In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms
ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE
(See also Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Islam)
Two Muslims –Deba Khan and Maajid Nawaz– and two atheists –Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray– debated the motion “Islam is a Religion of peace.”
Not surprising, most of the charges brought by the atheists was/is the usual worn-out rehash from one critic or the other; and which we have dispensed with throughout several pages on our site.
However, the ninety-minute was not entirely wasted as there were a few charges made against Islam that were not met with previously, which gives us more to address.
It is intriguing that the atheists rather than promoting atheism have dedicated themselves to criticizing Islamic fundamentalism. Whatever that is.
Each side of the motion/debate urged the audience to vote for their respective platforms. (What a weird way to decide if Islam is peaceful or not, listening to other people rather than study the Qur’an for yourself –this is like you agreeing with someone about the taste of a thing without you having tasted it. Muhammad Ali in his translation of the Qur’an has explained Arabic words/terms and given a background to verses, and his preliminary notes is an invaluable source of information. His translation can be viewed at: www.muslim.org).
The audience sided with the opposing (atheist) team that Islam is NOT peaceful.
The atheists gave the following reasons why they say Islam is NOT a religion of peace. (There are topics such as women and that Islam says to “kill the disbelievers wherever you find them”, that are mentioned more than once in the debate. We have grouped such topics together in one place).
- THE ATHEIST: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? –if you do the salsa or the cha-cha-cha not many. Why are we not having a motion on Is Christianity a religion of peace, Is Judaism a religion of peace, etc;. Unfortunately the motion Islam is a religion of peace is not academic.
Unless you can prove that Allah God does not exist, and for certain you cannot prove this –the atheist can deny the existence of God; the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God; and Allah has proven His existence in the Qur’an1– you need to worry about on top of what you will be dancing.
The reason we are having the motion “Islam is a Religion of peace” is because of individuals as you who, instead of taking the verses of the Qur’an as they apply you force unto them a meaning that is alien to their import; also you erroneously associate the un-Islamic practices of Muslims with the teachings of Islam.
The reason we are not having a motion Is Christianity a religion of peace, Is Judaism a religion of peace is that these are not religions of peace.
As the Bible shows Judaism commanded its adherents to wipe out even the ox and the ass and everything that breathes to occupy their lands:
- “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it…thou shalt SMITE THEM, and UTTERLY DESTROY THEM, thou shalt MAKE NO COVENANT with them, NOR SHOW MERCY UNTO THEM”–(Deuteronomy 7:1-2. See Josh. 12:1-6).
- “So Joshua SMOTE ALL THE COUNTRY of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and ALL THEIR KINGS: HE LEFT NONE remaining, but UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT BREATHED, as the LORD GOD of Israel commanded…And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD GOD of Israel fought for Israel;”
“And they UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL that was in the city, both MAN AND WOMAN, YOUNG AND OLD, AND OX, AND SHEEP, AND ASS, with the EDGE OF THE SWORD”–(Joshua 10:19, 24, 26, 40-42; 6:21. Read Numbers 21:24, 35; chapter 31; Deuteronomy 20:16-17; Judges 1:1-7; Joshua chapters 10-12; 1 Sam. 15:2-3).
Christianity, which is rooted in Judaism, goes three steps further: counselling the murder of enemies who did not want it to rule over them and sent sword, fire, and division upon the earth, and division among the family:
- “I am come to send FIRE on the earth”–(Luke 12:49).
- Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth, Nay; but rather DIVISION: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; and the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law”–(Luke 12:51-53).
- “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”–(Matthew 10:35-37).
- “Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT to send peace, but a SWORD”–(Matthew 10:34).
- “If any man come to me, and HATE NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”–(Luke 14:26).
- “He that is not with me is against me” (and a person can be neutral)–(Matthew 12:30).
- “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (though the enemies might not militate against him)–(Luke 19:27).
If these sayings of Jesus in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 19:27 were to be implemented more than five billion people of the world that do not accept Jesus as Divine and vicarious atoner, as Christians say he was, would be slaughtered.
- And as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus was instrumental in the bloodiest episodes in Scriptural history: Jesus was complicit in all the wars and killings –from Moses, Joshua, Saul, Gideon, David, to Solomon–where not even the “ox, and sheep, and ass” were spared the “edge of the sword.”
After all, the Christians’ God/Jesus “is a man of war”: “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name”–(Exodus 15:3). Jesus also caused the death of innocent “swine”–(Matt. 8:28-32).
THE ATHEIST argues, since we blame Christianity because of the Crusades and their burning of the Qur’an, and Judaism because of Jews treatment of Palestinians, likewise Islam is to be blamed for violence committed by Muslims.
(It is doubtful that Muslims blame Christianity/Jesus for Christians burning/desecrating the Qur’an).
The atheist argues that we are to not argue on paradigm but on fact. Yet in this argument he wants his audience to judge by paradigm than by fact.
Unlike Mohammad who was persecuted, target of assassination attempt etc; and forced into war and whose fighting was restricted to the cessation of persecution (and Muslims reason for fighting is to be within the same parameters). Jesus did not suffer the conditions as Mohammad and he yet ordered that his enemies who did not want him to rule over them be brought and slain. And this undoubtedly was the motivation for Christians to undertake their Crusades, so much so that as Muhammad Husayn Haykal points out:
“From the dawn of Christianity until today (20th century) every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ….The Crusades were launched and their fires fanned by Christians, not by Muslims. For hundreds of years, one army after another rolled out of Europe in the direction of the Muslim Orient to fight, to destroy, and to shed blood. In every case, the popes who claimed to be the vicars of Jesus Christ, blessed and encouraged these armies and hurried them to Jerusalem and other destinations.” (The Life Of Muhammad, p. 213).
And in the case of Jewish atrocities against Palestinians. Whereas Mohammad was ordered to kill people and/or drive them out of their lands because they were driven out of their lands and war was made on them, this order for Jews to kill even the ox and ass to dispossess people of their lands is, as noted above, clearly expressed in the Bible. (And Jews claim they have the right to boot out Palestinians because God gave us this land).
The motion Islam is a religion of peace may not be academic but it is necessary. Necessary because of, as stated, individuals like yourself who, given the “intellectual” crown you are bestowed, must certainly know that the statements you make about the Qur’an/Islam are grossly misleading if not outright dishonest.
- THE ATHEIST: Muslim “assimilation” into western society.
Why should a Muslim dress according to society’s norm and not according to her religious requirement?
The British was in in India for some two hundred years, how many English men wore kurta and dhoti, and how many English women wore sari and lengha or shalwar kameez?
While a person’s worth lies not on what is on the body but what is inside the body. The Muslim woman’s garments overcoat (jalaba) and head-cover (hijab) are an identification –to distinguish the Muslim woman from other women–, a mark of devotion and of distinction: of being the exalted nation–(Qur’an 33:59; 24:31; 2:143; 3:110). (See Hijab/head covering).
- THE ATHEIST: The problem that is inherent in Islam from the time of its foundation up to this moment is who speaks for Islam?
There is no problem that is “inherent” in Islam.
The Qur’an, Hadith and ijtihad (reason) speaks for Islam.
Who speaks for atheism?
- THE ATHEIST: Islam is about piety and politics.
Isn’t “piety” one of the foundations, and probably the first foundation, of every religion?
There is no “politics” in Islam. Whereas in politics the end justifies the means (lying, deception, mud-slinging); in Islam the end is justified only by righteous means.
In Islam there is only one law for the king and the commoner. The Prophet Mohammad did not choose a successor to himself. After his death Abu Bakr was elected as Caliph. Abu Bakr, though he had sons capable of the position, selected ‘Umar to succeed him. But ‘Umar’s appointment was final only after consultation and confirmation with the other Companions. Muhammad Ali has noted that
“legislation was not placed in the hands of the king. First of all the Qur’an, then the Prophet’s precept or practice, then the will of the people, such was the machinery that framed the law; and the law, not the king, was the supreme authority. In subordinating kingship to the law of the land and the law of the land to the will of the people, Abu Bakr laid the foundations of a truly democratic government as also of liberty and equality in the truest sense of these words.”
But, as Muhammad Ali adds:
“To the misfortune of the community of Islam, how-ever, this golden rule of government was abandoned after the reign of ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph. Kingship again became private property, as also did the public treasury. Democracy gave way to despotism, and thus began the disintegration and decay of the power of Islam.” (The Early Caliphate, p. 52)
The freedom and equality espoused by Islam is unrivalled in the annals of history, ancient and modern. Muhammad Ali has pointed out in his The Early Caliphate:
“Bilal, ‘Ammar, and others who were, originally slaves but were among the first to embrace Islam, were shown preference over the great chiefs of the Quraish.…All distinctions of heredity were abolished and society was ordered on the Qur’anic principle: “The most honourable among you is the one who has the greatest regard for his duty.”
“The weak and disabled were granted allowances from the public treasury, and in this there was no discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslim. The system of old-age pensions now prevailing in many countries in Europe was first introduced by ‘Umar. For wayfarers, large caravansarais were erected in all big centres. Children without guardians were brought up at the expense of the state.”
“There was no restriction whatever on freedom of opinion or on the expression of that opinion. Governors were made accessible to the public to the extent that they were forbidden to have guards at their doors lest there should be the least hitch for the aggrieved to approach the highest authority at any time…The position of the Caliph himself, in this wonderful democracy, was no higher than that of a commoner. He was considered the servant of the people, not the king, and as such he was open to criticism…This unrestricted freedom, in itself the highest virtue, served in the hands of mischief-mongers as the most deadly weapon to undermine the power of Islam.” (pp. 121, 122, 136, 137, 143).
Without doubt, “equality and freedom of opinion were the two most important rights that Islam conferred on every individual,” as noted by Muhammad Ali. (The Early Caliphate p. 143).
Islam is democracy in that it allows
-freedom of religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:105-109; 9:107-108; 10:88-100; 18:29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6);
-freedom of movement, thought, and expression [though freedom of expression even in modern advanced societies would seem to have its limit when it advocates anarchy, and when it proves slanderous]–(Qur’an 4:140; 6:68, 108; 29:52);
-the pursuit of knowledge, and the acquisition of wealth and property–(Qur’an 2:274-275, 276-282; 35:12; 53:48; 62:10);
-to choose only those worthy of power and to exercise justice–(Qur’an 4:58);
-to govern by consultation/counsel.–(Qur’an 3:158; 4:58; 42:38. (Here’s democracy for you; and 1400 years ago, while Europe was yet running around with flint tools and torches)
Muhammad Ali notes to 42:38: “In this, Islam has laid the basis of Government by parliaments, and the idea found a clear practical expression in the early days of the Caliphate, when the Khalifah had to refer every important affair to counsel. It is strange indeed that Government by parliament is now looked upon by Europeans as an institution which is quite foreign to Islam and unsuited for the Muslim people” This must be “Europeans” arrogance or ignorance of Islam; or both).
- THE ATHEIST: Religion is “the universal quest of humans in search of the sacred or the Holy?
And what is “atheism”?
Muslims do not have to “search” for the “sacred” or the “Holy.” Allah has shown/given” it to us through His Qur’an.
- THE ATHEIST: On an intellectual level, Islam is founded on demolition of all other gods; polytheism had to end and all humanity to be united under one God.
