In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
DEDICATED TO
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
AND TO
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
*
RESPONSE
To
Irshad Manji
THE TROUBLE WITH ISLAM
A Wake-Up Call For Honesty and Change*
(See also Allah Liberty & Love – Irshad Manji)
“And of men is he whose speech about the life of this
world may dazzle you, and he calls Allah to witness
as to that which is in his heart,
yet he is the most violent of adversaries.
And when he holds authority, he makes effort in the land
to cause mischief in it and destroy tilth and offspring;
and Allah loves not mischief.”
(Qur’an 2:204-205)
*
* The Trouble With Islam–A Wake-Up Call For Honesty and Change; published 2003 by Random House Canada, a division of Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Distributed in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited.
After reading her book and listening to her, it is evident that Irshad Manji is a self-aggrandizer whose mouth works faster than her brain; she knows nothing about Islam and projects herself as an authority on it. She seems to believe that wit is wisdom and gab is knowledge. Muslims need to be wary of who they follow; the self-styled “experts” on Islam may be taking you behind them into Hell-Fire.
Revealingly, Manji is a hypocrite (see Allah Liberty & Love – Irshad Manji item #6), (and item #7 for the Palestinian-Jewish conflict).
*
CONTENTS
1. Palestinians, Jews, and anti-Semitism
2. Talents of women
3. Qur’an and homosexuals and lesbians;
4. Qur’an and Jews;
5. Islamic reformation;
6. Islam’s totalitarianism;
7. Slavery;
8. Barrier in the mosque;
9. Practice and spirit;
10. Suspicion of Qur’anic text;
11. Women Imam;
12. Mohammad and the Jewish tribe, Bani Quraizah;
13. Jewish plot;
14. Islamic prayers;
15. Edward Said and the West;
16. Islam, gift of the Jews. Abraham;
17. Pre-Islamic experience;
18. Stoning;
19. Islam and Excessive laughter;
20. Moses Znaimer, Lashes and female circumcision;
21. Honor killings, woman traveler;
22. Sayings (hadith) of the Prophet Mohammad;
23. Whom did Allah create first?
24. Wife-beating;
25. Woman–a tilth/field;
26. Islam, straight path?
27. Qur’an at war with itself. Slaves;
28. Islam–treatment of non-Muslims;
29. Islam trumps Christianity and Judaism;
30. Nasty side of the Qur’an;
31. Qur’an and retribution. Abrogation in the Qur’an;
32. Qur’anic message all over the map; Compassion and retribution;
33. Hur–Maidens or raisins?
34. Satanic verses;
35. Ijtihad;
36. Imperialist Islam;
37. Sufi and the Qur’an;
38. Al-Mamun;
39. Sharia;
40. Dhimmitude and Jizya;
41. Mohammad and the Jews of Khaybar;
42. Pact of ‘Umar;
43. Arabic in-flight;
44. Freedom of expression;
45. Ha’aretz and democracy;
46. Mohammad at the Dome of the Rock;
47. Occupied Palestine;
48. Arafat and the peace offer;
49. Zionism and the Partition of Palestine;
50. Zionists in Palestine;
51. Palestine–Promised Land or Stolen Heritage?
52. Palestinian Refugees;
53. Jews could live with the other;
54. Sexless virgins and alcohol-free wine jokes;
55. “Israel”–alpha and omega of Palestinian oppression;
56. Zionism and Apartheid;
57. Edward Said on Apartheid;
58. Racism and the UN; Jews as bloodsuckers;
59. Jewish Law of Return;
60. Muslims and education;
61. Muslims imitating American culture;
62. Ali Salem, Humanity of the Jewish state;
63. Prophet Mohammad and pre-emptive strikes;
64. Why Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslims. Marital rape. Rape;
65. Are Ahmadis Muslims?
66. Islam and democracy;
67. Is Islam the straight path?
68. Islam and culture;
69. Tribal Islam;
70. Why pray in Arabic?
71. The Veil (and Hijab);
72. Jahiliyah–Moral darkness;
73. Compilation of the Qur’an;
74. Islam and innovation;
75. Ismailis and Falaysufs;
76. Mohammad and bin Laden;
77. Islam and Attaturk;
78. Islam and Husband and wife relations;
79. Women and pre-nuptial agreements;
80. Liberalizing Islam;
81. Desert Islam;
82. Zionist torture;
83. Islam–religion and state;
84. Islam and progress;
85. Islam’s noxious air;
86. First in Palestine–Jew or Arab?
87. Judaism and evangelization
88. Muslims and responsibility;
89. Dignity of difference. Unpredictable God;
90. Kazakhstan;
91. Abrahamic hajj; Why non-Muslims are not allowed worship in Arabia;
92. Islam–stupid religion;
93. Islamic terror.
94. Islam and human rights;
95. Islam and blasphemy;
96. Reforming Islam;
97. Religion against humanity;
98. Sadat and Muslim values;
99. Non-violence;
100. If God wills;
101. Islam and Sufis;
102. Jews and Islamic rule;
103. Islam and small unhappy lives;
104. Questioning the Qur’an;
105. Islam and terrorism.
*
(Views have been expressed that Islam is in need of reform, Islamic law needs to be changed, that there are discrepancies and abrogation in the Qur’an, and the divine authorship of the Qur’an being questioned.
However, no reasons or specifics are given as to what reform is needed in Islam, or which law of Islam needs to be changed, or any examples of these discrepancies and abrogation and which part of the Qur’an is to be questioned: unless it is meant that the entire faith of Islam needs reforming, and all laws and the entire Qur’an need to be changed and questioned).
All the laws of Islam are valid today as they were at the time of revelation, and will continue to be valid to the end of Time. While in some societies the condition may be such that some of its teachings–such as women are not to travel without a male family member, two women’s witness is required in place of one man (and this is for business transactions only)–that may be waived, it does not mean that these laws are redundant. For there are other places where they may be applicable. In any event such laws are there for application when the situation requires them.
Critics of Islam invariably fail to distinguish between Islam and culture and the un-Islamic actions of Muslims.
Muslim students, especially “Muslim university students,” must not allow yourselves to be dazzled and seduced by glib speeches. Know yourself. Be informed about Islam and even about other religions. Apply reason not only to academics and science but also to theology.
Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an and his preliminary notes, and his The Religion of Islam are indispensable sources on Islam. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org
*
“And of men is he who takes instead frivolous
discourse to lead astray from Allah’s path
without knowledge, and to make it a mockery.
For such is an abasing chastisement.”
(Qur’an 31:6)
*
(Quotes and page numbers are from Irshad Manji’s book The Trouble With Islam).
1. Palestinians, Jews, and anti-Semitism: “Why are we all being held hostage by what’s happening between the Palestinians and the Israelis? What’s with the stubborn streak of anti-Semitism in Islam?”(p. 2).
Response: Whether Muslims practice this truth in all circumstances or are selective, Muslims are of one brotherhood. There is no people in the modern world who have been the subject of an injustice as the Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer.
(At the time of the Partition of Palestine, Jews were 34% of the population and owned less than 6% of the land. Yet they were allotted 56% of land, including the valuable coastal area. The Arabs were allotted 42% with 1% designated as an international sector. That the bulk of land given to the Jews was the Negev desert is irrelevant, they were all the property of the Palestinians).
It is doubtful that you would not want support from even non-family members should more than half of your belongings (or even less) be forcibly taken from you and given to another.
Jews world-wide are supporting their brothers in Palestine; why aren’t you calling this support anti-Arabism?
Where is your proof of “anti-Semitism in Islam.”
Semites (more correctly Shemites) are the descendants of Shem, one of Noah’s three sons. Can those who claim to be Semites prove that they are descendants of Shem?
Arthur Koestler in his book, The Thirteenth Tribe, theorized, convincingly so, that present-day Jews may be descendants of the Khazar, an eighth-century Turkish tribe, who converted to Judaism. Though his attempt to follow the history of the Khazar Empire is based on insufficient available materials, Koestler has endeavored to show that anthropological evidence agrees with history in negating the accepted belief in a Jewish race of Biblical lineage; he also points out that the large majority of existing Jews is of “Eastern European” ancestry.
If there is no Biblical Jew, i.e. no Semitic Jewish race, the term “anti-Semitism” would be meaningless.
(Considering that the Arab nation is not the descendants of any non-Arab converts to Islam, Arabs are the true Semites; and are the ones clearly justified in claiming “anti-Semitism”).
To make a charge of anti-Semitism,
it must be proven that there are Semites.
It must be shown that those who make the charge
of anti-Semitism are descendants of the
twelve tribes of the prophet Jacob.
As the horn of history unclogs, she may clearly sound the seemingly muffled truth that Biblically there is no Jew.
Palestine is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims. (See Palestine).
