peace cannot be accomplished by holding one hand of the multy-handed Devil against another hand. You become just a pawn.
I condemned the action of the person who tried to “expose” you, and similarly I condemn the actions of USA-Inc’s secret agents that have secretly kidnapped and tortured many innocent people in GuatanamoBay , Iraqi Abu Gharib, Egyptian or Saudi prisons used by the USA-Inc.
What others say about Ali Sina and his cause?
Nursery of Fascism: Disguised Voice of Christian Far Right:
Please do not take me to be some disgruntled Muslim. I am not even remotely Islamic to have any soft corner for it. I am normal 43 year old agnostic person (with Western ethnic background) who happens to have travelled and read a lot. FFI is no rationalist website but a rather motley collection of self-seeking third world “intellectuals” and elements of Christian far right in West who have happened to become bedfellows for political reasons. This website’s agenda stands diametically opposite to the minority interests in Western countries (let all blacks, Jews, Hindus,Sikhs and New Agers who visit this site be cautioned along with Muslims). FFI is firmly against religious and ideological pluralism in politics as well as culture. The heavy element of Christian apologists, and people with evangelical leanings disguised as “rationalists”, make this website suspicious to its core. One would not be surprised if FFI’s connection with Christian Coalition or a similar lobby would be fully exposed. FFI is catering to the agenda of the malevolent right wing forces in America who want to designate all non-Christian ideologies (that also includes all New Age movements) as cults and thus prepare a fabricated case for their marginalization in the Western world. If you are not a Christian with a Western ethnic background, please be extremely wary of this website. This is a site for Pat Robertsons of America where they can pretend to be “rationalists” to fool the gullible multitudes. Quite unsuccessfully , alas! Almost all of FFI’s cheerleaders , supposedly “rationalists”, are derived from Christian far right and similar backgrounds. This website is a nursery of fascism on the web. Don’t trust its pretensions to the contrary. Stay away from this hate trap! Today Muslims are its targets. Tommorrow, all other minorities would be on its hit list. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to perceive this. So beware!
A review from a seasoned visitor:
This review is an honest appraisal of how I view the site as an ongoing, non-muslim, agnostic participant. The site, while still containing a large amount of rationally well argued treatises against Islam, appears to have succumbed to an ideological fanaticism of it’s very own. Even sympathetic dissent is dismissed as “PC” or being the product of “weak-mindedness” and ridiculed without examination. Such are the trademarks of a cult in methodology. I remain a participant, to study what I consider to be the interesting phenomenon of an internet site being the core of the formation and reinforcement of a cultish mentality. Take note of this if you wish to visit or participate in this site.
A Pioneer site:
Faithfreedom should continue its journey:
We should be grateful that Ali Sina exists:
This site is very important because they are not allowed to live in Muslim countries because they are supposed to be killed. They can only live safely in the Western countries where their rights are protected and their lives. We should be grateful that Ali Sina and others like him exist otherwise we would not know the danger we are in.
This site has it all!, December 14, 2003
Cheap attention seeker:
His arguments are on the whole weak, and he is completely insincere… Here is an excerpt that i found amusing – Ali(as) Sina is telling a ‘friend’ :
“I told him about a strange incidence that happened to myself when I was a university student. One summer night I was reading a book while my sister was sleeping in the adjacent room. I heard noises coming from her room. She was groaning as if having a nightmare. I went to her room to wake her up. What I saw took me by surprise. I saw a globe of orange light about three feet in diameter suddenly moving away from my sister’s bed and hovering in the middle of the room. I stood at the door watching this strange thing. I got the impression that this thing was also startled. This thing seemed to have a thought of its own. For a moment we both were paralyzed gazing at each other. Then the thing zoomed out of the window and disappeared in the adjacent field practically in thin air. I woke up my sister and told her what I saw. She said she was having a bad dream and in her dream a bad being wanted to hurt her while someone good had come to her rescue. Well, people have dreams and nothing is strange about that. However, what to me seemed to be strange is that I possibly saw one of the protagonists of my sister’s dream. Even if that is not the case, that thing was strange on its own. ”
Seeing orange balls of light after hearing his sister moan in the next room… hmmm.
The SURPRISE NOTE and THE GREAT PROPHECY:
I recommend every person who followed my debate with Ali Sina (which is available at both 19.org and faithfreedom.org) to share this note and this instruction under the “The Surprise Note and The Great Prophecy” with as many people as possible. You may share this encoded message with your friends via email or you may post it in other forums.
As the audience knows, Ali Sina has finally unveiled his real mission; promoting genocide against ALL Muslims, in a much bigger scale than even Hitler or Stalin had envisioned.