Wouldn’t Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray agree that “polytheism” is not “intellectual”? And that it is a benefit to mankind that Mohammad preached against it?
In fact Mohammad preached not only against the irrationality of polytheism but also of the futility and degradation of idolatry, the humiliation of superstition, and the phantasm of paganism –of Gods of the womb and dying Gods and sons of God.
Prophet Mohammad’s duty was not to demolish “polytheism” or any other “ism.” Mohammad’s duty was only to teach the Qur’an, not enforce it.
Whereas the Qur’anic Message is universal –and as have been proven that Islam is superior to all other religions in which event reason would dictate that mankind should follow this one set of Divine/Qur’anic law– that Prophet Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an and NOT enforce it is cemented in the following verses from Allāh:
- “thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an him who fears My warning”–(Qur’an 50:45).
- “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”–(Qur’an 10:99);
- “And say: Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(Qur’an 18:29);
- “There is no compulsion in religion”–(Qur’an 2:256. More on this verse later);
- And obey Allāh and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away. the duty of Our Messenger is only to DELIVER (the message) clearly”–(Qur’an 64:12; also 3:19; 5:92, 99; 13:7, 40; 16:82; 24:54; 29:18; 46:35).
- “Tell those who believe to forgive those who fear not the days of Allåh that He may reward a people for what they earn. Whoever does good it is for himself, and whoever does evil, it is against himself; then to your Lord you will be brought back”–(Qur’an 45:14-15).
Mohammad cleansed the Ka’bah of idols because the Ka’bah was erected under Allah’s instructions for His worship, but the Ka’bah had fallen into the hands of idolaters. (Much like Jesus clearing the temple of God of the bird-sellers and moneychangers –den of thieves as Jesus dubbed it–Matthew 21:12-13).
That all humanity to be united under one God:
While Allah God has given man the freedom to follow whatever he wishes, and while people’s concept of God varies among religionists they all claim that we worship the same one God. And as no Scripture/religion can be shown to be superior to, or equal with, the Qur’an then it stands to reason/intellect that the Qur’anic law is the one to be followed.
- THE ATHEIST: No monotheistic religion can be a religion of peace; no monotheistic religion is a religion of peace. And definitely not Islam.
As shown on this site (and will be shown again) the “monotheistic” Islam IS the religion of peace.
As noted above, Prophet Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Divine Message of the Qur’an. And which he did. Had the idolatrous Arabs (and their non-Arab supporters) not persecute and militate against Mohammad to curtail/prevent his preaching, there would have been no need for retaliation from Mohammad.
- “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed….Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah”–Qur’an 22:39). This shows that Muslims were victims of persecution and war was first made on them.
- “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors”–(Qur’an 2:190). Again, this verse testifies that Muslims are only allowed a defensive war.
- “Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and keep your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty”–(Qur’an 2:194).
“And if you take your turn, then punish with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you show patience, it is certainly best for the patient”–(Qur’an 16:126).
- “And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah”–(Qur’an 8:39). This verse makes it clear that fighting is only to be engaged in until there is no more persecution. When the enemies desisted from their persecution of Muslims, Muslims were to stop fighting.
“The state of religious liberty which Islam aimed at is put tersely in the two opening statements –there is no more persecution and all religions are for Allah.” (M. Ali comm.).
As noted above, Muslims were only allowed to fight a defensive war to end persecution-(Qur’an 8:39). In fact, Islam is such a peaceful religion that Muslims are to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy:
“And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it…And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee…” “So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them”–(Qur’an 8:61-62; 4:90). Muslims could not lay down their arms and “incline to peace” if Islam had required the annihilation of all non-Muslims.
“And those who, when great wrong afflicts them, defend themselves. And the recompense of evil is punishment like it; but whoever forgives and amends, his reward is with Allåh. Surely He loves not the wrongdoers. And whoever defends himself after his being oppressed, these it is against whom there is no way (of blame). The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and revolt in the earth unjustly. For such there is a painful chastisement. And whoever is patient and forgives — that surely is an affair of great Resolution”–(Qur’an 42:39-43).
These verses need no comment as to the peaceful and just nature and lofty value system of Islam.
Evidently, contrary to the atheists’ postulations, the “monotheistic” Islam is not only the “Religion” of peace: Islam is the “abode of peace”–(Qur’an 10:25).
- THE ATHEIST: Monotheistic religion has lengthy periods of peace and also lengthy periods of war.
What about atheism and non-monotheism religions? –Russia, China, India.
There is no militarism in Islam. There is no pacifism either. In Islam, as proven above, there is war only to end persecution/oppression and aggression/ transgression.
Perhaps every intelligent person knows that war is sometimes necessary to instil and maintain peace and justice. Evidently, Mohammad was dealing with incorrigible offenders.
A leader or nation that uses force to quell unwarranted insurgency, such a “war” by the leader or state can hardly be viewed as not being one of “peace.”
Would Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray label the Allies war against Germany as not being a war of “peace”?
Would Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray label America’s bombing Serbia (to end its genocide and rape of Bosnians) as not being an act of “peace”?
- THE ATHEIST: The concept of Jihad is central to Islam’s conquest and success. The fonder of Islam, Mohammad, in his lifetime conducted 65 campaigns of war that were all successful.
Jihad means to “strive” or exert one’s self in the way of freedom, truth, and justice. There are several forms of “jihad:
- to strive against our low desires (such as greed, selfishness, covetousness, jealousy, vanity, pride)
- to strive against evil temptations (such as to commit a sin or a wrong against someone)
- to speak out against an injustice
- to finance or take up arms against occupation, oppression/persecution, exploitation, and usurpation.
- to strive with the Qur’an against false worship. This form of Jihad is known as “Jihad kabiran” –the mighty striving–(Qur’an 25:52); perhaps because the worst form of bondage is bondage of the intellect.
The lesser Jihad, which is the armed struggle, liberates man physically; and the greater Jihad, which is the ideological struggle –propagating the Qur’anic Message of Allah God– liberates man morally, intellectually and spiritually.
Notably, Muslims undertook armed “jihad” on behalf Christians also. Thomas Arnold notes in his The Preaching of Islam (p.54):
“Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, writing in the latter half of the twelfth century…writes: “This is why the God of vengeance…beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity –brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans.”
Some conquest. (For more on jihad see Islam-Jihad & Jihad Watch).
(Muslims not only fought on behalf of Christians but also made gifts to their Churches as Muhammad Ali notes:
“Muir, after admiring the leniency of the Arab conquerors towards the conquered and their justice and integrity, quotes a Nestorian Bishop of the time: “These Arabs to whom God has accorded in our days the dominion are become our masters; but they do not combat the Christian religion; much rather they protect our faith; they respect our priests and our holy men, and make gifts to our churches and our convents” (p. 128 [The Caliphate])”” (The Early Caliphate, p. 86).
Mohammad was/is not the “founder” of Islam. Islam is the Divinely revealed religion for mankind. Islam –peace and submission to Allah God is the same religion that was given to all prophets.
The name “Islam” was revealed through the Prophet Mohammad: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion”–(Qur’an 5:3).
Islam was not instituted to make conquest. As shown above in item 6 Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an. Had the polytheists not persecuted Mohammad and forced him into war there would have been no “conquest.”
For the entire duration of his 22-year mission Mohammad had to defend himself and followers against inveterate enemies bent on annihilating him.
That Mohammad had to conduct 65 campaigns –about three a year– is an indication of the reality Mohammad endured. And all just for preaching –for liberating them from idolatry (worshipping objects fashioned by their own hands and which can confer no benefit and effect no harm), profligacy, drunkenness, superstition, and gambling.
(For the Prophet’s “campaigns” read Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad. Even after the Prophet’s death Muslims had to fight wars against those determined to crush the fledgling Islamic State –read Muhammad Ali, The Early Caliphate which may be obtained from www.muslim. org).
- THE ATHEIST: Empire building thrusts people of different language and ethnicity together so if the Empire declines the likelihood of conflict of war is probable, its high, specially where there is a fault line. History of Empire/ conquest also leaves a legacy behind; history of militarism combined with a legacy of Empire belie the motion that Islam is a religion of peace.
What utter rubbish!
Muslims in the Middle-east were not of different language and culture so that the decline of the Islamic Empire should fractured along these “fault” lines. Post-Ottoman Middle-east was not dissected because of Islam; it was divvied up, as you must well know, by the Britain, France, and Russia in their secretive Sykes-Picot agreement.
There is no militarism or conquest in Islam; there is only defensive wars.
The decline of the Islamic Empire was partly because of Muslims laxing from the practice of Islam and external force. The following quote is taken from the article Decline Of Islamic Civilizations – Causes – Time For A New Paradigm By Mirza A. Beg
“The golden age of Islam, particularly the scientific pursuits that required greater stability in the Arab heartland, declined by the 12th century and came to end in 1258 after the brutal Mongol invasion. Though the Mongol conquers adopted Islam within fifty years, their ruling methods were tribal. With the vast destruction of manuscripts and libraries, gradually a majority of Ulema (religious jurists and scholars) came to the view that the Islamic civilization had reached its apogee and all the interpretations (Ijtehad) needed have been accomplished.
The widespread destruction of Islamic lands, particularly the Baghdad Caliphate at the hands of Mongols was widely believed to be retribution from God for the deviances. In effect a consensus emerged that the “gates of Ijtehad, (interpretation) were closed”. Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1326) condemned many of the interpretations that accrued after the caliphate of the first four caliphs, but he advocated fresh interpretation for the current times. He was imprisoned for such deviance and died heartbroken. By the time of Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), the Muslim Empire of Spain was in headlong decline and was finally obliterated in 1492.
The advent of the wider use of gun-powder gave impetus to the expansion of the new Muslim powers especially the Safvids in Iran, Mughals in India and the Ottoman Turks in Asia Minor, Balkans and North Africa. They had quite liberal and tolerant rulers ushering an era of conquest, expansion and great civilizations. They reached their zenith in 16th and 17th centuries. By the beginning of 18th century these great empires were spent and in decline. The European colonization of the Muslim lands started in mid 18th century. (Note well, these conquest were by Muslims not because of the teachings of Islam; as we have shown Islam only allows war to end persecution and occupation–NGBA),
The great Muslim tradition of scholarship in philosophy and sciences were in decline by the dawn of the 13th century. About this time the Europeans had started translations of the knowledge accrued and built upon by the Muslim scholars. Though in the 15th and 16th centuries Europe was still in religious straight-jacket, it had started a gradual pushing back against the stranglehold of the unitary Catholic Church. The freedom of thought gradually gained ground in the 18th century, and has come to be known as the ‘Age of Reason’. With this came the unleashing of sciences, leading to better technology and the start of colonial expansion. By the mid 19th century the ‘Industrial Revolution’ had taken hold, particularly the war technology and exploration leading to world dominance and colonialism. The colonialism and the ascendance of the West were in part caused by the weakness in Islamic societies.
Though Islam unequivocally preaches egalitarianism, the powerful elite could not let go of the trappings of power base in tribes and ethnic dominion of conquerors. Though legally and ideally the Islamic justice system guarantied equality, the egalitarian ethos of Islam was greatly damaged. Early on, the conquering Arabs were accorded higher status leading to a class system. By the time Islam reached India the lower casts converts were shunned in social intercourse, in effect creating racism. They could have accepted Islam in droves, but they found that although the egalitarianism was preached, it was practiced with limitations. After fourteen centuries of Islam, tribalism continues in many Middle-Eastern countries to this day.