2. Talents of women: “Why are we squandering the talents of women, fully half of God’s creation?” (p. 2)
Response: Islam is not to be cited if Muslims are “squandering the talents of women.” Islam does not discriminate against women.
i. Allah is a Just God. He will not discriminate against woman because of her form and function–a form and physiology He gave her; a form and physiology of which she had no choice. In fact, if form and physiology is the measure of superiority, Woman is superior to Man–she having carried man, gave birth to him and nursed him. Three degrees of excellence and superiority that Man have yet to acquire. Women even have a fourth degree of excellence over men: cloning! Whereas the male sperm can be dispensed with in duplicating the being, the female’s ovum –as yet– is necessary to develop the clone.
ii. Allah says that He created man and woman from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1). Since man and woman are created from the same essence, and are instilled with the same laws –such as the five senses and susceptibilities to hunger and diseases– one cannot be superior to the other. This verse establishes that from the very beginning of creation man and woman are equal.
iii. Allah says, give reverence to the womb that bore you (4:1). Give reverence to the womb that bore you –not to the loins that emitted you. Reverence to the womb is not discrimination against her, but honor. The Prophet Mohammad says that Paradise lies at the feet of mothers –not at the feet of fathers. The Prophet says that after worship of Allah, next in line for our service is our mother; and three times over before service to our father: thus women have three degrees of excellence over men. Such esteem is not discrimination against her.
iv. Allah says that men and women are garments to the other (2:187). Garments protect and beautify us, and conceal our body’s imperfections. Since men and women are to protect and beautify and keep each others flaws private; one cannot oppress the other.
v. Allah says that men and women are friends of one another (9:71). Friends do not oppress one another; friends liberate one another.
vi. Allah says that women have rights similar to those against her (2:228). People who have mutual rights cannot oppress.
vii. Allah says that He has put love and compassion between man and woman, and that man may find peace of mind in her (7:189; 30:21). The man who abuses his wife, causes her distress or puts her under duress cannot find love and com-passion and comfort in her. It is not love and compassion and comfort to oppress.
Islam liberates and exalts Woman–(2:187; 4:19-22; 4:1; 9:71-72); gives her the right to earn, and to inherit and own property–(4:32, 7, 177); the exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases–(4:4, 32); honors her–(4:1); and has given her equal rights with Man as the inheritors of Paradise–(43:70; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35).
Significantly, whereas the critics of Islam charge that Islam discriminates against women; Islam requires that:
-men give a gift to their brides even though she may be wealthier than he is
-men maintain their wives even though she may have a mountain of money
-men be circumcised and women not
-men shave their heads at the Hajj and women not
yet no critic of Islam has charged that Islam discriminates against men; or that Islam teaches hatred of men; or that Islam favors women over men; or that these are symbols of men’s subservience to women.
Interestingly, whereas Allāh reveals in His Qur’an 2:228 that women have rights similar to those against her He did not say that men have rights similar as those against him; thus, arguably, women would seem to have more rights on men than men have on women.
3. Qur’an and homosexuals and lesbians: “How can we be so sure that homosexuals deserve ostracism–or death–when the Koran states that everything God made is “excellent”? Of course, the Koran states more than that, but what’s our excuse for reading the Koran literally when it’s so contradictory and ambiguous?” “One question begged for more thought: If the all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t wish to make me a lesbian, then why didn’t He make someone else in my place?” (pp. 2; 26-27).
Response: The Islamic Scripture is Q-U-R-‘A-N not K-O-R-A-N. Parts of the Qur’an are to be read literally –(Qur’an 3:6).
Allah indeed made everything “excellent.” His laws are perfect, and the fruits of those laws are perfect.
In the late fifty’s and early sixty’s some women who took the fertility drug thalidomide gave birth to malformed children. Allāh is not to be blamed for these children being malformed.
People who are infected with AIDS and parent a child, Allāh is not to be held accountable if such a child is born with defects.
Allāh created man and woman to be mates of the other; not of the same. Allāh did not make homosexuality and lesbianism. He made man and woman to propagate the species. Species are not multiplied through homosexuality and lesbianism. If mankind (males and females) were to engage solely in homosexuality and lesbianism then, barring cloning and non-sexual means of conception/reproduction, in about a hundred years time mankind will be extinct.
Significantly, unless homosexuals and lesbians engage in public (or keep a “common bawdy house”) it would seem almost impossible to enforce punishment for homosexuality and lesbianism. Seeing that four witnesses are required in a case of sexual misconduct–(Qur’an 4:15) and one is not allowed to peep into another’s house; but in fact, it is legal to poke the eyes of the peeper: “He who peeped into the house of people without their consent, it is permissible for them to put out his eyes”–(Muslim Vol 3, #5370; Bokhari Vol. 7, #807; Vol. 8, #258-259; Vol. 9, #26; 38-39).
No one can make Islam accept lesbianism or homosexuality or any other “ism” or “ty.” Islam/Allāh does not have to conform to the dictates of man; man has to conform to the dictates of Islam/Allāh. (If God made people lesbians and homosexuals, Manji is to accept and propagate that God made people pedophiles and sadists; in which case pedophiles and sadists are not to be prosecuted).
Contradiction and ambiguity: Where are your examples of contradiction and ambiguity in the Qur’an that you claim?
There is no contradiction or ambiguity in the Qur’an; only a lack of meditating on its verses: “Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah they would have found in it many a discrepancy”–(Qur’an 4:82).
The verses of the Qur’an are of literal and allegorical meanings: “some of its verses are decisive–they are the basis of the Book– and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts are perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation” –(Qur’an 3:6).
4. Qur’an and Jews: “What about the Koran’s incitement of hate against Jews? Shouldn’t Muslims who invoke the Koran to justify anti-Semitism be themselves open to a lawsuit?” (p. 2).
Response: As noted in item #1, to make a charge of anti-Semitism, it must be proven that there are Semites.
If the Qur’an incites hate against Jews, how could Muslims be open to a lawsuit when they are following this alleged dictate of God? This would also mean that Allah is subject to Judiciary.
God told the Children of Israel, “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” and “as for you, your carcasses, they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness”–(Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:32-33). According to Manji’s logic God is guilty of “anti-Semitism” and “incitement of hate against Jews.” And this is the Book that Jews honor and follow.
The Bible refers to Jews as “stiff-necked” and “rebellious;” “generation of vipers;” “evil and adulterous generation;” “wicked and adulterous generation;” “faithless and perverse generation;” and that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you (Jews), and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’–(Matt. 21:43). According to Manji’s logic, the Bible is an “incitement of hate against Jews,” and Christians could be “open to a lawsuit.”
In the Bible, Jesus refers to non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine”–(Matt.7:6). Thus, according to Manji’s logic, these Biblical references are anti-Arabist and anti-Gentile; and an “incitement of hate” against Muslims, Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, and other non-Jews; and that the Bible and Christians could be “open to a lawsuit.”
The Bible enjoins Jews to enslave their “heathen” neighbors–(Leviticus. 25:44). According to Manji’s logic the Bible is guilty of anti-Arabism and is “an incitement of hate against” Arabs and Muslims and Gentiles. And Jews could be “open to a lawsuit.”
Allāh says that a community of Jews was turned into apes for their violating the Sabbath; and that the majority of Jews are faithless, treacherous, and transgressors–(Qur’an 7:166; 2:100; 5:13; 5:81). Allāh also says that He chose Jews above other nations (44:32; 45:16), made them excel the nations (2:122), and made them inheritors of land (not to be confused with modern Palestine)(7:137). So where is the problem –why is the part of the Qur’an exposing the iniquity of the Jews deemed as “incitement of hate against Jews”?
Truth is not hatred!
Truth is not “anti-Semitic”!
Truth is truth!
Quoting the Qur’an is not “incitement of hate against Jews” or “anti-Semitism.” To charge that the Qur’an incites “hate against Jews” is to criminalize Allāh God.
If the recounting of events and truths are an “incitement of hate,” the Holocaust movie and Holocaust centers are “incitement of hate” against Hitler and Germans; and The Ten Commandments movie is an “incitement of hate” against Egyptians.
If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” then the “holocaust” memorials are to be obliterated for being “anti-Hitler,” “anti-Nazism,” and “anti-German.”
If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” then our yearly serving of The Ten Commandments and the occasional dose of the “holocaust” movies (as well as the “holocaust” sob stories saturating the newsprint) are to be fed to the cats as being “anti-Arabism” and “anti-Nazism.”
If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” against Jews then the Bible –The Old Testament and the New– and the Qur’an would need to be outlawed.
If recounting the iniquity of the Jews from the Qur’an is “incitement of hate against Jews” and Muslims should be “open to a lawsuit,” then, Muslims, in recounting the blessings to the Jews from the Qur’an, should be rewarded for “incitement of” love towards Jews and Jews should be “open to a lawsuit,” for hefty compensation/reward to Muslims.
5. Islamic reformation: “If ever there was a moment for an Islamic reformation, it’s now. For the love of God, what are we doing about it?” (p. 3).
Response: Man/Woman reforming what Allah has perfected? Subhan Allah! (This is dealt with in item #96 Reforming Islam).
6. Islam’s totalitarianism: “Not solely because of September 11, (2001), but more urgently because of it, we’ve got to end Islam’s totalitarianism, particularly the gross human rights violations against women and religious minorities. You’ll want to assure me that what I’m describing in this open letter to you isn’t “true” Islam. Frankly, such a distinction wouldn’t have impressed Prophet Muhammad, who said that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others–not theoretically, but actually. By that standard, how Muslims behave is Islam.” (p. 3)
Response: It would be absurd to take the actions of Muslims to be Islam. If such be the case, with the contradictory actions of various Muslims, we would have a legion of Islam(s). A Muslim’s practice cannot be contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an and yet be deemed Islam–submission to Allah. It would be a contradiction. The Prophet’s statement could only mean that Muslim’s actions must be reflective of the teachings of Islam.