I will declare the KEY of the coded note, and decode it on February 19, 2005 at 19.org/forum. With the original text unveiled, you will witness a fulfillment of a great prophecy regarding Ali Sina and ditto-heads. The issue will not end with the fulfillment of the prophecy; in fact, it will just start.
If Ali Sina is scared from this message, his fear will not help him. Even if he hires several bodyguards and inform FBI, CIA, al-Qaida, Taliban, or his Evilgelical friends; he will still not be able to escape from the fulfillment of this prophecy! He and his cult members might speculate with paranoia and fabricate any lie they want. Their deception and lies will be exposed one more time the day of the prophecy: February 19. Wait and I am too waiting.
Here is a portion of the great prophecy:
Edip Yuksel congratulates himself for his victory over me. However, he refused to publish our debate in his site.
As for his prophecy, he never explained it. February 19, 2005 came and passed and I did not see anything special or unexpected in that day.
The following is Dr. Yuksel’s final message. It is not part of the debate, but another copy-paste of one of his articles.
Evolution in Quran
|CRITICISM DIRECTED TO THE QURAN HAS NO MERIT
Those who followed my debate with Ali Sina witnessed the difficulty of taking him away from the hadith books and focusing on the Quran. Each time I tried to bring our debate on the Quran, Ali Sina indulged in those hearsay of hearsay. I found the following questions at Ali Sina’s faithfreedom.org site. I numbered the questions and answers so that the reader can easily follow them.
QUESTION 1: What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
1. “Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).
2. “We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape, (15:26).
3. “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).
4. “But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
5. “He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).
ANSWER 1: Human being was created from earthly materials and water according to a divinely guided evolution
The criticism presented above is a classic example of EITHER-OR fallacy, or the product of a frozen mind that does not consider or perceive time and evolution as reality. If he uses the same standard, the critic of these verses will find contradiction in almost every book. If he looks into biology books, he will similarly get confused. In one page he will learn that he is made of atoms, in other made of cells, of DNA, sperm, egg, embryo, earthly materials, etc. He would express his disbelief and confusion with a similar question. A careful and educated reading of the Quran will reveal the following facts about creation:
1. There were times when man did not exist. Billion years after the creation of the universe humans were created. In other words, we were nothing before we were created:
“Did the human being forget that we created him already, and he was nothing?” (19:67).
There is no miracle this verse. (19:67) The concept that a deity created man out of nothing predates Islam. This story is reported in Genesis and that book was written if not 2000 years, at least 1500 years before Islam. The Quran does not add anything to the story of the Bible but merely repeats it. The story that God created man out of nothing actually predates even Judaism and is found in the Sumerian and Babylonian religious lore. Even if this tale were true, taking credit for an idea that existed before is plagiarism.
|2. Humans were created according a divinely guided evolution:“Have they not seen how GOD initiates the creation, and then repeats it? This is easy for GOD to do. Say, ‘Roam the earth and find out the origin of life.’ For GOD will thus initiate the creation in the Hereafter. GOD is Omnipotent.” (29:19-20). “He is the One who created you in stages. Do you not realize that GOD created seven universes in layers? He designed the moon therein to be a light, and placed the sun to be a lamp And GOD germinated you from the earth like plants.” (71:14-17).|
The verse 2:19-20 has no reference to evolution. The Quran is talking about something obvious to any man who lived thousands of years ago and was ignorant of the concept of evolution. One does not need to have any knowledge of evolution to believe God created man and then this creation is repeated each time a pair gives birth to a child. The verse says “‘Roam the earth and find out the origin of life”. If Muhammad knew about the origin of life why he did not say it? He could easily say man has evolved and the origin of all life on earth was a tiny (single celled) creature from which all creatures have evolved. This verse is not a miracle. The only miracle is in the imagination of Muslims that can see science in in a pile of nonsense.
Around 520 BC, The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called “On Nature” in which he introduced the idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time.
Around 500 BC, Xenophanes studied fossils and put forth various theories on the evolution of life.
Around 350 BC, Aristotle studied marine animals and developed an epigenetic model of evolution. He also developed a classification system for all animals.
If 1100 years before Muhammad, Anaximander could speak about evolution why Muhammad could not?
Now, let us read the verses 71:14-19
|“‘Seeing that it is He that has created you in diverse stages?|
|“‘See ye not how God has created the seven heavens one above another,|
|“‘And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?|
|“‘And God has produced you from the earth growing,|
|“‘And in the End He will return you into the (earth), and raise you forth (again at the Resurrection)?|
|“‘And God has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),|
Verse14 says He created you in stages. Does this have anything to do with evolution? No! Here Muhammad is talking about the stages of creation stated in the Bible. These stages are described in Genesis 1.