……The West colonized and exploited not only the Muslims, but the whole world for more than three hundred years. The last sixty years have seen tremendous changes and readjustments in the West as well as other parts of the world. The Iraq war and the global overreach by the United States is the last gasp of a neo-colonialist posture.
Unfortunately instead of lifting themselves up, Muslims have been mired in this colonial stance for more than three centuries. It is time to break free from mental self-imprisonment and function with courage and conviction to the best what Islam offers. Islam, neither was nor is in danger, it has been expanding through the bad times in the past and even now. It is the Muslim power and self image that has been endangered and can be revived with the recapture the spirit of enquiry, introspection and freedom that Muslims practiced and Europe adapted to wake up from its ‘dark ages’. Political power over others was not the quest of Islam, nor should it be for the Muslims. Political power for the betterment of all is an equitable goal and an Islamic attitude.” (For the entire article see http://www. countercurrents.org/beg-250706.htm).
THE ATHEIST: Decline of Islam’s Empire sometimes leave Muslims in a state of victimhood; who are exploited by self-appointed leaders of Islam. Which leads a minority of people to believe that Islam is under siege.
So how is Islam not peaceful because of this exploitation by “self-appointed leaders”? Evidently, you are confusing Islam with Muslims. (See quote from Mirza A. Beg above).
Since Islamic teachings are the same whether in prosperity or adversity or decline, how can the decline of the Islamic empire leave Muslims in a state of “victimhood?”
“O man, We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful”–(Qur’an 20:1-2). This throne of excellence is ever-present for Muslims to ascend. As the venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.”2
Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant. (See Islam-Muslims’ destiny).
Muslims are not victims of Islam: In Islam Muslims are victors:
THE ATHEIST: Victims (Muslims) tend to blame their condition (defeat/victimhood) on external forces. Systematic denial of Islam after the nineteenth century to blame only outsiders exempt Islam from blame. From the explanation what went wrong –how much of Muslim’s defeat and colonization was because of the flaws of Islam.
Again, sheer “intellectual” hogwash!
While Muslims are not justified in blaming their condition only on external forces, there are no flaws in Islam. Please list these flaws. As noted, Islam gives success. (See quote from Mirza A. Beg above).
- THE ATHEIST: Muslims were leaders in science, etc. Why didn’t Muslims get with the scientific revolution when the West went into it? Was it only because of external factors or were there internal flaws?
So you want Muslims to be in everything. And because they are not you blame Islam? Even though it was Islam that impelled them to science and other seats of learning.
Why didn’t the West get into science when Muslims started it?
The answer to the atheist’s question is answered by Mirza Beg above. And also by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din in his Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury and London (pp. 45-56, 147):
“There is one thing that is remarkable in the history of material science in relation to Christianity and Islam. In the case of the former, as long as religion kept its hold on its adherents, Europe made no progress in any way, but when the Western mind became emancipated from canonical rule and Church thralldom, civilization came in leaps and bounds in every form. On the other hand, Islam, at its very advent, gave a tremendous impetus to science and culture. In its various departments, modern civilization owes its salient factors to Islam, but unfortunately, in modern days –notably in the last two centuries– our mundane prosperity and success began to prove too intoxicating to keep our steps sober and steady; we ceased from treading in the footprints of our ancestors, and turned our backs on Muslim principles of life.”
“The Western nations made their present progress when they liberated themselves from the hold of Church religion and began to think independently for themselves on Islamic lines.” (For full text see Arabia & non-Muslims Worship).
- THE ATHEIST: The demand that Muslims are never to devise or deflect from the Qur’an and to ever refute what Mohammad said and to only follow his example –that absolutism combined with that state of victimhood– also enlarges the likelihood of conflict. And those two belie the motion that Islam is a religion of peace.
Since it is only a “likelihood” that empires disintegrate into “conflict” then it is not Islam that is responsible for “conflict” because then there would be conflict in all “Islamic empires” that disintegrated.
(Putting aside the fact that Islam only allows fighting against persecution and occupation). As there is no system superior to the “absolutism” of the Qur’an and Mohammad/Hadith and as there is no victimhood in Islam, these two supports the motion that Islam is a religion of peace.
- THE ATHEIST: The atheist notes instances of Muslims terrorism and intended terrorism and casts blame on Islam.
However, when asked their reason for committing acts against the public, Muslims invariably say that it was/is because of Muslims being killed by non-Muslims, as in places such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Pakistan.
While Muslims commit Atrocities in the name of Allah, please show in the Qur’an where Allah instructs Prophet Mohammad to kill innocent people.
THE ATHEIST: There is a disproportionate number of Muslim terrorists over others.
What is “terrorism”? And what is the proportionate number?
In the last two hundred years, how many Muslim countries have colonized or tried to colonize other nations or sought to exploit the wealth of other nations? How many Muslim countries have subverted the governments of non-Muslims or assassinated their leaders or tried to run their countries and/or control their resource(s), or deprived them of their homes, lands and country?
Now, consider how many Muslims are/were victims of non-Muslims “travesties.”
- Britain sliced Jordan out of Syria and carved Kuwait out of Iraq;
- France carved Lebanon out of Syria and placed it under Maronite Christian domination;
- Britain held Egypt, Sudan, Aden, Iraq and Nigeria;
- France mastered over Algeria (killing one million), Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan;
- Italy held Libya;
- British instigation and American diplomatic thuggery at the League of Nations carved the Jewish State out of Palestine
- in 1956 the Jewish State in “collusion” with France and Britain attacked Egypt, so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal, nationalized by President Nasser;
- Russia is still coloring Chechnya red (obliterating half-a- million in Grozny alone);
- Bosnians are still trying to recover from Serbia’s onslaught (genociding males and raping thousands of women and young girls);
- Iraq is yet to rise from the rubble of American aggression (for oil and/or hegemony?).
- Sudan was “pressured” into dissecting herself;
- America and Britain overthrew Iran’s Mohammad Mosaddegh government to control its oil (https://www.the guardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup).
Perhaps the number is disproportionate because non-Muslim terrorism is not publicised as those of Muslims. Or because their terrorist travesties are wrapped in the cloak of “democracy.”
Professor Noam Chomsky in his book Pirates & Emperors–International Terrorism in the Real world,(1987) has given an insight into the usage of the term “terrorism, he wrote”:
“The terms “terrorism” and “retaliation” also have a special sense in U.S. Newspeak. “Terrorism refers to terrorist acts by various pirates, particularly Arabs. Terrorist acts by the emperor and his clients are termed “retaliation” or perhaps “legitimate pre-emptive strikes to avert terrorism” quite independently of the facts.”(p. 29). (Please read this book. Read also Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine).
In his book The Question Of Palestine, Edward Said noted an interview of May 10, 1978, between Al-Hamishmar and “General Gur, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army,” who recounted with unpretentious candor of the Army’s atrocities against civilians. General Gur ended by saying that in the thirty years, since their Independence War, “we have been fighting against the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and every time that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?” Summed up, “official Israeli military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse.” (pp. xxxvii-xxxviii; 224).
And as Edward Said pointed out, “not a single U.S. news-paper” carried this interview.
The Toronto Star on its front page headlined the article about the Jewish army massing its forces against the Palestinians, demanding the release of a Jewish soldier “captured” by the Palestinians. The next day, the Star published a letter from a writer (obviously of Jewish nationality), stating that the day prior to the capture of the Jewish soldier “Israeli commandos” “raided Rafah” and “captured” two Palestinians. The incident is said to be “well-known.” Yet not a squeak was heard in the media about this ‘raid’ and “capture” of the Palestinians. (Toronto Star, Monday, June 26, 2006; Tuesday, June, 27, 2006; respectively).
It may be said that, generally, when a Muslim commits an act of terror it is broadcasted across the sky and drawn out for days, but when a non-Muslim commits an act of terror its broadcast is minimal or unheard of.
- THE ATHEIST: Islam is divided into three parts: (1) Qur’an and Mohammad/ Hadith, (2) Shari’ah, and (3) What Muslims do no:.
(i) Qur’an is bad; a lot of violence; peaceful verses are superseded by violent verses; violent verses are more numerous in numbers
(ii) Life of Muhammad. A very bad man; not a great role model –takes a child bride, abuses a small girl, had multiple wives; warrior; war criminal; himself beheads a Jew.
(iii) Shari’ah not a great piece.
Islam 1,2, and 3:
(1) Qur’an: Except for the verse “Kill disbelievers where you find them,” (which we will deal with later) no examples are given as to what these “violent” verses are.
Fighting a defensive war that has been forced on you can hardly be labeled “violence.”
If you think defensive wars are “violence”
-tell the Allies of World War II that their war against Germany was “violence”;
-tell Britain that her sailing halfway across the world to unseat Argentina from the “disputed” Falklands Island was “violence”;
-tell the Canadians their 1812 war against American incursion was “violence.”
That “peaceful verses are superseded by violent verses.”
Verses of the Qur’an are not superseded by other verses. These verses apply to different situations and are available when the situation requires them.
There are no “violent verses” in the Qur’an. Fighting against persecution and aggression/transgression and occupation is not ‘violence;” it is self-defense.
That “violent verses are more numerous in numbers”:
As shown there are no “violent” verses in the Qur’an.
(Incidentally, one party on the Internet notes that “at least 109 verses of the Qur’an call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.”
Is that all? Only 109 verses? Though Islam does not call on Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.”
Considering that from day one of his 22-year mission Mohammad was stoked into war, and had to undertake 65 campaigns as the atheist starkly noted, and considering that the Qur’an consists of some 6,666 verses, then it is a tremendous blessing and mercy from Allah that only 109 verses –a mere 1.7%– of the Qur’an and not the entire Qur’an is about war. It is hardly credible that a general at war would instruct his soldiers on the future of pork bellies and soya beans than on the art of vanquishing the opponent.
Notably, Huston smith points out in his book The Illustrated World’s Religions: “Allah’s compassion and mercy are cited 192 times in the Koran as against 17 references to his wrath and vengeance” (p. 157).
And whereas punishment is equal to the crime, the reward for doing good is manifold:
“Whoever brings a good deed will have tenfold like it, and whoever brings an evil deed, will be recompensed only with the like of it, and they shall not be wronged”–(Qur’an 6:161);
“If anyone of you improves his Islamic religion then his good deeds will be rewarded ten times to seven hundred times for each good deed and a bad deed will be recorded as it is”–(Bokhari, Vol. 1, chapter 32 and #40).
That Mohammad is not a great role model:
-made peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy;
-forgive his inveterate enemies of 20 years;
-catapulted backward camel-herders into “thrones of Caesars”
-prayed for his dead enemy;
-replaced drunkenness with sobriety and profligacy with chastity
-put an end to female infanticide;
-ennobled the orphan
-emancipated the slave
-assigned a portion of the States’ funds for the poor, the needy, the traveller, etc; .