As noted in item #2 Allah says that He created man and woman from the same essence –(Qur’an 4:1); For us to give reverence to the womb that bore you (4:1, not to the loins that emitted you); that men and women are garments to the other (2:187); that men and women are friends of one another (9:71); that women have rights similar to those against her (2:228); that He has put love and compassion between man and woman, and that man may find peace of mind in her (7:189; 30:21); that He has liberated and exalted woman (2:187; 4:19-22; 4:1; 9:71-72); given her the right to earn, and to inherit and own property (4:32, 7, 177) and the exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases (4:4, 32); given honor to her (4:1); and has given her equal rights with Man as the inheritors of Paradise (43:70; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35).
And the Prophet Mohammad says Woman is the sovereign of your house. Give your wife good counsel, and do not beat your noble wife like a slave. Admonish your wives with kindness. Give her to eat when you eat yourself, and clothe her when you clothe yourself; and do not slap her on the face nor abuse her, nor separate yourself from her in displeasure. A Muslim must not hate his wife; and if he be displeased with one bad quality in her, then let him be pleased with another which is good. That Paradise lies at the feet of mothers–not at the feet of fathers. And that after worship of Allah, next in line for our service is our mother; and three times over before service to our father. How then is Islam guilty of “gross human rights violation against women”?
Since Islam condemns compulsion (2:256; 6:105; 18:29; 50:45; 76:3), 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); stresses the fulfilling of covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (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); requires dealing justly 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); encourages the feeding of 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); admonishes against being transgressors (2:190); not to let hatred of a people incite you to transgress, and to help one another in righteousness and help not each other in sin and aggression (5:2); enjoins fighting on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42:40); to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90, 8:61); teaches that 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, because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135), because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75), those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90)– where then is Islam’s “gross human rights violation against” “religious minorities”?
Further, since Islam allows freedom of choice in belief and advocates justice to all without distinction, non-Muslims do not have to convert to Islam to avoid “humiliation” or convert out of “terror.” There is no place in the Qur’an or Tradition of the Prophet Mohammad that endorses acts of “humiliation” and “terror” towards non-Muslims. About non-Muslims converting to Islam, Isma’il and Lois Lamya ‘al Faruqi give a revealing account of the magnanimous attraction of Islam:
“And yet, if the Muslims were so tolerant, the Christian persistently asks, why did their co-religionists flock to Islam by the millions? Of these co-religionists the Arabs were the smallest minority. The rest were Hellenes, Persians, Egyptians, Cyrenaicans, Berbers, Cypriots, and Caucasians.” 1
And T. W. Arnold quoted Canon Taylor as stating:
“It is easy to understand why this reformed Judaism* spread so swiftly over Africa and Asia. The African and Syrian doctors had substituted abstruse metaphysical dogmas for the religion of Christ: they tried to combat the licentiousness of the age by setting forth the celestial merit of celibacy and the angelic excellence of virginity –seclusion from the world was the road of holiness, dirt was the characteristic of monkish sanctity– the people were practically polytheists, worshipping a crowd of martyrs, saints and angels; the upper classes were effeminate and corrupt, the middle classes oppressed by taxation, the slaves without hope for the present or the future. As with the besom of God, Islam swept away this mass of corruption and superstition. It was a revolt against empty theological polemics; it was a masculine protest against the exaltation of celibacy as a crown of piety. It brought out the fundamental dogmas of religion –the unity and greatness of God, that He is merciful and righteous, that He claims obedience to His will, resignation and faith. It proclaimed the responsibility of man, a future life, a day of judgment, and stern retribution to fall upon the wicked; and enforced the duties of prayer, almsgiving, fasting and benevolence. It thrust aside the artificial virtues, the religious frauds and follies, the perverted moral sentiments, and the verbal subtleties of theological disputants. It replaced monkishness by manliness. It gave hope to the slave, brotherhood to mankind, and recognition to the fundamental facts of human nature.”2 *(Islam is not “reformed Judaism”).
There is no “gross human rights violation against” “religious minorities” in Islam.
Islam’s totalitarianism: Muslims are not to seek power/status; but should have power/status given to them–(Bokhari Vol. 9, #’s 260, 263).
There cannot be totalitarianism in Islam when Islam commands that decisions be made by mutual consultation–(Qur’an 3:158; 42:38); and when authority is to be given to those best qualified: “Surely Allah commands you to make over trusts to those worthy of them, and that when you judge between people, you judge with justice”–(Qur’an 4:58).
The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said: “When the amanat (trust) is wasted, wait for the sa’ah, i.e. the hour or the doom. It was said, How will the trust be wasted, O Messenger of Allah? He said, When government is entrusted to those unworthy of it, then wait for the doom”–(Bokhari 81:35. M. Ali Qur’anic comm. #592).
There cannot be totalitarianism in Islam when the Caliphs of Islam were chosen through consultation. Abu Bakr Siddiqui, the first Caliph, is noted as saying in his inaugural speech (quoted in part): “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.”3 It is doubtful that the venerable Caliph would have said “if I disobey God’s command or His Prophet’s, then no obedience is incumbent upon you” if there was “totalitarianism” in Islam.
To charge Islam as being guilty of “totalitarianism, particularly the gross human rights violation against women and religious minorities” is to expose one’s ignorance of the teachings of Islam.
7. Slavery: (About slavery): “We Muslims made dignity difficult for people darker than us. We callously exploited native Africans.”….“Most of you, I’m sure, oppose servitude, too. But it wasn’t Islam that fostered my belief in the dignity of every individual.It was the democratic environment to which my family and I migrated: Richmond.” (pp. 6-7. Also p. 31).
Response: As shown in preceding pages, Islam gave Woman dignity and freedom more than a thousand years before any other civilization. Preceding pages (item #6) is testimony to the dignity and justice that Islam has given to all.
Slavery may be practiced in some Muslim countries, but they have no permission to do so from Islam. Islam made it a cardinal point that slaves were to be liberated. Muslims who engage in slavery (or abuse their servants) have no assent from Islam. Islam, of all the prevailing systems, abolished slavery.
8. Barrier in the mosque: “Men and women entered the mosque by different doors and planted themselves on the correct sides of an immovable wall that cut the building in half, quarantining the sexes during worship.” (p.11)
Response: There is no injunction in the Qur’an prohibiting women from going to the Masjid. While Islam does not permit unnecessary mingling of the sexes, the wall separating men and women in the mosque is an innovation. (Though perhaps women welcome this barrier as it gives them privacy from men).
The Tradition of the Prophet Mohammad is pregnant with pronouncements giving women the right to attend mosque: “If your women ask permission to go to the mosque at night, allow them”–(Bokhari Vol.1, # 824; Vol. 2, # 22).
“The Prophet said, ‘If the wife of anyone of you asks permission (to go to the mosque) do not forbid her” –(Bokhari, Vol. 1, # 832. Also Vol. 7, # 165).
“Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer when it was still dark and the believing women used to return (after finishing their prayer) and nobody could recognize them owing to darkness, or they could not recognize one another”–(Bokhari, Vol. 1, # 831. Also # 826, 827).
While women are to pray in separate rows from men, there was no barricade between them, they only formed a line behind the men: “In the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle the women used to get up when they finished their compulsory prayers with Taslim. The Prophet and the men would stay on at their places as long as Allah will. When the Prophet got up, the men would then get up”–(Bokhari, Vol. 1, # 825).
It was compulsory that women–matrons and virgins, menstruating or not–attend mosque on the days of Eid; though the menstruating women could not offer the prayers–(Bokhari, Vol. 2, #’s 88, 97). Even if a sister had no veil, she had to come to the mosque on the Day of Eid; sharing a veil with another sister”–(Bokhari, Vol. 2 # 96).
Two hundred and forty years after the Prophet, “ropes” were used to separate men and women; the “ropes” were subsequently fortified into a “wooden barrier;” but “by and by the pardah conception grew so strong that women were altogether shut out from the mosques”–(Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam pp. 381-382).
Not even the mighty Caliph, ‘Umar, dared to go against the instructions of the Messenger of Allah, and prevent women from the mosque (or consign them behind walls); even though he disliked women being at the mosque; why not?: “The statement of Allah’s Apostle: ‘Do not stop Allah’s women-slave*from going to Allah’s Mosques, prevents him” (from barring women from the mosque)–(Bokhari, Vol. 2, # 23).
The Women of Islam are not footstools of their men, neither are they prisoners: “And the believers, men and women, are friends one of another. They enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger”–(Qur’an 9:71). *(We are not “slaves” of Allāh: we are servants of Allāh. Islam abolished slavery. A servant has the choice of leaving the employ of his master–a Muslim can at any time renounce belief in Allāh–but a slave does not have the choice of leaving his master).
9. Practice and spirit: “In my Saturday (madressa) classes I learned that if you’re spiritual, you don’t think. If you think, you’re not spiritual.” (p. 12).
Response: Islam is both spirit and practice (progress). In Islam religion and science are not adversaries, they are compliments.
Through the Qur’an Allah calls on man to believe in Him through reason, arguments and examples. The Qur’an teems with scientific exhortations. In his booklet Al-Qur’an The Miracle of Miracles, Ahmed Deedat has quoted from the writings of “Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqui” (taken from the booklet “Cultivation of Science by the Muslims,” which was “published by the World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan”) it says:
(the Qur’an) “exhorts us to study the structure and function of the human organism, the structure, functions and distribution of animals, the form, structure, functions, classification and distribution of plants, and these are problems of BIOLOGY.