- The creation of heaven and Earth,
- The creation of light and its separation from darkness
- The separation of heavenly water from earthly water
- Separation of dry land from oceans
- The creation of vegetation on Earth
- The creation of two bulbs of light, one for the day and one for the night
- The creation of fish and birds
- The creation of land animals
- The creation of Man
When Muhammad talks about the creation taking place in stages he is talking about this biblical description of creation and not of the evolution. A confirmation of that can be found in verse 7:54
“Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne: He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command.
“Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth insix days”
He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days – and His Throne was over the waters
The above is an old myth plagiarized from the Bible. It is also scientifically wrong.
Verse 11:7 says God’s Throne is over the waters. It presumes that God is an anthropomorphous deity who sits on a throne and whose throne is over the waters. There is no room to interpret this verse allegorically.
The origin of this myth can be found in the Genesis 1:2 that says: “Spirit of God was hovering over the waters“. But before that this very concept appears in the pagan beliefs of the Sumerians.
Enki is the god of water, creation, and fertility (semen). He is also the god of wisdom. He holds dominion over the land and is the keeper of Me, the divine law and consequently he is the Ruler of the Universe. (Kramer & Maier Myths of Enki 1989: pp. 2-3) http://illuminati-news.com/sumerian-mythology.htm
The Quranic tale that the throne of God is established over the waters is originated from the fable of the Sumerian deity Enki.
Enki walks out of the water to the land.
Enki is attended by a god with two faces called Usmu (Isimud).
Enki presided over the assembly of gods. In Psalms 82:1 we read that Yahweh presided over the assembly of gods. This shows that when Pslams were written, monotheism was not a tenet of the Jews. Muhammad founded his mission on the premise of monotheism nonetheless, influenced by the language of the people, he had a slip of tongue and talked about “the Exalted assembly” in the Quran. Talking about Jinns he wrote:
37:8 (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted assembly but be cast away from every side,
Also in the Quran Allah often uses the plural pronoun when he refers to himself. This is the relic of divine language of a time when gods spoke to men in plural.
Verse 71:15 says the heavens are created in seven layers one above another. This is a very old belief and it dates back to the time when humans thought seven gods inhabit the heavens. The idea crept into Judaism and Muhammad borrowed this old pagan idea. For a detailed study of this myth see this article.
Verse 71:16 is a replica of Genesis 1:16 that says:
“God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars”.
Of course moon does not have light and both the Quran and the Bible are mistaken. The Quran repeats this mistake in two other places:
25:61 “Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a lamp and a moon giving light;” َقَمَرًا مُّنِيرًا
71:16 “And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) lamp?” وَجَعَلَ الْقَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُورًا
The verse 71:17 says: “And God has produced you from the earth growing”(the word “gradually” is Yusuf Ali’s interjection).
Is this a hint to evolution? Why should it not be interpreted as people growing from infancy to adulthood by eating the fruits of the Earth? Based on Occam’s Razor principle, this is the more likely explanatio. In fact the Quran says that the creation of Adam was at once and not gradual.
3:59 “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was”
The verse 71:18 talks about the Resurrection and rising of people from their death. This is of course an absurdity and a scientific heresy and it denotes the fact that Muhammad’s paradise and hell are physical places. The concept of a spiritual world was alien to Muhammad.
Verse 71: 19 says the earth is like a carpet (spread out),
وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْأَرْضَ بِسَاطًا
The same erroneous belief is repeated in verse 15:19
This is clearly another mistake. Note that every one of the verses that we discussed from this Surah was scientifically wrong. Can God possibly be so ignorant?
3. Creation of man started from clay:
“We created the human being from aged mud, like the potter’s clay.” (15:26).
Our Creator started the biological evolution of microscopic organisms within the layers of clay. Donald E. Ingber, professor at Harvard University, in an article titled “The Architecture of Life” published as the cover story of Scientific American stated the following:
“Researchers now think biological evolution began in layers of clay, rather than in the primordial sea. Interestingly, clay is itself a porous network of atoms arranged geodesically within octahedral and tetrahedral forms. But because these octahedra and tetrahedra are not closely packed, they retain the ability to move and slide relative to one another. This flexibility apparently allows clay to catalyze many chemical reactions, including ones that may have produced the first molecular building blocks of organic life.”Humans are the most advanced fruits of organic life started millions years ago from the layers of clay.
The verse 15:26 is saying that God created humans from mud like potter’s clay. The same scientific ridiculousness is expressed in verse 6:2 , “He it is created you from clay” . What is the origin of this fairy tale?