-extricated Woman from the bog of degradation in which she was mired and enthroned her on the pinnacle of dignity, gave her honor unparalleled in the history of religions; and gave her rights alongside man from the cradle all the way to Jannah
-liberated man from the degradation of stone-worship, star-worship, sun-worship, spirit-worship, nature-worship, human-worship
-and gave justice to all.
Evidently, if there is any man, past and present, on the face of this earth, that can lay claim to the crown of being “great role model” it is Mohammad. (All the critics can find against Mohammad is that he had a child-bride, which we have demolished).
That Mohammad “abuses” a small girl, (‘Aisha).
It is doubtful that Douglas, or any one, can prove that Mohammad abused ‘Aisha.
That Mohammad raped a nine-year old girl (‘Aisha) repeatedly.
It is interesting that Douglas Murray did not charge that Mohammad was a pedophile though he committed the other libel that Mohammad “raped” ‘Aisha.
It is doubtful that Douglas, or any one, can prove that Mohammad forced himself onto ‘Aisha or had relations with her without her consent.
“Statutory rape”! The critics might scream in their defense. But what is ‘statutory rape”? And who sets this age of “statutory rape?”
A perusal of the Internet reveals that statutory rape laws was first enacted in England which sets the age at 12 years. In America the age was initially 10; and which age varies by state. “Currently, ages of consent in the U.S. range from 14 to 18, while internationally the spread is slightly larger, from 12 to 18. Most Western nations set the bar at around 16, but Spain is a notable exception, at 13.” (http://www.slate. com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/02/16_going_on_17.html
The age of “statutory rape” has been changing like storm clouds in a tornado. As noted further on even sex with a “7 year old boy or girl.” was allowed
The Prophet Mohammad was born into a custom that engaged in child marriages. As he could not change a practice of society until he received Divine revelation, the Prophet, in recommending “thighing” –simulated intercourse– with child brides, was anticipating an end to intimacy with young girls; and by marrying ‘Aisha and delaying consummation of his marriage to her, he was hoping to change society of pre-teen marriages by his action. This practice did end, as Muhammad Ali notes: “there is no case on record showing that the marriage of a minor through his or her guardian was allowed by the Prophet after details of the law were revealed to him at Madinah.” (The Religion of Islam, p. 601. For full quote see ‘Aisha & Mohammad).
(Muslims who have the resource are to haul these slanderers of Mohammad to court and have them prove that Mohammad was a pedophile and rapist).
Significantly, whereas Mohammad put an end to marriage/sex with young girls fourteen hundred years ago, modern man was yet sanctioning this abomination and even with little boys:
“In 1962, the American Law Institute recommended that the legal age of consent to sex- that is, the age below which sex is defined as statutory rape- be dropped in every state to age 10 (Katchadourian and Lund 1972: 439). In fact, until the mid 1960s, the legal age of consent in Delaware was 7 (Kling, 1965: 216). So a 50 year old man could legally have sexual intercourse with a 7 year old boy or girl.”  (See Age of sexual consent)..
And the Atheists and other critics crab at Mohammad.
That Mohammad had sex with ‘Aisha at the age of 9 is dubious. (See ‘Aisha & Mohammad; ‘Aisha’s marriage-9 or 19?).
That Mohammad had multiple wives:
Polygamy in Islam (and any place else where it is practiced under Islamic line) is a virtue not a vice. It is healthy/better for society (and offspring) that a woman live in the bed of wifehood than in the cot of concubinage. (See Islam-polygamy).
For twenty-five years Mohammad lived a life of celibacy. For twenty-nine years, from 25-54, he lived in a monogamous marriage with a woman fifteen years his senior. Only from 54 did he enter into multiple marriages.
After the death of his first wife, Khadijah, Mohammad married Saudah, “a widow of advanced age;” then ‘Aisha; Hafsah, a widow; Zainab, “daughter of Khuzaimah,” a widow; Umm Salmah, a widow; Zainab, the former wife of Zaid; Umm Habibah, a widow; Juwairiyah, Maimunah, and Safiyyah, three widows taken as war captives, whose marriages “in each case” “led to the union and pacification of a whole tribe;” and in the case of his marriage to Juwairiyyah “a hundred families” of her tribe, “the Bani Mustaliq” “was at once liberated by the Muslims;” and Mary, the Coptic. (Muhammad Ali, comm. Qur’an 33:50).
So it is “bad” -anathema- that Mohammad had multiple wives but it is good for a man to have multiple concubines and mistresses and children out of wedlock.
That Mohammad was a warrior:
Mohamad was forced to don the armaments of war. And he proved to be one of the best, if not the best, general history has produced.
That Mohammad was a “war criminal.”
This is slander/libel. Mohammad fought for self-preservation: to end persecution and occupation. Whatever measures Mohammad employed to defend himself and Muslims against aggression and extirpation Mohammad was fully justified.
That Shari’ah is not a great piece.
The teachings of the Qur’an give the basis on which laws are to be promulgated. Early jurists rendered their best decisions according to their times. Unfortunately, the erroneous view was developed that Islamic laws had reached its zenith. Since Islam is a religion of progress and to the Resurrection, the door to reason in Islam can never be closed. New laws, in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith, will have to be formulated as societies advance.
As Muhammad Ali aptly point out:
“The exercise of judgment (ijtihad) is recognized in Tradition as the means by which a decision may be arrived at when there is no direction in the Qur’an or tradition. The following Tradition is regarded as the basis of Ijtihad in Islam: “On being appointed Governor of Yaman, Mu’adh was asked by the Prophet as to the rule by which he would abide. He replied, ‘By the law of the Qur’an.’ ‘But if you do not find direction therein,’ asked the Prophet. ‘Then I will act according to the practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet,’ was the reply. ‘But if you do not find any direction therein,’ he was again asked. ‘Then I will exercise my judgment (ajtahidu) and act on that,’ came the reply. The Prophet raised his hands and said: ‘Praise be to Allah who guides the messenger of His Apostle as he pleases,” (Abu Dawud, 23:11). This tradition shows not only that the Prophet approved of the exercise of judgment, but also that his Companions were well aware of the principle, and that reasoning or exercise of judgment by others was freely resorted to when necessary, even in the Prophet’s lifetime.”3
(During the rule of the Caliph ‘Umar) “When there was a difference of opinion, the decision of the majority was acted upon. Besides this council, there were great individual teachers, such as ‘Aishah, Ibn Abbas, Ibn ‘Umar and others whose opinion was highly revered. Decisions were given and laws made and promulgated subject only to the one condition that they were neither contrary to the Qur’an nor to the practice of the Prophet.”4
“The impression prevailing in the Muslim world at present that no one has the right, even in the light of the new circumstances which a thousand years of the world’s progress have brought about, to differ with the four Imams, is entirely a mistaken one. The right to differ with the highest of men below the Prophet is a Muslims’ birthright, and to take away that right is to stifle the very existence of Islam. …In fact, the closing of the door on the free exercise of judgment, and the tendency to stifle independence of thought which took hold of the Muslim world after the third century of Hijrah, was condemned by the Prophet himself who said: “The best of the generations is my generation, then the second and then the third; then will come a people in which there is no good”–(KU. VI, 2068)”5
(The three generations referred to in the tradition) “refer to three centuries, the first century being the century of the Companions, since the last of them died at the end of the first century after the Prophet and the second and the third being those of the next two generations known as Tabi’in and taba’ Tabi’in. As a matter of fact, we find that while independence of thought was freely exercised in the first three centuries, and even Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, the immediate followers of Abu Hanifah, did not hesitate to differ with their great leader, rigidity became the rule thereafter with only rare exceptions. The time when independence of thought was not exercised is, therefore, denounced by the Prophet himself, as the time of a crooked company.”6 (For the full topic see Islam-ijtihad (reason).
(Muhammad Ali has dealt at length on this subject in his comprehensive work The Religion of Islam, which may be obtained from www.muslim.org ).
THE ATHEIST also notes that in Britain Shari’ah courts persuaded Muslim women to drop cases of abuse against their husband because it is a matter between a husband and wife. And that a daughter was given half the amount of inheritance compared to what her brother was given because that’s what the Qur’an says; women are second-class citizens.
What was the nature of this abuse?
There are instances in non-Shari’ah environment where women have involved police in “abuse” matters and have later dropped their charge; and without any details of the “abuse” being given. Why then is Muslims criticised for trying to solve the dispute and keep the police out of it?
Especially if such police involvement should impact adversely on children/family?
Marriage in Islam is a sacred covenant/contract in which the husband and wife have benefits and obligations. If husband and wife are observing the teachings of Islam there would be no violent contact between them.
While a husband is allowed chastisement of the recalcitrant wife there is no wife “abuse.” (The wife also can beat the husband). If their disagreement cannot be reconciled they are to end the marriage. (See Islam-wife beating).
That the daughter was given half the amount of inheritance compared to what her brother received–(Qur’an 4:11, 177):
Arguably, a man’s wealth is his to dispose of however he pleases; (and so it is in non-Muslim societies). A friend or relative may also make suggestions to the man as to the manner in which to divide his wealth.
To crab at and condemn Allah for instructing Muslim how to distribute his wealth is crass arrogance and audacity.
However, the Islamic apportioning of wealth between son and daughter –giving the son twice as much as the daughter– is not without merit.
This is so because man has the burden of being the maintainer of the family–(Qur’an 4:34) even though his wife may have earnings and may have wealth and even greater wealth than he has.
In cases where both husband and wife work. Whereas a wife can at any stage, and for any reason, quit her job and decides to stay home and be maintained by her husband, a husband cannot quit his job and intend for his wife to maintain him. The burden of support lies on the husband.
(Even in secular society wives, generally, seem to enjoy this benefit of voluntary employment).
- THE ATHEIST: There is some hope because Muslims don’t do what their text, Qur’an and Hadith, say; because they exercise their judgment as moral beings without having to refer to defunct holy book.
If Muslims do this it would be clear that they do not know/understand their Qur’an and Hadith. As shown in item 10 the Qur’an not only gives “hope” it gives success. Muslims are the people of “hope”
As noted above Islam is for the exercise of “judgment.”
That the Qur’an is a defunct holy book:
You have not proven (nor can you or anyone else prove) that the Qur’an is a “defunct” holy book. (See next item).
THE ATHEIST also says that he Qur’an was revealed in a particularly obscured, unreadable dialect.
Then the Rg Veda, Bible and Gospels which precede the Qur’an by hundreds and thousands of years are even more obscure and their languages even less readable/ understandable.
(To me a legal document is “unreadable”/not understandable; I would need to pay a lawyer five hundred dollars to read a half page paper and tell me that by signing it I am giving power to another person to sell my house, and without my knowledge. Karamba!)
You may not read/understand the Arabic dialect (just as you may not read/understand Hebrew, Aramaic, Hindi or Latin) but this unreadable Arabic dialect was readable and understandable by the Arabs.
And so much so that this obscured and unreadable text made them the first masters of Science as your co-panelist so eloquently testifies.
And as another critic observed, in the words of Hurgronje as quoted by Ibn Warra in his book Why I am not a Muslim (item #128):
“This book, once a world reforming power, now serves but to be chanted by teachers and laymen according to definite rules. The rules are not difficult but not a thought is ever given to the meaning of the words; the Quran is chanted simply because its recital is believed to be a meritorious work. This disregard of the sense of the words rises to such a pitch that even pundits who have studied the commentaries –not to speak of laymen– fail to notice when the verses they recite condemn as sinful things which both they and the listeners do every day, nay even during the very common ceremony itself.