“It exhorts us to study the order of nature and the general properties of matter as affected by energy, which is the problem of modern PHYSICS
“It exhorts us to study the properties of substances both elementary and compound and the laws of their combination and action one upon another which is the problem of modern CHEMISTRY
“It exhorts to study the structure and mineral constitution of the globe, the different strata of which it is composed, the changes that takes place in its organic and inorganic matter, etc, etc; which are the problems of modern GEOLOGY.
“It exhorts us to study the general description of the earth, its physical divisions into seas, rivers, mountains, plains, etc; and the minerals, plants and animals in each, and its political divisions which are the problems of modern GEOGRAPHY.
“It exhorts us to study the causes which bring about the alternation of day and night, the variation of the seasons, the movements of the planets and other celestial phenomena, which are the problems of modern ASTRONOMY.
“It exhorts us to study the movement of winds, the formation and evolution of clouds and the production of rain, and other similar phenomena, which are the problems of modern METEOROLOGY.””4
“For centuries, Muslims were world leaders in the field of scientific learning,” notes Ahmed Deedat. (Ibid; p. 25).
Sir Isaac Newton may have formulated the laws of motion in the 17th/18th century. But a thousand years before him Hazrat Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, explained to Muslims that “nothing in the universe can come into motion of its own accord unless some outside agency imparts movements to it and when once moved nothing will come to rest unless some force outside this body puts a break to this motion. Similarly nothing in the universe will change its direction and speed of motion unless a foreign factor compels it.”5
Twentieth century scientists may have discovered DNA/Genetics. But in the 7th century, Hazrat Ali, answering queries about “the causes of differences in features, habits and disposition of people,” replied: “In the very origin of human body lies the causes of these differences or similarities in disposition and features.”6
Ahmed Deedat quotes Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqui who aptly points out:
“The intellectual upheaval created by Islam was a gigantic one. There is not a single department of learning which the Muslim scholars have left untouched and which they have not carved out a high position for themselves.
“In truth, Islam intends the Muslim community to be a community of intellectuals, and the cultivation of science and all other forms of learning is one of the primary aims of Islam. Had it not been for the Muslims, Europe would never have seen its way to the Renaissance and the modern scientific era would never have dawned. Those nations who have received their knowledge of science from Europe are in fact indirectly the disciples of the Islamic community of the past. Humanity owes to Islam a debt which it can never repay and gratitude which it can never forget.”
“…..Islam has laid it down as a religious duty that a Muslim should enquire into the reality of objects around him, so that his scientific enquiry may lead him to the knowledge of his Creator. Scientific enquiry in Islam is not an end but a means to the attainment of a higher end. And this is really the true end of humanity. ‘TO ALLAH WE BELONG AND TO ALLAH IS OUR RETURN’–(Holy Qur’an 2:156).” (Al-Qur’an, The Miracle of Miracles, pp. 26-27).
The Prophet Mohammad impressed upon Muslims to go to China if need be to acquire knowledge, and that: ‘The superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars.’ And Allah instructs us to pray: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114). It would be pointless for us to pray for knowledge if we are only to be “spiritual.”
Again, Allah informs us that He “has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth”–(Qur’an 31:20; 45:13). We cannot have control of whatever is in the heavens and in the earth if we have no knowledge of them–if we are not allowed to “think.”
10. Suspicion of Qur’anic text: “Why must we suspect that every English translation of the Koran “corrupts” the original text? I mean, if the Koran is as straightforward as the purists tell us, then aren’t its teachings easily translated into a thousand tongues?” (p. 14).
Response: Translations of the Qur’an do not “corrupt” its text. Only that translation(s) do not convey the full meaning of the Arabic. (Please see item #69, Why pray in Arabic).
11. Women Imam: “Why can’t girls lead prayer?” (p.15)
Response: While man has a degree of authority over woman –and this is only in the affairs of the home– man and woman have equality in matters of the moral and the spirit–(Qur’an 33:35).
According to a report in Abu Dawud, the Prophet appointed a mu’adhdhin for Umm Waraqah, a “woman who read the Qur’an,” to call the adhan for her; and that the Prophet “commanded her to lead the inmates of her house in prayer”–(Abu Dawud, Vol.1 #591).
It would seem from the above that Umm Waraqah was the only person in her area, at that early stage of Islam, who could have read the Qur’an, to have been appointed Imam. It is doubtful that if there was any male who could have read the Qur’an that the Prophet would have appointed Umm Waraqah to lead the prayer; as the Prophet is noted as saying that the man is the Imam (leader) of his house.
Man and woman were created for different functions. Though this difference in function and physiology does not mean that one is superior to the other. In fact, as noted elsewhere, if form and physiology was a measure of superiority, woman would be superior to man.
Spiritual leadership is a full-time position. Woman is not given the role of spiritual leadership due to the fact that she is subjected to monthly menstrual cycles, pregnancy, and pre and post-natal and child-caring terms, which would render her absent from this position, at least five days per month.
But what about the post menopausal woman being Imam –she having no menstrual cycle and/or pregnancy to contend with? Or the menstruating woman having a substitute during her times of ceremonial impurity? While a man may be absent for some reason, this is not the same as a woman having a constant monthly cycle; or her being menopausal. The leadership position is not one of part-time convenience.
However, the Prophet appointing Umm Waraqah to lead prayer is a precedent that woman can be Imam when the situation necessitates it.
(The argument by some Muslims that since the Qur’an does not prohibit women from being Imam, that this is proof that she is permitted to be Imam is a poor argument. The counter argument would be: the Qur’an does not prohibit female circumcision, thus, this is proof that it can be performed. In fact, the Prophet was said to be aware of, and did not prohibit, female circumcision–yet it is not practiced:
Abu Dawud Vol. 3, hadith # 5251, (which is not a strong tradition, as it was transmitted in the mursal form –missing the link of the Companions), states: “Umm ‘Atiyyat al-An-sariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.” (This saying was also transmitted by ‘Ubaid Allah b. ‘Amr from ‘Abd al-Malik to the same effect through a different chain).
While female circumcision may have been necessary in the case of ‘clitoral hypertrophy’ –an enlarged clitoris, due to congenital or hormonal cause, obstructing the flow of urine– it is a fact that female circumcision was a cultural practice– in Egypt, Africa, and even in Arabia as the report notes of circumcision in Medina.
Whether it was to correct the problem of clitoral hypertrophy or not is unknown. That the woman carried out circumcision would indicate that it was a general practice. Since the Prophet did not forbid it, those who argue that woman can be Imam because there is no injunction in the Qur’an against it, by the same argument female circumcision should be allowed, seeing there is no injunction against it either in the Qur’an or the Sunnah. The Prophet, according to the report, only suggested that the cut be not “severely”).
12. Mohammad and the Jewish tribe, Bani Quraizah: “I remember asking why Prophet Muhammad would have commanded his army to kill an entire Jewish tribe when the Koran supposedly came to him as a message of peace.” (pp. 16-17) (Why does “democracy” imprison the thief when it advocates liberty for all? Perhaps you can ask why Jews schemed and kicked Palestinians off their lands when God “chose” them to be an example of truth and justice).
Response: Mohammad was indeed given the message of peace; and he is a mercy to all mankind, all creatures. But the achieving and preserving of peace sometimes necessitates wielding the blade. Forgiveness to incorrigible offenders is not peace and mercy; it is stupidity.
“And there is life for you in retaliation,
O men of understanding,
That you may guard yourselves”
(Qur’an 2:179)
For law-abiders to strive, removal of criminals are necessary.
(The Jewish tribe under discussion is the Bani Quraizah –the Quraizah tribe): The Prophet Mohammad did not command his army to kill the Jews. The Jews were guilty of treachery.
Mohammad faced death not only from the idolaters on the outside, but also from the Jews in the inside.
“The Jews,” as Muhammad Husayn Haykal noted, “sent some of their rabbis to feign conversion to Islam in order to enter Muslim ranks and councils. While showing all piety, these rabbis were commissioned to disseminate doubt and suspicion of Muhammad among his own people….A number of hypocrites from al Aws and al Khazraj tribes joined Islam for the same purpose.”
And “upon Muhammad’s arrival at Madinah” the Jews, “after befriending him and pledging to honor his freedom to practice and preach the new religion, they had begun to oppose and plot against him. In fact, no sooner had Muhammad settled down and the prospects of Islam had begun to improve, than the Jews, for their part, began their undeclared war against him. Their opposition and hostility were never open.”7 (Perhaps this is true today also).
Muhammad Ali noted that upon his settling into Madinah the Prophet Muhammad made a “treaty of mutual obligation” with the Jews in which “the Muslims and the Jews were bound not only not to turn their hands against each other but also to defend one another against a common enemy.” And “when the enemy laid siege to Madinah, they were bound to repel the attack.” But, “Instead of this they sided with the investing army.”8
Mohammad did not pass this judgment of execution on the Jews of the Bani Quraizah. This judgment was given by “Sa’d ibn Mu’adh,” the man whom the Jews themselves “nominated” to arbitrate between them and Mohammad; and with whose judgment they agreed to abide; because they believed Sa’d would be lenient towards them.