Enki in Assyrian Babylonian period came to be known as god Ea. He was the god who created the first humans: “In those days, in those years, The Wise One of Eridu, Ea, created him as a model of men. His name was Adapa” http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
Compare the above to the tale of creation given in the Old Testament from where Muhammad borrowed his story of creation. In the Biblical story of creation God created Adam in His image. The Quran does not specify this similitude but a Hadith-e Qodsi does.
Creation of first man by Anunnaki.
Laboratory vessels and Tree of Life.
The images and the tales of the Sumerians demonstrate that the origin of the Quranic tale of the creation of Adam with clay, the tree of life and Adam’s expulsion from Paradise are in the fables of ancient men and not in science. http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
The claim that the Quran talks about evolution is ludicrous.
The Sumerian and Biblical notion of Adam and Eve, and the belief that all men derive from a single prototype are dominant in the Quran.
2:35 We said: “O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression.”
7:19 “O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression.”
6:98 “It is He Who hath produced you from a single person:”
7:189 “It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her.”
4:1 “O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women.”
The above verses make clear that the Quran does not talk about evolution but it stipulates that all humans are offspring of a single person called Adam who was created from clay and he was the prototype of all humans. The creation of Eve is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran. She is referred to as Adam’s mate but her name isn’t mentioned as if she was not that important.
|4. Human being is made of water:
“Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?” (21:30).
The verse above not only emphasizes the importance of water as an essential ingredient for organic life, it also clearly refers to the beginning of the universe, what we now call the Big-Bang. The Quran’s information regarding cosmology is centuries ahead of its time. For instance, verse 51:47 informs us that the universe is continuously expanding. “We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it.” Furthermore, the Quran informs us that the universe will collapse back to its origin, confirming the closed universe model: “On that day, we will fold the heaven, like the folding of a book. Just as we initiated the first creation, we will repeat it. This is our promise; we will certainly carry it out.” (21:104).
“And GOD created every living creature from water. Some of them walk on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. GOD creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent.” (24:45).
Walking on two legs is a crucial point in evolution of humanoids. Walking on two feet may initially appear to be insignificant in evolutionary process, many scientists believe that walking on two feet had significant contribution in human evolution by enabling the Homo Erectus to use tools and gain consciousness, thereby leading to Homo Sapiens.
The fact that life depends on water is too obvious and does not require any divine knowledge or laboratory research.
Thales [Miletus , 624-546 BC] went even further and stated that the origin of all matter is water. Although this sounds a bit odd, there may be some truth in it. As we know today, the largest constituent of the universe is hydrogen, which makes two of the three atoms in water (H2O). The missing oxygen atom was added later when our planet formed. Scientists believe that liquid water is prerequisite to life, and we know with certainty that the first life forms flourished in the oceans, so water is indeed a primordial substance. [source]
As for the Quran talking about the Big Bang, this is a ludicrous claim and it is refuted in this article.
The verse 24:45 says “Some of them [creatures] walk on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four” Isn’t this obvious? Why should such a banal comment be even mentioned? But isn’t it ludicrous to claim that there is a hint of evolution in this verse?
4. Human being is made of dust, or earth, that contains essential elements for life: “The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be,” and he was.” (3:59).
This verse is saying that God made Adam from dust like a potter makes a doll with clay and this Muslims’ wild imagination makes him talk about the ” essential elements of life contained in earth”. Muslims are desperate to find wisdom even in the most ludicrous verses of the Quran.
Description of Embryo
5. Human being is the product of long-term evolution and when human sperm and egg, which consist of water and earthly elements, meet each other in right condition, they evolve to embryo, fetus, and finally, after 266 days to a human being:
“Was he not a drop of ejected semen?” (75:37).
“He created the human from a tiny drop, and then he turns into an ardent opponent.” (16:4).
“He created man from an embryo.” (96:2).” O people, if you have any doubt about resurrection, (remember that) we created you from dust, and subsequently from a tiny drop, which turns into a hanging (embryo), then it becomes a fetus that is given life or deemed lifeless. We thus clarify things for you. We settle in the wombs whatever we will for a predetermined period. We then bring you out as infants, then you reach maturity. While some of you die young, others live to the worst age, only to find out that no more knowledge can be attained beyond a certain limit. Also, you look at a land that is dead, then as soon as we shower it with water, it vibrates with life and grows all kinds of beautiful plants.”(22:5).
Verses (75:37), (16:4) and (96:2) don’t contain any information that can be defined as miraculous. Even animals know that their offspring are born with the help of semen. Isn’t this why male animals take care of their children? Even animals are aware of the male contribution in coming to world of their babies.