The inspired code of the universal conquerors of thirteen centuries ago has grown to be no more than a mere text-book of sacred music, in the practice of which a valuable portion of the youth of well-educated Muslims is wasted.” (Emphasis added).
As stated elsewhere, this throne of excellence is ever present for Muslims to ascend. (See Islam-Muslims’ destiny).
It is not Islam that needs to be ‘reformed;” it is Muslims that need to be “reformed.”
- THE ATHEIST: Islam is not religion because of the preachers who preach Islam. Muslim leaders will not debate Ayaan Hirsi Ali because they show terrible lesson. Arabia and Iran are closed societies. Islam is an unstable component. Islam is many things but to say that Islam is a religion of peace is nonsense.
That preachers are unstable, how does this make Islam “not a religion”?
Why look at Sunni Islam and Muslim Brotherhood for Islam, Not because they have great following they are correct in their teaching. Why not study the Qur’an yourself and not follow leaders blindly? Not even Allah wants us to follow in Him blindly, He calls to belief through reason, argument and examples, as noted in item 14 and:
“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner. Surely thy Lord knows best him who strays from His path, and He knows best those who go aright”–(Qur’an 16:125. This verse highlights that, contrary to popular perception, Islam does NOT seek to silence voices: Islam, the religion of reason, argument and example, seeks to enhance mentality. Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason).
That Muslims are to seek knowledge for themselves and not follow leaders blindly is also highlighted by the first Caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr Siddiqui; said the venerable Caliph in his inaugural speech: “Obey me as long as I obey God and His Prophet. But if I disobey God’s command or His Prophet’s, then no obedience is incumbent upon you.”-(Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 511).
The question is, how will we know if he is following Allah and His Prophet if we do not have knowledge?
In following leaders blindly we make them into gods: Allah revealed:
“They (Christians) take their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allāh, and (also) the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were enjoined that they should serve one God only — there is no god but He. Be He glorified from what they set up (with Him)!–(Qur’an 9:31, 34).
To which Muhammad Ali notes:
“It is related in a hadith that, when this verse was revealed, ‘Adi ibn Hatim, a convert from Christianity, asked the Holy Prophet as to the significance of this verse, for, he said, we did not worship our doctors of law and monks. The Holy Prophet’s reply was: Was it not that the people considered lawful what their priests declared to be lawful, though it was forbidden by God. Hatim replied in the affirmative. That, the Prophet said, was what the verse meant (Tirmidhi, 44:9; IJ). Muslims who accord a similar position to their pirs or saints are guilty of the same error.”
(Muhammad Ali in his translation of the Qur’an has explained Arabic words/terms and given a background to verses, and his preliminary notes is an invaluable source of information. His translation can be viewed at: www.muslim.org. Download it!)
That Islam is a religion of peace is nonsense:
As shown in preceding pages, it is Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray charges against Islam that is “nonsense.”
The Atheist also notes Muslim leader(s) preaching anti-Semitism.
Truth is not anti-Semitism. Truth is not “anti” anything. Truth is truth.
- Jews were scheming since the nineteenth century to boot Palestinians off their lands;
- Jews colluded with France and Britain and attacked Egypt so Britain could “occupy” Egypt’s Suez Canal;7
- Jews were the first air-plane hijackers in the Mid-East;8
- Jews provoked the war in Lebanon;9
- Jews through its “Operation Trojan” deception suckered America into bombing Libya10 (Isn’t this a war crime?);
- Jews hijacked” a Syrian civilian jet to take “hostages”11 (Were the hijackers hunted down and brought to trial?)
- Jews assassinated a legion of Palestinians, including writer and poet (as noted on the Internet). (For a list of Jewish atrocities read Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, Edward Said, The Question of Palestine; Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, if you can digest intellectual, “civilized,” and “democratic” savagery. See also SHAPED BY TERRORISM, NOURISHED BY BLOOD By Barbara L of http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot. com/).
- Ilan Pappe notes in his scholarly presentation, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, the ruthless methods “employed” “to forcibly evict” the native Palestinians were “large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning;” and that at the end of their “mission” which took “six months” to complete: “more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied of their inhabitants.” (pp. xii, xiii).
And the atheist expects Muslims to throw flowers at Jews (the occupiers of Palestine and their supporters)..
In the Bible God says that Jews are “treacherous” and “rebellious” and “stiffnecked” and made them wander in the wilderness for forty years till their carcasses were wasted.
Has the atheist charge that the Bible promotes anti-Semitism?
Jesus labeled Jews as “evil and adulterous generation” and poured all the righteous blood from Adam to Barachias onto their heads, consigned them to the greater damnation of hell and said that the kingdom of God shall be taken from them and given to another people.
Has the atheist charge that Jesus promotes anti-Semitism?
Jesus also refers to non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and even preached in parables so these “dogs” and “swine” will not understand and be saved, and calls for the slaying of his enemies that do not want him to rule (which would mean that some six billion people would have to be slaughtered).
Has the atheist charge that this is anti-Arabism and anti-Gentilism?
If recounting history is “anti-Semitism” then the holocaust memorials would have to be obliterated and the Ten Commandments movie incinerated for being anti-German and anti-Egyptian, respectively. And all publications will have to stop flooding us with holocaust stories.
Those who charge that truth is “anti-Semitism” are anti-Truth!
While, rightly, there is no room for hate, there is also no room for the absurdity that Imams preach anti-Semitism –a history shaped by Jewish own hearts and heads and hands.
Those who want their virtues extolled and their vices suppressed need to cultivate dignity and maturity.
While Imams are justified in recounting Jewish atrocities they are not to make this an obsession. Instead of wasting invaluable, irreplaceable time preaching fruitless sermons, Imams are to expend their efforts in uprooting and incinerating the cancer of sectism (and internecine warfare) ravaging the Ummah of Mohammad and to cooperate in all matters of life from economic to military and to exhort Muslims –male and female– to pursue material excellence also, as Islam requires.
- THE ATHEIST: Muslim Scholars challenge Muslims that if they are true Muslims they are to live by what the Qur’an dictates and follow example of Prophet Mohammad.”
As noted above Muslims are not to blindly follow leaders.
Had Muslims been following the Qur’an and Hadith Muslim lands would not have been stolen or be under occupation or be “pressured” to divide; there would be no sectism and internecine fighting, and Muslims may yet be masters in Science and other fields of learning.
- THE ATHEIST: What unifies Muslims is belief in Qur’an, Hadith and Day of Judgment. If you take those three concepts then Islam is far from being a religion of peace. If more Muslims invest in the Hereafter than in life; then we have a problem; which makes Islam not a religion of peace.
So far we have shown that the teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith have establish that Islam is a religion of peace.
What is the way to the Hereafter? The Hereafter is paved with the beauty of piety and pursuits:
- “It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteous is the one who believes in Allah, and the Last Day, and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free e and keeps up prayer and pays the poor rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in the time of conflict. These are they who are truthful; and these are they who keep their duty” (Qur’an 2:177)
- “Have We not given him (man) two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways? (good and evil). But he attempts not the uphill road; And what will make thee comprehend what the uphill road is? (It is) to free a slave, Or to feed in a day of hunger. An orphan nearly related, Or the poor man lying in the dust. Then he is of those who believe and exhort one another to patience, and exhort one another to mercy. These are the people of the right hand” –(Qur’an 90:8-18).
- “See you not that Allåh has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and granted to you His favours complete outwardly and inwardly?”–(Qur’an 31:20);
“Allåh is He Who made subservient to you the sea that the ships may glide therein by His command, and that you may seek of His grace, and that you may give thanks. And He has made subservient to you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, all, from Himself. Surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect –Qur’an 45:12-13).
One can only make the heavens and earth subservient to him/her and reap the “favors” of Allah” by taking to the text books and lab.
Thus, If Muslims invest in the Hereafter, clearly, they are investing in life. Where then is the problem? How then is Islam not a religion of peace?
As you have read the history of the Prophet Mohammad then surely you must know that your charges that Islam says to kill disbelievers wherever you find them, that the campaigns by the Prophet were for conquest, and that Islam subordinates and subjugates women are grossly overstated. Why did you not take them in the manner in which they are expressed?
Do you like being “intellectually dishonest”?
- THE ATHEIST: The atheist notes that whereas Jesus says he came not to send peace but a sword and the rest of his teaching is about love thy neighbor etc; when we go back to the origin of Islam we find a founder (Mohammad) who was violent teaching violence.
That Mohammad was violent and taught violence is “intellectual” nonsense.
As shown Mohammad taught “peace.” Mohammad was subjected to “violence.”
Jesus was not persecuted, besieged, target of assassination attempt, forced into exile, pursued and forced into war as Mohammad was; yet Jesus sends fire and sword and division to earth and division in the family. Imagine the carnage if Jesus was subjected to the situations as Mohammad.
Compared to the blood shed in Mohammad’s wars and campaigns (which would have been the result of Jesus’ legacy to the world), Jesus’ sword and fire was the all-time blockbuster of blood and gore:
-rampage by Genghis Khan
-murderous Crusades by his “vicars”
-two World Wars
-Italy savaging Libya
-Germany holocausting Jews
-Jews more than seven decades of inhumanities against Palestinians
-France genocide in Algeria
-Russia’s razing of Grozny –plus.
-war in Nicaragua
-the Allies invasion and war on Iraq –twice
-America bombing Benghazi
-Serbia frolicking in Bosnia
-civilian slaughters in Cambodia, China, Philippines, Argentina, mass killings in America
-Daesh/Isis raging in the Middle-east
-carnage in Syria and Libya.
-Myanmar/Burma’s pogroms of Rohingya Muslims.
Jesus “fire and sword” list seems to be like the “song without end.’ And the world is not yet ended.
- THE ATHEIST spoke about Islamism. That she left Islam because Islam has flaws/blemishes.
Please explain what “Islamism” is.
Your rants against Islam have been razed, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Islam.
Those which you call flaws/blemishes have been self-erased.
- THE ATHEIST: That Muslims who are killed by Muslims for speaking out against terrorism –and this only happen with Muslims–, proves that Islam is not peaceful.
If a man has two sons and taught them equally. Should one son then commit against the teaching of his father, is the father to be blamed?
- THE ATHEIST: The scripture of Islam, the example of Prophet Mohammad and clergy inspire Muslims to kill apostates.
There are two critical points about Islam that are to be kept in mind:
(1) The Qur’an was revealed over a period of about twenty-three years. Unless and until he received Divine revelation in a matter the Prophet Mohammad followed the Bible, which requires honor killing, death for apostasy, blasphemy and parental abuse, homosexuality and –adultery.
The Qur’an abrogates these laws of Judaism and Christianity. (This is what the Qur’an refers to when it speaks of abrogation–Qur’an 2:106; it does not mean, as erroneously believe, that one verse of the Qur’an abrogates another verse. See Muhammad Ali’s comm. to Qur’an 2:106: www.muslim .org). Once the Prophet received revelation in a matter there was no going back to the old order/practice.