Whatever misfortune the Quraizah’s suffered was due to their own orchestration. Which fate was of their own choosing, seeing that they demanded “that they should submit to the sentence of punishment pronounced by Sa’d ibn Mu’adh.” The men were “put to death,” and the women and children ransomed “in accordance with the Jewish law–Deut. 20:12-14.”9
If Mohammad was pleased with this decision by Sa’d, Moham-mad was justified because as believers in the Torah the Jews were judged and sentenced according to the Torah–Deut. 20:12-14, which says that if the people will not make peace but war with you then:
“thou shalt besiege it; And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.”
Those who criticize Mohammad seem to be ignorant of events such as the assassination attempt on the Prophet’s life, the constant threat of death under which he and his followers lived, the Makkans pursuit of Mohammad to kill him on his journey to Madinah, the Makkans pursuit of the Muslims to Abyssinia, and the Jewish treachery in his midst. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal in his book The Life of Muhammad, gives an account of this incident, and also details the treachery of the Jews, which led to their downfall; and has exposed the Orientalists prejudice against Islam.)
13. Jewish plot: “A year after I bought my English-language Koran…. Nothing I had read so far convinced me of a Jewish conspiracy.…So I challenged him (madressa teacher) to provide proof of the Jewish plot. What he provided was an ultimatum: Either you believe or get out.” (p. 17).
Response: (If this is in reference to the Jewish plot to control the world). Those who claim that there is a Jewish plot to control the world must provide their proof(s) or be exposed as liars.
Such control may be effected in either or all of four forms:
(1) physical control –as with a military presence;
(2) mental control –as in regulating what is read, seen or taught: controlling thoughts through media outlets. (This is why, for the preservation of truth and justice, it is imperative that the media is not allowed to be monopolized or controlled by any one individual, group or company. Care should also be taken to ensure that information is not dependent upon reporters who might be biased).(In his book, Pirates & Emperors–International Terrorism in the Real World–pub; 1987, Black Rose Books, Quebec, Canada. Professor Noam Chomsky has given an insight into this method of control, and its effective use in the U.S., see chapter one: Thought Control: The Case of the Middle East).
(3) governmental control–as in dictating the policy of the government. As the government is made up of a number of members, this control can be effected by lobbying individuals, through benefit or friendship, to vote in a certain manner. This could have the effect of a policy acting against the interest of the host country–it would not be unusual for members of a government to act in favor of one’s own monetary or partisanship interest instead of his nation’s interest. Perhaps there are instances of leaders having looted the national treasury.
(4) economic control–as in owning businesses and corporations in a country. Having control of the economy can be used as a leverage to influence/threaten the government–mass unemployment caused by closing down of companies can be disastrous for a government/country. Also making large gifts/ donations to a country can facilitate the donor having influence in the country. As well, loaning money to countries could allow the loaner to dictate policies of the country; enabling him to have control of the country.
That there is a “Jewish conspiracy” to control the world is a matter that should not be too difficult to resolve.
An international team of impartial investigators can, going back to, say the last hundred and twenty years to the present, scrutinize all the major conflicts throughout the world to see who instigated these conflicts and/or who stood to benefit from them and in what form; as well as investigate the various governments of the world to learn what influence Jews have in these governments, if any, and the nature of these influences. As well as investigate the news media, if they are biased or practice censorship of any party. This should be able to confirm or debunk the claim that there is a “Jewish conspiracy” to control the world.
In the Bible, God prohibits the taking of gifts: “And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and preventeth the words of the righteous”–(Exodus 23:8). As is clearly stated, the taking of gifts compromises one’s truth and justice (and other virtues), and requires him to act according to the dictates of the giver of the gift(s). In the words of one brilliant poet, (quoting from memory):‘The mouth is muzzled by the food it eats.’ (Is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a forgery? See Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
14. Islamic prayers: “…the entire exercise of washing prescribed parts of the body, reciting specified verses, and prostrating at a non-negotiable angle, all at assigned times of the day, can degenerate into mindless submission–and habitual submissiveness.” (pp. 19-20).
Response: “Have We not given him (man) two eyes, And a tongue and two lips? And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways (of good and evil)?”-(Qur’an 90: 8-10)
Since Allah has given man the free choice to choose whichever of the two ways he/she desires, why the ranting about the precepts of Islam? It is doubtful that you would say that brushing your teeth in the morning, having a bath, applying make-up, eating and dashing off to the office–and perhaps “all at assigned times”–causes you to “degenerate into mindless submission–and habitual submissiveness.”
All organizations have laws to which adherents are required to observe.
The five daily prayers of Islam are enjoined in the Qur’an–11:114; 20:130; 30:17-18. The Prophet Mohammad who is the foremost interpreter of the Qur’an established the times of these prayers that has been handed down to us in practice through successive generations.
Washing the body is physical purity. Praying five times a day is moral and spiritual purity and the gateway to “higher eminence”: “Surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil; and certainly the remembrance of Allāh is the greatest (force)”–(Qur’an 29:45).
Prostrating at a “non-negotiable angle” –facing the Ka’bah– is one of the universal components of Islam.
15. Edward Said and the West: (Edward Said) “He’s the Arab-American intellectual who, in 1979, used the word “Orientalism” to describe the West’s supposed tendency to colonize Muslims by demonizing them as exotic freaks of the East. A compelling theory, but doesn’t it speak volumes that the “imperialist” West published, distributed, and promoted Edward Said’s book?” (p. 22).
Response: The late Edward Said was a Christian-Arab, and a Palestinian.
Just as it is puerile to blame an entire community for the backward mentality of a few, it would be infantile to blame an entire country for the misdeeds of one party. Opposition to the Iraq war by the citizens of some countries whose governments have contributed to this war is testimony to the fact that the people do not always subscribe to the actions of their administration. In fact, some have risked limbs and lives–opening themselves to be hostage, and even torture and murder–in demonstrating their opposition.
Even to this day, three years after the invasion of Iraq, there are tens of thousands if not hundred of thousands in the West who still pound the pavements–for truth and justice–in opposition to the war (and their governments). (Not to mention the multitudes of opposers who may not have demonstrated).
This is yet another proof that not all Westerners are to be lumped with those who are given to propaganda and injustice.
When Edward Said “describe the West’s supposed tendency to colonize Muslims by demonizing them as exotic freaks of the East” it is hardly believable that he was referring to all the people of the West.
It is not presumptuous to say that in every society there are those who are given to truth and justice. Perhaps these are the intrepid few, dedicated to the promotion of truth and justice, and determined to demolish–or at least blow a hole into–the wall of anti-Arab/anti-Muslim/anti-Islam hate literature/propaganda who have “published, distributed, and promoted Edward Said’s book.”
Truth and justice are without color, creed or status.
16. Islam, gift of the Jews(?). Abraham: “How many of us know the degree to which Islam is a “gift of the Jews”?…. “Being the debut monotheists, the Jews laid the groundwork for the Christians and, later, the Muslims to emerge. So, you see, Muslims didn’t invent one God; they renamed Him Allah.” (pp. 23-24). (What utter ignorance!)
Response: Jews did not “invent one God.” No one “invent one God.” Muslims did not “renamed” God Allah. Allah revealed Himself as such to Muslims.
The Jews went on to idolatry; and refused to help their prophet Moses in battle, telling him to go and fight while they sit and wait–(Num. 14:1-4; Qur’an 5:22-24). This is not the “groundwork” that Muslims follow.
Muslims have never compromised their faith–by turning to idolatry–and have never abandoned their Prophet. In fact, Muslims shielded their Prophet with their own bodies on the battle-field; and Hazrat ‘Ali, who became the fourth Caliph, took over the Prophet’s bed, fully cognizant that a clique of assassins were waiting to thrust their swords into him.
Jews altered their Scripture, broke their covenant with God, killed the prophets of God, and incurred the curse of prophets and the wrath of God. This is not the “groundwork” that Muslims follow.
Monotheism did not “debut” with Jews. Monotheism was taught to Adam and Noah before it was revealed to Abraham. It was also given to Ishmael–yes, you read correctly! Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born and the recipient of the birth-right.*
To say that Jews gave Christians and Muslims ‘monotheism” is patent nonsense. Monotheism was given by Allāh, God. Abraham’s progeny–Ishmael–“found” the Arab nation.
*(That Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn and the inheritor of his father is stated clearly in the Bible:
“If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, WHICH IS INDEED THE FIRSTBORN:But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; THE RIGHT OF THE FIRSTBORN IS HIS” (Ishmael’s)(Deut; 21:15-17)–and whose name was effaced from the Bible and replaced with Isaac’s, to glorify the Judaic branch of Abraham, as exposed by Prof. Dawud (the former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani):
“The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancour that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and interpolated many passages in their Scriptures. To efface the name “Ishmael” from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place “Isaac,” and to leave the descriptive epithet “thy only begotten son” is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael”). (Muhammad in the Bible, pp. 31, 32).
At no time was Isaac Abraham’s “only son.” At the time of Isaac’s birth Ishmael was already fourteen years old. It is Ishmael who was then Abraham’s “only son”).
Islam–gift of the Jews(?): Islam is not a “gift of the Jews.” Allah reveals that Islam is a “gift” from Him to all mankind–(Qur’an 5:3). Allah gave Islam to all prophets, beginning from Adam, and Islam is the nature in which He created man. It is gross ignorance to trumpet that Islam is a “gift of the Jews.”