Verse 22:5 however, contains some interesting information. It says that we created you from dust and subsequently from semen.
What is Muhammad is saying here? Why “subsequently?” The use of the world “subsequently” makes it clear that Muhammad is talking about the creation of Adam that took place from dust and then the birth of each child that takes place from semen. Obviously, this is all mistaken. There is no such thing as the first man. Adam never existed and no one was created from dust. Also, sperms are not turned into hanging embryos. In the Quran there is no mention of the egg. Obviously Muhammad, like other ignorant men of his time, did not know about the role of the egg in the creation of the embryo.
It says that this embryo “becomes a fetus that is given life or deemed lifeless” This is scientifically wrong. Muhammad thought that semen, which according to him would turn into embryo, is lifeless and it is given life after it becomes fetus. This is of course not true. In fact both sperm and egg are alive before they meet.
The rest of the verse is sheer garbage. It states the obvious. “We then bring you out as infants, then you reach maturity. While some of you die young,” What is so great about this verse? But it is also wrong when it says: “others live to the worst age, only to find out that no more knowledge can be attained beyond a certain limit.” This is foolish. Knowledge is endless and humans will never stop learning and discovering new things. Only this verse should suffice to prove Muhammad was an ignorant man and not a prophet of God.
As you noticed we do not translate the Arabic word “Alaq” as clot; since neither in interspecies evolution nor interspecies evolution, there is no a stage where human is clot. This is a traditional mistranslation of the word, and the error was first noticed by medical doctor Maurice Bucaille. Any decent Arabic dictionary will give you three definition for the word Alaq: (1) clot; (2) hanging thing; (3) leach. Early commentators of the Quran, lacking the knowledge of embryology, justifiably picked the “clot” as the meaning of the word. However, the author of the Quran, by this multiple-meaning word was referring to embryo, which hangs to the wall of uterus and nourishes itself like a leach. In modern times, we do not have excuse for picking the wrong meaning. This is one of the many examples of the Quran’s language in verses related to science and mathematics: while its words provide a kind of understanding to former generations, its real meaning shines with knowledge of God’s creation and natural laws
ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ
The way we could put this in English is “Hence we (god), created the sperm into (or made it turn into) clot (or whatever it is) then created from it a lump then we created out of it bones (plural) then we covered the bones with flesh”
Now, in addition to the fact that many thinkers for 1000’s of years had theories and also some experience on the stages of embryo development, the above mentioned description is no more than what an ordinary person could imagine, …building the structure first then hang the other parts on it or cover it with them…just like erecting a tent.
This explanation is not true. The development of the embryo as explained by MS Encarta 1998 is:
“The implanted embryo consists of a hollow sphere, the blastocyst, containing a mass of cells, called the embryonic mass, attached by a stalk to one side of the encircling membrane. In a blastocyst less than two weeks old and measuring 1 mm (0.04 in) in diameter, the microscope reveals the amnion (a sac surrounding the embryo), chorion (a membrane that develops around the amnion and lines the uterine wall), yolk sac, and distinct germ layers.
In the third week a closed tube appears in which the brain and spinal cord are to develop. Another tube, folding on itself, is developing into the heart, and at about this stage a portion of the minute yolk sac is enclosed in the body of the embryo to form a part of the embryonic alimentary canal. At the beginning of its fourth week the embryo, now about 4 to 5 mm (about 0.16 to 0.2 in) long, has the rudiments of eyes and ears, and each side of the neck shows four gill clefts. A tail is also present.
Early in the second month the buds of the arms and legs appear. The major internal organs begin to take shape, and in about the sixth week bones and muscles begin to form. By the third month the embryo is recognizable as that of a primate, and is now called a fetus. It has a definite face, with the mouth and nostrils distinct, and the external ears are forming. By the end of the eighth week the tail has usually been incorporated in the body, and in the 11th or 12th week the external genitals become evident. The human embryo is especially vulnerable to the damaging effects of X rays, of disease viruses such as measles, and of certain drugs during the fourth to the eighth week of gestation. These agents can result in the death of the embryo or in the birth of a child with deformed limbs or other abnormalities. By the fourth month an embryo is clearly recognizable as a human being.
The creation of the brain and the spine happen in parallel, (the brain is neither flesh nor bones) and then long after the “BONES” of the arms starts developing which contradict the Quranic verses that says all the bones are made first then it gets covered by flesh (only flesh as if we don’t have members in our bodies!!!).”
As one can see the entire description of the development of the embryo explained in the Quran is wrong. It makes no difference how we interpret the word alaqa. Whether it is translated and “hanged” or “clot” this description is wrong.