(2) Hadith/Sayings of the Prophet Mohammad are to be understood as to the time frame in which they were given –whether it was before or after revelation on the subject. The Prophet governed according to the Qur’an–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4).
Even in the lifetime of the Prophet sayings were forged in his name. Hazrat Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, is noted as saying:
“During the very lifetime of the Holy Prophet (AS) many a false tradition was attributed to him. This continued till the apostle of God got so vexed that he stood up and declared, ‘Whoever deliberately and purposely tells a lie against me or attributes lies to me shall make a place for himself in the Hell’”–(Nahjul Balagha, sermon 215, p. 386. See also Bokhari Vol. 1, # 106-109; Vol. 4, # 667, 712. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Prophet is reported as having said that whatever sayings of his contradict with the Qur’an is to be discarded.
As noted, the Prophet taught only according to the Qur’an. Forgeries may also have been made by the opponents of the Prophet to denigrate him.
Hazrat Ali also noted that there are those who heard from the Prophet “but his memory was not good and when he repeated the traditions he could not repeat them correctly;” then there were those who heard from the Prophet and remembered correctly “but they did not know that that order was later repealed and abrogated. Conversely, some people heard the Prophet forbidding his followers from a certain action, but did not know that the Apostle of God later gave permission for the same.”
There is no death for apostasy in Islam. Allah reveals:
- “And whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever –these it is whose works go for nothing in this world and the Hereafter”
“How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing,?”–(Qur’an 2:217; 3:85). These verses show that apostates are not killed.
- “Those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor guide them in the (right) way.”-(Qur’an 4:137). If apostates were to be killed there would be no question of them “believing” then “disbelieving” then “believing again”
- “Whoso disbelieves in Allāh after his belief–not he who is compelled while his heart is content with faith, but he who opens (his) breast for disbelief –on them is the wrath of Allāh and for them is a grievous chastisement”-(Qur’an 16:106). There is no order anyplace in the Qur’an to kill apostates.
There is no compulsion in religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6).
Killing of apostates would have been prior to the Qur’anic revelation, in which event the Prophet was following the Bible which requires death to apostates:
- “And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt….If thy brother…entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou has t not known, thou, nor thy fathers…thou shalt surely kill him…..” (Deuteronomy 13:5-16).
- “If there be found among you…man or woman….And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded …..Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman…and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” (Deuteronomy 17:2-5). (See Islam-apostasy).
- THE ATHEIST: Muslims are not practicing Islam because they do not follow Qur’an 2:191 and 193 which say: “And slay them wherever you find them and drive them out of places whence they drive you out for persecution of Muslims is worse than the slaughter of the non-believers.”
Islam is not just a religion of peace but also a religion of war.
The words “for persecution of Muslims is worse than the slaughter of the non-believers” should read “slaughter of the Muslims,” for the Muslims are informed that it is better that they are killed than live in persecution.”
“Give me liberty or give me death,” as someone said.
This quote by the Atheist is incomplete. These verses as translated by Muhammad Ali state:
“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it; so if they fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”
“And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.” (This is dealt with fully later)
This injunction was/is related to the Prophet and Muslims being driven from their homes in Makkah to Madinah. Muslims are here enjoined to retake their lands from the idolaters who had driven them from their homes/land.
While Muslims have been driven from their land/homes –Palestinians; Rohingyas in Myanmar/ Burma, and those in Bozoum, Central African Republic (and China is trying to dilute the Muslim population of so-called Xinjiang, actually Turkestan and more correctly “Uighuristan”)– these Muslims are not in a position to retaliate.
Thus to charge that because Muslims in general are not practising Islam because they do not practice these verses is gross absurdity.
Moreover, to label the retaking of one’s property from an occupier as an act of “violence” is a monumental and grotesque obscenity.
Regarding the injunction to “drive them (occupiers) out from where they drove you out”:
-This is what the Allies did to Germany in France (though Germany did not “drive” the French out of his land). Is this an act of ‘violence”?
-This is what Britain did, drive Argentina out of the Falklands Island (even though the Falklands is “disputed” territory). Is this an act of ‘violence”?
-This is what 1812 Canada did, drive American invaders out of Canada. Is this an act of ‘violence”?
-This is what the Allies did; drive Iraq out of Kuwait (even though Iraq did not kill Kuwaiti babies as the world was led to believe). Is this an act of ‘violence”?
-This is what Palestinians are trying to do, drive the Jewish occupiers out from where the Jews drove them out. Is this an act of ‘violence”?
What would you do if someone drives you out of your house/land? Would you not do whatever you can to drive out the occupier and reclaim your house/land? Would this be an act of ‘violence”?
.That “persecution is worse than slaughter”:
Isn’t this the truth? Isn’t this why the Allies undertook war, and the French undertook resistance against Germany?
Isn’t fighting for freedom (when you can) better than living in persecution?
That Islam is not just a religion of peace but also a religion of war:
This presentation has obliterated the claim that Islam is “war” whether in part or in whole.
As stated, war is necessary to institute and maintain peace and justice. Had the disbelievers not first taken up arms against Islam there would have been no war.
THE ATHEIST: Qur’an 2:191 and 193 say to slay disbelievers.
Qur’an 2:191 and 193 (and 9:5, 29) are the critics usual bogeymen on which they lay their hands to prop up their charge that there is “violence” in Islam. These verses are probably the most over-abused verses of the Qur’an that critics use in their vain attempt to prove that Islam is violent/evil.
From day one of his mission Mohammad was persecuted, besieged, target of assassination attempt; forced into exile, pursued and warred upon.
Wonder how Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Mr. Douglas Murray would respond if they should posit themselves in a public square and proclaim ‘atheism,” and the citizens were to persecute, besiege and try to assassinate them; force them from their dwelling(s), pursue them to their friends house and try to kill them?
Would Ms. Ali and Mr. Murray give the persecutors the other “cheek” or would they scramble for the biggest bazooka they could lay their hands on, or even on the “jawbone of an ass,” to crush the skulls of their assailants?
While the atheist notes only verses 2:191 and 193, reading from verse 190 is needed:
2:190: “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors.
2:191: “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it; so if they fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
2:192: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
2:193: And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.”
2:190 clearly shows that Muslims were allowed to fight only a defensive war against those who first took up arms against Muslims. This is made even clearer in Qur’an 22:39 which states: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made because they are oppressed.”
2:191 refers only to those who fight Muslims; not to all disbelievers everywhere.
2:192 makes it even clearer that not all disbelievers everywhere are to be killed, and for fighting to be stopped if the disbelievers cease fighting, as shown in the words “But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” to them.
2:193 makes the matter clearer yet that only oppressors are to be fought against as shown in the words “But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.”
Again, 2:193 states: “And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.”
That “religion is only for Allah” is further proof that Islam does not force religion onto any one. (Compare with Qur’an 22:40 where Muslims are even to fight on behalf of non-Muslims, and as shown elsewhere Muslims fought on behalf of Christians against the Romans).
This alone obliterates the critics charge and is sufficient proof that Islam is not only a religion of peace but that Islam is dedicated to peace.
THE ATHEIST: Mohammad called on all Muslims to attack and kill and maim anyone unless they testify that Allah is one and only, Mohammad is His Messenger.
The atheist is obviously referring to Qur’an 9:5 and 9:29.
Qur’an 9:5 states: “So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allåh is Forgiving, Merciful.”
Muslims were fully justified to pursue, besiege etc; and slay the enemies wherever they were found. You do not allow enemies bent on annihilating you the opportunity to regroup and even fortify their efforts against you. Not even modern nations allow this. (Not even transgressors and occupiers allow this).
In completely routing the enemies Muslims had, in the words of Muhammad Ali, “the sanction of civilised warfare, ancient as well as modern.”
However, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” does not refer to all idolaters. Muhammad Ali explains:
“The clear exception of the last verse (9:4) –(which states: “Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty”)– shows that by the idolaters here are meant, not all idolaters or polytheists wherever they may be found in the world, not even all idolaters of Arabia, but only those idolatrous tribes of Arabia assembled at the pilgrimage who had at first made agreements with the Muslims and then violated them.
The exception here has given rise to much misconception. It is thought that it offers to the disbelievers the alternative of the sword or the Qur’an. Nothing is farther from the truth. The injunction contained in the first part of the verse establishes the fact that the whole verse relates to certain idolatrous Arab tribes who had broken their engagements with the Muslims, and who had now been apprised of a similar repudiation by the Muslims. The order to kill them and to make them prisoners and to besiege them and ambush them amounts clearly to an order to fight against them, as it is in war only that all these things are made lawful. They had so often broken their word that they could no more be trusted.….The subject is further clarified in the next verse and the following section.” (And the next verse says: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not” (9:6).
“This verse leaves no doubt that the Prophet was never ordered to kill anyone on account of his religion. “You shall give him a safe conduct that he may return home again securely in case he shall not think fit to embrace Muhammadanism” (Sale).” (Comm.1033-1035).
As noted further on the Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the message of the Qur’an not to enforce it.
Regarding Qur’an 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allåh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allåh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
Muhammad Ali explains:
“The last word on the wars with the idolaters of Arabia having been said, this verse introduces the subject of fighting with the followers of the Book. Though the Jews had for a long time assisted the idolatrous Arabians in their struggle to uproot Islam, the great Christian power, the Roman Empire, had only just mobilized its forces for the subjection of the new religion, and the Tabuk expedition followed, which constitutes the subject-matter of a large portion of what follows in this chapter. As the object of this Christian power was simply the subjection of the Muslims, the words in which their final vanquishment by the Muslims is spoken of are different from those dealing with the final vanquishment of the idolatrous Arabians. The Qur’an neither required that the idolaters should be compelled to accept Islam, nor was it in any way its object to bring the Christians into subjection. On the other hand, the idolaters wanted to suppress Islam by the sword, and the Christians first moved themselves to bring Muslim Arabia under subjection. The fate of each was, therefore, according to what it intended for the Muslims. The word jizyah is derived from jaza, meaning he gave satisfaction, and means, according to LL, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim Government whereby they ratify the compact that ensures them protection; or, according to AH, because it is a compensation for the protection which is guaranteed them, the non-Muslim subjects being free from military service.
The phrase ‘an yad-in has been explained variously. The word yad (lit., hand) stands for power or superiority, the use of the hand being the real source of the superiority of man over all other animals, and the apparent meaning of the phrase is in acknowledgement of your superiority in protecting their lives, etc. (AH). It may also be added that the permission to fight, as given to the Muslims, is subject to the condition that the enemy should first take up the sword, Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you (2:190). The Holy Prophet never overstepped this limit, nor did his followers. He fought against the Arabs when they took up the sword to destroy the Muslims, and he led an expedition against the Christians when the Roman Empire first mobilized its forces with the object of subjugating the Muslims. And so scrupulous was he that, when he found that the enemy had not yet taken the initiative, he did not attack the Roman Empire, but returned without fighting. Later on, however, the Roman Empire, like the Persians, helped the enemies of Islam and fomented trouble against the newly established Muslim Kingdom, as a result of which both these empires came into conflict with the Muslims and, notwithstanding the fact that both the Persians and the Romans were very powerful nations with unlimited resources and strong military organizations, and that they both tried at one and the same time to subjugate Islam, the result was what is predicted here in clear words — they were both reduced to a state of subjection by an insignificant nation like the Arabs.”