17. Pre-Islamic experience: “If more of us knew that Islam is the product of intermingling histories, as opposed to a wholly original way of life–if we understood that we’re spiritual mongrels–would more of us be willing to accept the “other”?”(p. 24) (You may be a “spiritual mongrel,” but not I, nor –I am certain they would agree with me– other Muslims).
Response: Allah is the unseen Supreme Power of goodness. Allah says that “all religions” are for Him–(Qur’an 8:39). All prophets of God taught obedience to Him. The religions formed from the teachings of these prophets (even though these teachings are corrupted, but worship God irrespective of their concept of God), as well as any other religion that glorifies Him, are all for Allah.
In His Qur’an Allāh confirms past revelations and prophets, recounts histories of past nations, corrects erroneous teachings passing under His Name, and has given guidance not found in previous Scriptures.
The favors of Allah to man consists of not only the items in creation–such as the sun, moon, stars, fruits etc;–but also includes our speech and intelligence, and Divine guidance. Whereas such favors as the items in creation were established at the time of creation, and our speech and intelligence are manifested during our growth, the favor of Divine guidance to all man was not completed until the Seventh century.
The Arabs were the last people to receive Divine guidance.
With the Revelation now given to the Arabs (between the years 610–632 after Christ), Allah’s favor to man was now completed. The Prophet Mohammad’s mission was two-fold: to be Messenger to the Arabs and to unite all mankind under one Divine Constitution –the Qur’an.
Since in the Qur’an nothing is omitted that is necessary for our social, moral, intellectual, and spiritual development, Allah’s religion to man was perfected: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion”–(Qur’an 5:3)
Islam is the only religion (way of life) chosen by Allah for us to follow. This is borne out by the fact that in no revealed scripture is it stated the name of a religion to follow except in the Qur’an –chapter 5 verse 3. This is so because Allah’s Message to us was completed only through the Prophet Mohammad.
As all Prophets were sent by the same One God, the religion from God could not be partial to any person, place or thing. The name of His religion should reflect our service to Him. Such is the religion of Islam –which means peace and submission (to Allah); or peace and submission to the Will of Allah.
The oldest religion or eternal law is Islam–submission to the law of Allah. The first human beings submitted to this law of Allah’s –Islam. Only this submission to Allah was not yet known as Islam. Qur’an 41:11 makes this point clear: “Then He (Allah) directed Himself to the heaven And it was a vapor, so He said to it and to the Earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.”
We ‘come willingly’ or we submit to your command –Islam. Thus, Islam –submission to the command of Allah– is as old as the heavens and the earth. All creations conform to the laws of Allah. In the human sphere, submission to Allah means holding no other object in worship but Allah and keeping His ordinances.
All Revelations prior to the Qur’an is a way of life for that period of time and for that particular people to whom it was enjoined. While service to the creatures of God is for all time, the laws of God of prior Revelations are replaced by the law of the Qur’an, which is all-encompassing and universal.
The Qur’an makes clear that in which we differ!-(Qur’an 16:64).
Allah having perfected religion through the Prophet Mohammad, He calls on mankind to worship Him under His chosen religion Islam, and under His universal name Allah. The Qur’anic law is for all people and for all time to the Day of Judgment. Islam is the oldest religion, and the only religion from God!
Thus, Islam is not “the product of intermingling histories,” Islam is not “a wholly original way of life,” Islam is the ONLY way of life, designed by Allah, God, for man.
18. Stoning: ““Stoning women has everything to do with tribal customs and nothing to do with Islam,” tutored one woman at a dinner. I remained a skeptic. If Islam is flexible, then it can adapt for good and not only for ill, right? So why didn’t anything about my mosque resemble Richmond’s democracy–the very democracy that allowed Muslims to erect a mosque there?” (p. 24).
Response: Islam “adapt” for “ill”(???)! Which verse of the Qur’an gives itself to “adapt” to “ill”? To announce that Islam “adapt(s)” itself to “ill” is to charge Allah as being evil.
Islam is democracy. There is no absolute freedom.
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, however, 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.*”11 *(That should be “decay of the power of” Muslims not Islam. The power of Islam which is the power of Allāh can never decay. When Muslims return to the practice of Islam this Throne of excellence is ever present for us to ascend).
Without doubt, “equality and freedom of opinion were the two most important rights that Islam conferred on every individual,” as noted by Muhammad Ali.12
Allah instructs us to obey Him and the Prophet Mohammad and those in authority–(Qur’an 4:59). It is without doubt that every believer in God accepts God to be the crown of all authorities; and that His prophet is the ultimate in authority among men; whereas obedience to other religious personalities, in this case the Muslim Caliphs, is dependent upon these Caliphs governing according to the laws of God and the precepts of the Prophet.
There is no blind obedience to leaders in Islam. This is made clear by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam, who stated 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.”
One who rules in obedience to God cannot be “despotic.”
There is no “hereditary” succession to the Islamic throne, nor is there a stipulation that the Caliph “must belong” to the tribe of Qur’aish. The reason why a Qur’aish was chosen as Caliph upon the Prophet’s death was to prevent the “disruption of Islam” which was still in its infancy. The Arabs, accustomed to their legacy of tribal rulership, were not yet conditioned to centralize government; however, this (choosing a Qur’aish) was done after “much discussion” with the parties concerned, as Muhammad Ali has pointed out in his The Early Caliphate (pp. 9-11).
Muhammad Ali has noted that “Abu Bakr’s election settled once and for all the all-important problem of succession to kingship in Islam. Under the constitution of Islam, it was demonstrated for the guidance of posterity that the head of the State must be elected by the people.” (Ibid. p. 14).
Stoning: There is no stoning or sentence of death in the Qur’an for the sin of adultery. The Arabic word Zina means sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other –i.e. adultery and fornication. The punishment for adultery and fornication, according to the Qur’an, is lashes: “The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them (with) a hundred stripes”–(Qur’an 24:2). That flogging for adultery is the required punishment is verified in 4:25, where the punishment to married slave-girls guilty of adultery is stated that “if they are guilty of adultery when they are taken in marriage, they shall suffer half the punishment for free married women”–(Qur’an 4:25). Stoning to death “could not be halved;” but flogging can be “halved.”
The reasons for the Prophet Mohammad’s orders to stone the adulterer/adulteress were two-fold: (1) it was carried out against the Jews, who were to be judged according to the Torah; (2) prior to the Qur’anic revelations on this subject, the Prophet was required to follow the Torah.
The Prophet Mohammad taught us according to Divine Revelation: he did not speak out of desire–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 53: 3-4). It is inconceivable that the Prophet would act against the clear injunction(s) of the Qur’an and “stone to death” when Allah, God, ordered “flogging.”
It is clear that the Prophet’s “stoning” to death was limited to the Jews. In the case of Muslims, if any, “stoning” was carried out before the revelation of the above Qur’anic verses.
The Qur’an supersedes all other source(s) of guidance.
Stoning and death is the Jewish and the Christian law–(Deut. 13:6-10; 21:18-21). And honor killing:
“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”–(Deut. 22:20-21).
These are some of the Biblical laws that Islam has abrogated. Allāh referring to abrogation and changing of message-(Qur’an 2:106; 16:101), does not mean that one verse of the Qur’an abrogates another, as is believed by many. It refers to the replacing of laws/messages of Scriptures previous to the Qur’an. Muhammad Ali has dealt with this topic; his translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org). (That the early Caliphs carried out stoning see Islam-stoning; there is no abrogation in the Qur’an see Qur’an-abrogation & collecting).
19. Islam and Excessive laughter: “Islam has a popular teaching against “excessive laughter.” No joke.….If the black magic of laughter is so offensive, why isn’t the hypnotic, lyrical effect of the Arabic language, recited aloud, frowned upon?” (What sane individual is there that laughs at a sound that gives “hypnotic, lyrical effect”?) (p. 25).
Response: Because “the hypnotic, lyrical effect of the Arabic language” is not laughter; neither does it produce laughter.
The Qur’an is to be recited in a normal tone of voice: “And utter not thy prayer loudly nor be silent in it, and seek a way between these;” “and recite the Qur’an in a leisurely manner”–(Qur’an 17:110; 73:4).
Islam teaches not only against excessive laughter but also against excess in food and drink–(Qur’an 7:31); and in using wealth–(Qur’an 17:26; 25:67). Islam has no “silly side.”
While there is no harm in laughter. The Qur’an gives guidance in matters social, moral, intellectual, and spiritual, and gives knowledge that propelled backward camel drivers into masters of science and seats of Caesars. What benefit has laughter, “excessive” or low or moderate, given to mankind? (According to material on the Internet, “excessive laughter” can kill).
20. Moses Znaimer, Lashes and female circumcision: (Regarding the 17 year old Nigerian girl, Bariya Ibrahim Magazu, of Nigeria, who was sentenced to receive 180 lashes for pre-marital sex). “In December 2000, an interoffice envelope arrived on my desk at Queer Television. The envelop came from my boss, Moses Znaimer.…In vibrant red ink, Moses had circled the word “Islamic” (as noted in the article), twice underlined the number “180,” and penned a comment, Talmud-style in the margins. It read:
IRSHAD
ONE OF THESE
DAYS YOU’LL
TELL ME HOW
YOU RECONCILE
THIS KIND OF
INSANITY,
AND FEMALE
GENITAL
MUTILATION,
WITH YOUR
MUSLIM
FAITH.
M.”
(pp. 28-29)
Response: Here’s a “Talmud-style” response.
If Moses Znaimer is a Jew (follower of Judaism) or a Christian, how does he –whether they are practiced or not– reconcile the Biblical stoning to death (and death) of the bride without the “tokens of virginity;” those who “secretly” entices another to follow an unknown God; the “stubborn and rebellious son;” the virginal damsel who lies with a man other than her “betrothed;” the witch; who curses his father or mother; the adulterer; the homosexuals; who commits bestiality; the adulteress; and the man who takes a “wife and her mother” both shall be burnt with fire–how does Moses Znaimer “reconcile this kind of insanity” with his Jewish (or Christian) faith? (For references to quotes see Islam-stoning. Islam does not view as “insanity” or barbaric any law of God).
Regarding this case of Bariya Ibrahim. As noted in item # 17, the punishment for adultery and fornication is one hundred lashes, maximum.
It is rather strange that no mention is made of the man, who also is to be punished. If the girl was coerced into the act, depending on the method(s) of coercion –taking money or some kind of gift– she, as well as those who coerced her are also to be punished –the latter’s crime would fall under the category of mischief in the land, which prescribes a range of punishments–(Qur’an 5:33). If force was used on the girl, she is not to be punished. If the girl was raped, this crime would fall under the category of mischief in the land.
Islam considers womanhood to be the symbol of purity. A charge against her chastity is a serious crime. In the event of a charge of adultery by her husband, the wife’s word over her husband’s, in the absence of witnesses, takes precedence:
“And those who accuse their wives
and have no witnesses except themselves,
let one of them testify four times,
bearing Allah to witness,
that he is of those who speak the truth
And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah
be on him, if he is of those who lie.
And it shall avert the chastisement from her,
if she testifies four times, bearing Allah to witness,
that he is of those who lie.
And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah
to be on her, if he is of those who speak the truth”
(Qur’an 24:6-9)
The same principle would apply in the case of a woman claiming rape, in the event that her claim is disputed.
Female circumcision: Islam does not require that women be circumcised.
21. Honor killings, woman traveler: “In Pakistan, an average of two women every day die from “honor killings,” often with Allah’s name on the lips of the murderers. In Malaysia, a Muslim woman can’t travel without the consent of a man.” (p. 31).
Response: While Islam enjoins purity in matters of sex on both male and female, there is no ‘honor killing’ in Islam. The Qur’an states that the adulterous/fornicating people are to marry among their kind only–(24:3). There could be no question of the adulterer/ fornicator having marriage if Islam had sanctioned “honor killings.” “Honor killings,” as noted above, is the Jewish and the 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”–(Deut. 22:20-21). (See Islam-honor killing).
Woman traveling alone: The Muslim woman’s movement is “strictly restricted” only to the degree of her personal safety. When we hear about women in modern “free” society–Britain, Germany, Canada, the U.S., and also in India–having to band together in “marches” to take back their neighborhood from rapist(s) and girls being preyed upon, one can greatly appreciate the wisdom of Islam that women not travel about (in certain unfamiliar areas) unescorted, by a male companion of her immediate family. (Even the Canadian government recognizes the danger to women traveling alone. The Toronto Star, Tuesday, February 28, 2012, p. A 10, carried the article by Richard J. Brennan, “National Affairs Writer,” titled: “Don’t forget to pack a fake husband, federal guide tells female travellers” which states that “Foreign Affairs Canada” encourages single women traveling by themselves abroad to wear a “fake wedding ring” and carry a picture of an “imaginary” husband [married women are to carry a picture of their husband] to ward off unwanted male attention. The travel guide is said to note that “women face greater obstacles [than men] when travelling alone””). Even in local schools (and colleges) girls are molested, and perhaps raped and forced to perform oral sex on boys. (This difficulty can be eliminated in a well-secured all-female school). Women can go out by themselves to take care of their needs: “O women! You have been allowed by Allah to go out for your needs”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 164). She can go to the cemetery–(Bokhari Vol. 2, #’s 368, 372; Abu Dawud Vol. 2, # 3161). There is no teaching against her offering the funeral prayer.
Significantly, the above statement by the Prophet that women are permitted to go out for their needs. What is to be considered is the background to which this statement was made. At the time of the Prophet’s marriage to Saudah –when this permission was given, before the Hijrah (the Prophets migration from Makkah to Madinah)–Islam was still besieged by the enemy; and thus, not safe for Muslim women, who were subjected to annoyance by the enemy, to be traveling alone. While this permission may still have had some restrictions, after the triumph of Islam (and in places of peace and security) this restriction would seem to be lifted. For women to obtain an education is definitely a “need.”
While there is probably no environment that is completely safe for a woman (or man), Islam has given severe punishment for violating a woman; which crime may fall under ‘mischief in the land’ and carries up to the maximum penalty of death–(ref; Qur’an 5:33). Muhammad Ali on this verse:
“The words used here imply originally all those opponents of Islam who waged war on the Muslims and made mischief in the land by causing loss to the life and property of innocent Muslims who fell into their hands. But it has generally been accepted as including all dacoits and murderers who cause disorder in a settled state of society. In fact, when war came to an end in Arabia and the kingdom of Islam was established over the whole peninsula, the enemies of Islam, being unable to oppose its authority openly, resorted to dacoity and murder to disturb the peace which was now established in the land. Hence, though it is such enemies that are primarily spoken of here, the words are general and include all cases of murder and dacoity.
The punishment described is of four kinds, which clearly shows that the punishment to be inflicted in any particular case would depend upon the circumstances of the case, as well as the time and place where the crime was committed. For instance, if murder has been committed in the course of dacoity, the punishment would include the execution of the culprit, which may take the form of crucifixion if the offence is so heinous or the culprit has caused such terror in the land that the leaving of his body on the cross is necessary as a deterrent. In other cases, the punishment may be imprisonment, where the severer punishment of cutting off of hands is deemed unnecessary. The judge would take all the circumstances into consideration and inflict such punishment as he thought necessary. A particular case dealt with under this verse was that of a tribe called ‘Urainah. Some men of this tribe came to the Prophet, and accepted Islam. They fell ill and were sent by the Prophet to a place at a little distance from Madinah for change of climate and recovery of health. But when they regained health, they killed the very people who had served them and went off with their camels. Then they committed dacoities and violated the chastity of women, and they were severely punished (B. 4:66, i.e. Vol. 6, ch. 103, # 134), and the comments on it in ‘Aini). Many other cases of this nature are recorded by IJ.” (Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with notes, text, and commentary can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
22. Sayings (hadith) of the Prophet Mohammad: “Whatever question the Koran doesn’t readily answer–note the word, “readily”–the hadiths supposedly do….All we have to do is submit to them (or, more accurately, to the ones our Imams select for us). Oh, and about the minor problem that Prophet Muhammad was eminently human and vulnerable to honest errors of judgment? Hush. Since the hadiths reflect the life of God’s last messenger to humanity, doubting them can’t be tolerated. Do you see where this express train of goodness is actually taking us? To a destination called Brain-Dead.” (p. 34).
Response: Why depend on your Imam to “select” hadiths for you, why don’t you seek knowledge on your own? Allah does not require us to blindly follow our leaders–He calls us to follow Him through reason, arguments, and examples. How did he become an Imam?
It is a mistake to believe that the early Muslim jurists have answered all the essentials in Islam. The door to reasoning in Islamic learning cannot be closed at any time. Islam is for all time. Muhammad Ali notes:
“Neither Abu Hanifah, nor Malik, nor Shafi, nor yet Ahmad ibn Hanbal ever said that no one after him shall be permitted to exercise his own judgment, nor did anyone of them claim to be infallible; neither does any book on the principles of jurisprudence (usul) lay down that the exercise of a man’s own judgment for the making of new laws was forbidden to the Muslims after the four Imams, not yet that their Ijtihad has the same absolute authority as the Qur’an and the Tradition. Ijtihad was a great blessing to the Muslim people; it was the only way through which the needs of succeeding generations and the requirements of different races merging into Islam could be met. Neither the Prophet, nor any of his Companions, nor any of the great jurists ever said that Muslims were forbidden to apply their own judgment to new circumstances and the ever changing needs of a growing community after a certain time; nor has any one of them said, what in fact no one could say, that no new circumstances would arise after the second century. ”
“…any Muslim community has the right to make any law for itself, the only condition being that such law shall not contravene any principle laid down by the Qur’an. 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.”13
Prophet “vulnerable to honest errors of judgment”: Not only did the Angel Gabriel come twice in the last days of the Prophet to rehearse the Qur’an with the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol; 4, # 819), Allah says that the Prophet does not err, nor speak of his own desire–(Qur’an 53:2-3), and for us to obey the Prophet–(Qur’an 3:131). Thus to imply that the Prophet could have made “errors of judgment” is to say that Allah would lead us astray (instead of Him correcting the Prophet), which would be blasphemy. Allah gives guidance: He does not lead astray.
As the Qur’an is the guidance in all matters of life –moral, social, intellectual, and spiritual–and as the Prophet Mohammad lived according to the Qur’an–the Qur’an is to be “imitated” by Muslims. However, one cannot imitate the Qur’an unless he and she has interpreted/ understood it.
23: Whom did Allah create first?: “In the beginning, there was the woman question. Whom did God create first–Adam or Eve? The Koran is dead silent on this distinction.” (p. 37).