Had the enemies not militated to annihilate Muslims they would not have been “reduced to a state of subjection.”
Whereas striving with the “sword” is necessary to overcome aggression, occupation and oppression, striving with the Qur’an is known as the “great” Jihad –Jihad kabiran, (Qur’an 25:52).
That the Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an and NOT enforce it is cemented in the verses from Allāh as noted in item 6.
Islam is such a peaceful religion that Muslims are to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy:
“And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah” “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it…And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee…” “So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them”–(Qur’an 8:39; 61-62; 4:90).
Muslims could not lay down their arms and “incline to peace” if Islam had required the annihilation of all non-Muslims.
Islam is the “abode of peace”–(Qur’an 10:25).
For over twenty grueling years Mohammad was persecuted, besieged, target of assassination attempt, forced into exile, pursued, and warred on. Yet upon his triumph over his inveterate enemies he forgave them:
“It is related that the Prophet took hold of the two sides of the gate of the Ka’ba on the day of the conquest of Makkah and said to the Quraish: How do you think I should treat you? They said: We hope for good, a noble brother and the son of a noble brother. Then he said: I say as my brother Joseph said: “No reproof be against you this day” (Rz).”
No inquisition. No incrimination. No confession. No rancor. Only lofty words of benevolence and nobility –“No reproof be against you this day.”12
It is doubtful that Mohammad would have forgiven these disbelievers if Allah/Islam had required that all disbelievers, and everywhere, be killed.
Unlike nations that are transgressors, oppressors, occupiers and aggressors and yet seek to crush their victims (and even fly half to distant lands to kill those who are considered a threat to them), Mohammad was no transgressor no oppressor no occupier no aggressor; and his enemies were in his yard.
Whatever measures Mohammad took to safeguard himself and followers from extermination Mohammad was fully justified. No honest critic or individual would state otherwise.
The only sword that Islam wields is the sword of truth and justice.
“THEY (Muhummed’s critics) SEE FIRE INSTEAD OF LIGHT, UGLINESS INSTEAD OF GOOD. THEY DISTORT AND PRESENT EVERY GOOD QUALITY AS A GREAT VICE. IT REFLECTS THEIR OWN DEPRAVITY…THE CRITICS ARE BLIND. THEY CANNOT SEE THAT THE ONLY ‘SWORD’ MUHAMMAD WIELDED WAS THE SWORD OF MERCY, COMPASSION, FRIENDSHIP AND FORGIVENESS –THE SWORD THAT CONQUERS ENEMIES AND PURIFIES THEIR HEARTS. HIS SWORD WAS SHARPER THAN THE SWORD OF STEEL.”13
- THE ATHEIST: Qur’an 2:256 (Which states “There is no compulsion in religion”) has a follow-up, Qur’an 2:191 which states: “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter.”
This is astounding.
Muslims fight the unbelievers not to compel them to follow Islam but to retake their land/property. Here is Qur’an 2:256 in full:
“There is no compulsion in religion — the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”
How is Qur’an 2;191 a follow-up to this verse of 2:256?
- THE ATHEIST: Islam needs to be reformed to be peaceful.
Since ancient times there are those who slavishly and boorishly parrot this phrase; though there is nothing in Islam that they can prove which needs to be reformed. What needs to be reformed is Muslims.
This presentation has proven that Islam is “peaceful.”
In addition. How would you reform the following teachings of Islam:
–fulfilling covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (Qur’an 16:91-92); to speak justly (6:153); to be righteous (2:277-278; 6:152-154); to not let hatred for a people incite you to transgress (5:2); to render back trusts to whom they are due, and to judge justly (4:58); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity (5:45-47)
–not to deal unjustly with men (2:279, 5:8); and not to rob them of their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich (4:135), to feed the needy and the poor, to free the captives, to help those in debt, to care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free the slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief (26:183); not to be transgressors (2:190), not to help one another in sin and aggression (5:2), to restrain our anger and forgive others (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75; 22:39-40); because Allah God loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90)
–not to help or counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (5:2; 60:8-9); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42:40); that instead of retaliation, to make reconciliation, and to show patience and forgiveness (16:126; 42:39-43); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution/ oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90, 8:61); because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75)
–all men are created equal (95:4), that we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), that we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135)
–to avoid illicit relations (17:32); to establish regular prayer, because prayer keeps one from indecency and evil (29:45);
–that both man and woman were created from the same medium (4:1), and are to be life partners (25:54; 16:72; 24:32); with love and compassion between them–(7:189; 30:21)
–Woman has like rights with those of man –the same is due to her as is due from her (2:228). She is a garment of man as he is her garment (to cover, protect, beautify, and comfort (2:187); and is “a fountain of love and affection”–(30:21); and his friend/ protector–(9:71)
–women can earn, and can inherit and own property (4:32, 7, 177); she has exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases (4:4, 32); she is to be honored (4:1) and that she and man are inheritors of Paradise (43:70; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35)
–condemns compulsion (2:256); aggression (32:20); oppression, persecution (2:193; 42:42); and exploitation (6:153; 26:181-184; 83:1-4)
–promotes peace (8:61), love (60:7-8); patience (23:111), tolerance (24:22; 45:14), and justice for all regardless of race, color or creed (4:135; 7:29; 16:90)
–advocates that all, regardless of race, nationality or color are equal, and that one is better than the other only through righteousness (49:13);
–to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); and for religious freedom, for all (8:39; 22:40).
–allows freedom of religion (2:256; 6:105-109; 9:107-108; 10:88-100; 18:29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6); freedom of movement, thought, and expression (4:140; 6:68, 108; 29:52); the pursuit of knowledge, and the acquisition of wealth and property–(2:274-275, 276-282; 35:12; 53:48; 62:10);
–to choose only those worthy of power and to exercise justice–(4:58); to govern by consultation/counsel.–(3:158; 4:58; 42:38. Here’s democracy for you; and 1400 years ago, while Europe was yet running around with flint tools and torches).
-“Tell those who believe (Muslims) to forgive those who fear not the days of Allåh that He may reward a people for what they earn. Whoever does good it is for himself, and whoever does evil, it is against himself; then to your Lord you will be brought back”–(Qur’an 45:14-15).
How would you reform these teachings of Islam. Or is there any teaching that is not listed that needs reforming? Please list it/them for us.
- THE ATHEIST: Muslim women are denied education; the reasons given are guardianship which has the authority to decide whether he sends the girl to school or not and for how long she goes to school.
The main reasons that Muslims pull girls out of school when she begins menstruation is the fear, the terror that they might lose their virginity this sexual modesty that is demanded of girls.
The Qur’an and Hadith insist that woman be a virgin on her wedding night.
If Muslim men values a woman more than her hymen this will revolutionize Islam completely, girls would be independent and could make Islam a religion of peace because they would bring their boys up to be employable, to be educated and to renounce suicide killings.
Whoever you ask may have said they have the authority to either send or not send the female to school and when to yank her out. But Allah and His Prophet and the Caliph ‘Umar show differently:
- Allāh says to seek His help in obtaining knowledge: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114. While this verse was an instruction to the Prophet it is general to all Muslims). (See also Islam-knowledge).
- Allah says whatever a woman earns belong solely to her–(Qur’an 4:32. And this earning is not restricted to baking bread and spinning threads into carpet. And after her last child reaches the age of full time school there is no reason for her to keep company with the four walls of the house).
- Prophet Mohammad stressed the educating even of slave-girls: “The man shall have a double reward who has a slave-girl and he trains her in the BEST MANNER and he gives her the BEST EDUCATION, then he SETS HER FREE and MARRIES her”–(Bokhari Vol.; 3 #720. Vol 4 # 655. Notably Islam abolished slavery: see Islam-slaves/slavery).
- Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate that ‘Umar, “When as a Caliph he made education compulsory in Arabia, it was made so for both boys and girls”–(p. 120).
Significantly, Muhammad Ali points out in his The Religion of Islam, (pp. 628-629) that “woman took interest in all the national activities of the Muslim community”–joining “in congregational prayers”–(Bukhari 10:162, 164); joining “the soldiers in the field of battle, to perform a large number of duties, such as the carrying of provisions,” “taking care of the sick and the wounded,” “removing the wounded and the slain from the battlefield,” “or taking part in actual fighting when necessary.” “Women also helped their husbands in the labour of the field,” “served the male guests at a feast,” and “carried on business,” “they could sell to and purchase from men, and men could sell to and purchase from them.” “A woman was appointed by the Caliph ‘Umar as super-intendent of the market of Madinah.” (Bukhari, 56:66, 67, 68; 56:62, 63, 65; F.B. III, p. 228; Bukhari, 67:108, 78; 11:40; 34:67, respectively).
“A woman is also spoken of as acting as an Imam, while men followed her, though it was in her own house”–(Abu Dawud 2:58 (Vol.1, #591, 592). The Religion of Islam, p.385).
Women’s sexual modesty:
It does not seem presumptuous to say that decent/moral parents teach or would like their children (male and female) to practice “sexual modesty.”
Aside from Islam esteeming womanhood as the symbol of purity (and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise) Islam requires that both men and women practice sexual modesty:
- “Say to the believing men that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions…….And say to the believing women that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions”–(Qur’an 24:30-31).
- “Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allāh much and the women who remember –Allāh has prepared for THEM FORGIVENESS AND A MIGHTY REWARD”–(Qur’an 33:35). (For women and marriage see Islam-women).
- And the Prophet says that whoever refrains from illegal speech and illicit relations will have Paradise: Said the magnificent Messenger of Allah: “Whoever can guarantee what is between his two jaw-bones and what is between his two legs, I guarantee Paradise for him”–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #481).
That Qur’an and hadith insists that woman be virginal on her wedding night:
Where in the Qur’an and Hadith insist on this? As noted above, the Qur’an and Hadith exhort chastity on both men and women. Both men and women are exhorted to be virgins on their (first) wedding night.
There are many non-Muslim countries that legislate that an adult male cannot have sex with a female under the age ranging between 13-18 (and that an adult woman cannot have sex with a male of similar age as that of a girl). Is this not controlling a girl’s and boy’s sexuality?
That if Muslim men values a woman more than her hymen this will revolutionize Islam completely, girls would be independent and could make Islam a religion of peace because they would bring their boys up to be employable, to be educated and to renounce suicide killings.
Regardless of how desperate the drive to garner votes, such a statement does not befit the lips of a woman honored as “intellectual.”
So all the non-Muslim men and boys who commit terrorism do not value a woman more than her hymen? And their non-Muslim mothers were uneducated and did not bring up their boys to be employable, to be educated and to renounce terrorism?
As noted above girls have independence in Islam. They have right to education, full control over their earnings. There is no prohibition against Muslim women working alongside men; the only requirement is that they do not indulge in un-Islamic actions: “O wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. If you would keep your duty, be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease year; and speak a word of goodness”–(Qur’an 33:32. While this injunction is addressed to the wives of the Prophet; it is for Muslim women in general).
Muslims who commit terrorism invariably give the reason or their acts to be because non-Muslims kill innocent Muslims; not because they crave “hymen” or because their mothers were uneducated and did not bring them up to be employable, to be educated and to renounce terrorism.
In fact, as reports show, many suicide killers are educated and affluent or come from affluent background.
And if Muslims commit suicide killings because of poor perception of women and crave “hymen.” Why did the Japanese Kamikaze pilots and modern day Japanese and Tamil Tigers commit “suicide” killings?
And what about the “150 and rising” number of women who commit “suicide bombings (as noted on the Internet)? Did these women also crave “hymen”?
THE ATHEIST: Women are subordinated to men; honor killing; majority of women are illiterate in most countries; their testimony is half of men; their inheritance is only half of what their brothers inherit.
Allah says in Qur’an that men, being the maintainers of women have a degree of superiority over women. This is not subordination of women. Every country, organization etc; has one person designated as the head. Women have rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228. More on this further on)
That Women are subjected to honor killings:
There is no honor killing in Islam. Allāh reveals in His Qur’an: “The adulterer cannot have sexual relations with any but an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress, none can have sexual relations with her but an adulterer or an idolater; and it is forbidden to believers”–(Qur’an 24:3).
Zinaa means sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other–i.e. adultery and fornication.
The verse shows that there is no “honor killing” in Islam; adulterers/fornicators could not be left to have sex or to marry their kind if Islam had required honor killings. (See Islam-honor killing).
Honor killing is the Jewish and Christian law: “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you”–(Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
That Majority of women are illiterate in most countries:
This may be so, but as noted above Islam requires that both males and females receive an education. More on this further on.
That Women’s testimony is half of men’s:
Allah says: “O you who believe, when you contract a debt for a fixed time, write it down….And call to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women…so that if one of the two errs, the one may remind the other” –(Qur’an 2:282):
This is so only in the area of business, as the verse clearly states, as business transactions were dominated by men. In advanced societies where women also are involved in business dealings such a practice is not required. However, this does not mean that the Qur’anic injunction is obsolete. There are (and will always be) societies the world over where women are not familiar with business dealings where this Qur’anic injunction may be applicable.
A woman’s testimony cannot be half of that of the man’s in every area of life, for as pointed out in Qur’an 24:6-9, (in the matter of the wife’s suspected infidelity) the testimony of the wife, supersedes that of the husband’s:
“And those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, let one of them testify four times, bearing Allāh to witness, that he is of those who speak the truth. And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allāh be on him, if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the chastisement from her, if she testify four times, bearing Allāh to witness, that he is of those who lie. And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allāh to be on her, if he is of those who speak the truth.”
While the man’s testimony is “one-fifth” that of the woman’s, no court would dare to assert that a man’s testimony in all matters is inferior to that of the wife’s, or that the testimony of a man is “worth half” (or “one-fifth,” as per the verse) that of a woman’s. And, notably, a woman’s chastity is a more sensitive matter than a business transaction.
If it be claimed that the woman is worth half that of a man, then it can be claimed that a man is worth a fifth of a woman.
Additionally, a teaching of the Prophet Mohammad conveys that women have three degrees of excellence over men (perhaps because women carry us, give birth and nurse us); the prophet taught that after worship of Allāh the next in line for our service is our mother, and three times over before service to our father–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #2; which seems to be an explanation of Qur’an 31:14: “And We have enjoined on man concerning his parents –his mother bears him with faintings upon faintings and his weaning takes two years– saying: Give thanks to Me and to thy parents. To Me is the eventual coming”)
But no critic would dare assert that a father’s worth is only one-quarter the worth of a mother.
That Women’s inheritance is only half of what their brothers inherit–(Qur’an 4:11, 177).
Already dealt with in item 14.
That Islam subjugates women:
Muslims may be subjugating their womenfolk. But Allah says:
- man and Woman were created from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1), and instilled with the same laws –such as the five senses and susceptibilities to hunger and disease– one cannot be superior to the other. How then does Islam subjugate women?
- reverence the womb that bore you (not the loins that emitted you)–(Qur’an 4:1); and Prophet Mohammad taught that paradise lies at the feet of mothers’ (not at the feet of fathers’)–(Ibn Majah, #2771).. How then does Islam subjugate women?
- men and women are garments to the other–(Qur’an 2:187). Garments protect, comfort, beautify and conceal the body’s imperfections. Since men and women are to protect, comfort, beautify and keep each other’s flaws private; how then does Islam subjugate women?
- men and women are friends one of another–(Qur’an 9:71). Friends do not oppress one another: friends liberate and protect one another. How then does Islam subjugate women?
- women have rights similar to those against her–(Qur’an 2:228). People who have mutual rights cannot subjugate the other. How then does Islam subjugate women?
- women have rights to inheritance, and full control over her earnings–(Qur’an 4:7, 11, 177; 4:32). How then does Islam subjugate women?
- women have moral and spiritual equality with men–(Qur’an 3:194, 197; 24:30, 31, 55; 33:35; 49:13; 57:12, 18, 19). How then does Islam subjugate women?
- Allah has put love and compassion between man and woman, and that man may find peace of mind in her–(Qur’an 7:189; 30:21). The man who abuses his wife, causes her distress or puts her under duress cannot find love and compassion and comfort in her. This verse also condemns marital rape. How then does Islam subjugate women?
Women have three degrees of excellence over men: There is a report of a man asking the Prophet “Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship,” to which the Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man said, “Who is next?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man further said, “Who is next?” The Prophet said, “Your mother.” The man asked for the fourth time, “Who is next?” The Prophet said, “Your father”–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #2).
Some subjugation! (See Islam-women).
Allah is a Just God. He would not discriminate against woman because of her form and physiology; a form and physiology of which she had no choice –a form and physiology He gave her.
Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise.
The Muslim man who subjugates the Muslim woman has no assent from Islam.
- THE ATHEIST: Whereas one would hardly consider the words of a nation’s founding fathers to be immutable. Muslims would not question or alter the words of the Qur’an as they believe it is the revealed word of God.
All the charges you have made against the Qur’an/Islam we have obliterated.
What/which more words of the Qur’an/Allah do you disagree with and/or contradict? List them.
- ATHEIST: A religion is born in a culture, if the culture is not peaceful then religion also is not peaceful. Islam has a political philosophy on how society should be organized and if you look at that political system it is anything but peaceful.
Don’t all countries have a “political philosophy” on how society should be organized?
(Putting aside the fact that Islam was born in a culture of tribalism, ignorance, drunkenness, profligacy and superstition and transformed it into unity, knowledge, sobriety, chastity and rationality) The Islamic system which is rooted in the philosophy of non-aggression, non-oppression and that the exacting of one’s right is diametrically equal to the instituting of the right of others can only be, and IS, ‘peaceful.”
- THE ATHEIST: The order to submit my will completely to Allah which in practice means the concentration of power in the hands of a few were to learn to think critically the enlightenment.
Vote against this motion (that Islam is a peaceful religion) and open up the flaws of Islam for debate in order that Muslims, those who are not yet emancipated, may take charge of their own reason of their own faculty.
Vote against the motion that Islam is a religion of peace and toss that fallacy into the trash can of history.
In the country that you live isn’t power concentrated in the hands of a few (the government)?
True, you and the majority have placed them in power but if that majority tries to disrupt their governance you may likely, depending on the scene of rebellion, be tossed in jail or shot. As has happened in the past in democracy as well as in dictatorship.
As shown in item 4 this charge is baseless. Islam is ‘democracy;” Islam does not kill “reason;” Islam is enlightenment.
Significantly, as the Qur’an is the Muslim’s Constitution and as there is no Constitution more equitable and just than the Qur’an, and as the Caliph (Muslim leader) is to govern by the Qur’an, there is no fear of any person being dealt with unjustly.
As shown there are no “flaws” in Islam.
That Islam is a religion of peace is, as shown, no “fallacy.”
- THE ATHEIST: In countries conquered by Islam non-Muslims who were allowed to stay in those countries were given second-class status– dhimmi status. I would ask you tonight, ladies and gentlemen, not to be dhimmis not to have second-class status not to vote for things because you think it is polite or because you think you have to say them but because you think they are true. Of that basis, the idea you could vote for the motion tonight (that Islam is a peaceful religion) is absurd. Islam is palpably, demonstrably, evidently not a religion of peace. Vote against this motion.
Dhimmi does not mean “second-class;” dhimmi “literally means “people under protection,” and this protection was because they were exempted from military service. And for which exemption they were required to pay jizya. (For more on this see Bat Ye’or-Eurabia & Muslims).
That Islam is palpably, demonstrably, evidently not a religion of peace:
From day one of his mission Mohammad was persecuted, besieged, target of assassination attempt; forced into exile, pursued and warred upon.
As detailed, Mohammad’s mission was only to deliver the Divine Message, not to enforce it.
Had the rejecters of the Divine message not first taken up arms to crush Mohammad, there would have been no verse in the Qur’an for Mohammad to take up arms against persecutors –this war was fomented and foisted by the enemy. And once this persecution stopped Mohammad was required to cease fighting, and even to make peace in the face of possible deception by the enemy.
No man, bogged in the situation as Mohammad was, would do any less than what Mohammad did to safeguard himself.
And after twenty years of suffering Mohammad, upon his triumph over his unrelenting enemies, yet forgave them, forgave them without condition, demonstrating that he was truly a mercy to man: “No reproof be against you this day.”
This is no “paradigm,” this is fact. Unadulterated, irrefutable fact.
And this alone proves that “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Now that you have failed, and failed miserably, to disprove that Islam is the religion of peace we invite you to advance your intelligent discourse to support atheism.
And as you cannot prove atheism, and while you are free to believe as you wish, if you would like to have a blissful existence after you die, and as you know about Mohammad/Islam, you have no choice but to bend your knees to Allah; to:
There is no God but Allah; Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
Readers who would like to view the ninety minute debate, here is the link: http://tulisanmurtad.blogspot. ca/2010/11 /intelligence-squared-debate.html.
If you believe we should comment on any other statement please post your comment on our HOME page. Thank you.
- Allah has proven His existence in the Qur’an, see Qur’an-prophecies; Qur’an-science
- Noted in Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 100. (In his book K.K has obliterated Christians’ “mis-statements” against Islam. Read also his book The Sources of Christianity, in which he has shown without doubt that Christianity is Paganism. These books or info on them may be obtained from www.muslim.org
- Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam (pp. 98-99).
- Ibid; p.100.
- Ibid; p.115.
- Ibid; p. 116.
- Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 14.
- Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, New And Old, International Terrorism in the Real World, p. 66.
- Ibid; pp. 46-47.
- See the Internet: Operation Trojan, by Col. Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy. It is said that “Israeli” commandos stole into Libya and planted a “Trojan” device and transmitted broadcast through it, which gave the impression that the Libyan authorities were giving terrorist instructions to members abroad. The broadcasts were intercepted by foreign governments. Though the French did not believe, America seemingly took the broadcast(s) as genuine and went and bombed Libya.
- Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International terrorism in the Real World, pp. 66, 134.
- “No reproof be against you this day”–(Qur’an 12:92) were spoken by Joseph to his brothers who had cast him into a well and told their father that a wolf had devoured him.
- Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri, at a meeting in Gorakhpur, [India]. 1928. Quoted in Ahmed Deedat, Muhummed The Greatest, p. 37. (Emphasis added).