Response: What does it matter whom Allah created first? However, Allah made it clear that man was created first: “He it is Who created you from a single soul, and of the same did He make his mate, that he might find comfort in her”–(Qur’an 7:189). Thus. The Qur’an is not “dead silent on this distinction.”
24. Wife-beating: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance)”–(Qur’an 4:34). To this, Manji wrote: “Let me get this straight: to deserve a beating, a woman doesn’t have to actually disobey anybody, a man merely has to fear her disobedience. (No, you haven’t got it straight!). His insecurity becomes her problem. Swell. I know I’m oversimplifying, but oversimplification runs rampant in the development of god-awful laws.” (p. 38).
Response:
A child who is more prone to forgetfulness, is not an example of role model, and not “contracted” to moral behavior is spanked for misdemeanor, made to stand in a corner, or/and sent to bed without supper; if a woman reports, truthfully or not, that she was assaulted, her male partner is thrown in jail; if one commits an offence he/she is fined or thrown into prison. So where is the problem if Islam imposes corporal discipline for the wife who is required to be a role model and is obligated to moral conduct?
Partners in a business are required to fulfill their obligations. If one party lacks in his responsibility/duty or does not wish to fulfill it he is to sever his partnership; he cannot expect to abdicate his role and yet receive the rewards of the business. Marriage in Islam is a sacred covenant. The wife (or husband) that does not fulfill her responsibility cannot expect to receive the benefit from the marriage. Such a wife is to leave the marriage. In requiring the man to be patient and continue supporting her –and to even seek arbitration– while she abdicates her duty Islam is being tolerant with her, giving her time to reform, and trying to save the marriage. These three steps required by Islam –admonishing her; avoiding her bed; and lightly beating her– which is a drawn-out process, highlights her stubbornness in reforming and observing her part of the marriage contract; all the while receiving the benefit of the contract. Under such a strain to the man this light chastisement can hardly be deemed unjust or severe to the woman. She brought it onto herself. And to avoid it she could leave before it reaches the final stage.
Chastisement is only for the wayward wife, and only as a last resort (and only if the husband is not himself wayward, for women have rights similar to those against them–Qur’an 2:228).
(That a wife, who is able to, can “beat” the wayward husband, the Prophet advises against this* –perhaps because it may lead to ridicule from his male counterpart; which might lead him to become criminal against his wife. While a “beaten” wife can also become criminal she may less likely be so on account of women being softer at heart, less likely to be ridiculed by her counterpart, and have greater concern and care for her family). *(Al-Hakim, cited inMubarak Ali, The Muslim Hand-book, p. 288).
Fear of “disloyalty and ill-conduct” on the part of the wife would stem from an act contrary to mutual agreement, as marriage is. To avoid recurrence of such misconduct the man is first to admonish his wife; if such admonition is fruitless, he is then to avoid her bed; if this yet fails to prevent misconduct, he is allowed to beat her, though this chastisement is not to be of a brutal nature.
Muhammad Ali has noted, “The Prophet is reported to have said: “You have a right in the matter of your wives that they do not allow anyone whom you do not like to come into your houses; if they do this, chastise them in such a manner that it should not leave an impression. (Tirmidhi 10:11).” Thus very light chastisement was allowed only in extreme cases.”
The wife has the right to leave the husband if she fears cruelty from him–(Qur’an 4:128).
Islam does not conform to Muslims: Muslims are to conform to Islam. No man was given two hearts –(Qur’an 33:4). Muslims must toe either the Political line or the Divine line. There is no straddling both.
The Prophet and Caliphs would not utter words degrading to Woman seeing Allāh has conferred honor upon her, and for us to “Speak what is best”–(Qur’an 17:53). We are not even allowed to revile false gods–(Qur’an 6:108).
Even in his life-time, sayings were forged in the Prophet’s name. Whatever contradicts the Qur’an is to be discarded. Allāh will not discriminate against Woman because of her gender–a factor she had no control over; a form and physiology He gave her. ‘Umar could not be against women learning to write when the Prophet advised the educating even of slave-girls–(Bokhari Vol.; 3 # 720. Vol 4 # 655).
What would you do, Manji, should your partner keep company with women you distrust or suspect her to have dealings that only the two of you should have; or that she has these women over at your dwelling while you are away? Wouldn’t you first discuss the matter with her. And if she continues in her conduct what steps would you take? Granted you might not be able to “beat” her, but what if you could?
Manji states: “The Koran is not transparently egalitarian for women. It’s not transparently anything except enigmatic.” (p. 39). This is so only to those who fail to meditate on its verses. (See Islam-women).
25. Woman–a tilth/field: “In light of the raped woman in Nigeria, one more passage from the Koran bowled me over. “Women are your fields,” it says. “Go, then, into your fields when you please. Do good works and fear God.” Huh? Go into women when you please, yet do good? Are women partners or property?….What about the words, “when you please”? Doesn’t that qualifier give men undue power? The question remains: Which paradigm does Allah advocate–Adam and Eve as equals, or women as land to be plowed (excuse me, stroked) on a whim?”(pp. 38-39). (This is a classical example of your ignorance of the Qur’an).
Response: The verse under question is Qur’an 2:223. This injunction was given to dispel a Jewish superstition. Jews were of the belief that if a man has marital relations with his wife in the posterior position (as opposed to the anterior position), a child born from this union would be squint-eyed. So Allah revealed: “Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when and how you will”: here is the hadith:
“Jews used to say: “If one has sexual
intercourse with his wife from the back,
then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.”
So this verse was revealed:–
‘Your wives are a tilth unto you;
so go to your tilth when or how you will.”
(Bokhari Vol. 6 # 51; Qur’an 2:223).
A field/tilth is something that produces. The field/tilth is carefully prepared and seeded and nurtured. The analogy of woman being a field/tilth, is that like the field/tilth, she also is a producer (of the offspring).
The injunction to go into them (wives) “when” you please could hardly be taken as giving men “undue power” over women, considering that women have equal rights with men; coupled to the fact that Allah has put love and compassion between men and women and that he might find comfort in her. It is not love and compassion for a husband to wield “undue power” over his wife in matters of intimacy (or elsewhere), nor would he truly find comfort in her in the exercise of such “undue power.”
The permission to go into women “when you please” is not a “qualifier” to “give men undue power” over women. This permission to go into your tilth “when” you please indicates that (outside of her time of menstruation, pre and post-natal period and during their hours of fasting) there is no prohibited time for husband and wife to engage in marital relations.
Generally, men are superior to women physically only. Morally, spiritually and intellectually they are equals. Either can excel the other. The wise husband instead of feeling threatened by his wife’s superiority would endeavor to benefit from her qualities.
Allah Who gave woman her form and physiology–a form and physiology of which she had no choice–would not discriminate against her. It would be an injustice. And Allah is not the least unjust to His servants.
The following incident is a timely example of the freedom women enjoyed even at the early point in Islam; Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate (and mark her tone at the magnificent Caliph, and his humble response): “Once when ‘Umar delivered a sermon against the practice of settling large sums as dower-money, it was a woman who stood up and objected saying: “O son of Khattab! How dare you deprive us when God says in the Qur’an that even a heap of gold may be settled on the wife as dower?” Far from resenting this, ‘Umar appreciated this courage of conviction and complimented the objector, saying: “The women of Madinah have more understanding than ‘Umar.”” (pp. 119-120).
Further, ‘Umar, “When as a Caliph he made education compulsory in Arabia, it was made so for both boys and girls.” (Ibid. p. 120).
In the matter of women’s rights, Muslims are not left to tap-dance blind in a mine-field of ignorance and interpretations.
However, it is not her financial independence that will release the Muslim woman from the shackles of patriarchal subjugation. Confrontation with a religiously ignorant and egotistical husband would, doubtlessly, end in the destruction of the marriage bed. Multiply this among such vain husbands and we have a legion of divorcees, who in all probability may have to end life as such. For it is much easier for a man to get another, and even younger, wife than for a widow or divorced woman, especially one with child(ren), to find a husband, young or old.
It is not financial independence that will release the Muslim woman from the shackles of patriarchal subjugation. It is not even the religiously sharp husband alone. It is her educated and God-fearing husband, who practices that the gates of paradise are not entered by riding the high horse of pride and arrogance, but by prostrating on the mat of humility–to the sublime precepts of Allāh.
26. Islam, straight path?: (Muslims have) “been raised to believe–as most of us have–that the Koran lays it all out for us in a “straight path,” and that our sole duty, and right, is to imitate it. This is a big lie. Do you hear me? A big, beard-faced lie.” (p. 39).
Response: Allah the Omniscient says that the Qur’an/Islam is the “straight” path: “And surely thou guidest to the right path”–(Qur’an 42:52); and He instructs His noble Messenger to inform us that the Qur’an/Islam is the “straight” path: “follow me. This is the right path”–(Qur’an 43:61).
But Irshad Manji says: “This is a big lie. Do you hear me? A big, beard-faced lie.” Who are you going to believe and follow –Allah and His Messenger or Irshad Manji? (Produce your proof that the Qur’an is not the “straight path” and that we are not required to “imitate” it).
(If the critics of Islam would invest their efforts in earnest prayer for Divine guidance instead of ranting mindlessly striving to have Islam conform to their dictates rather than conform to the dictates of Islam they would see with their hearts what no physical vision could ever show).
27. Qur’an at war with itself. Slaves: “Far from being perfect, the Koran is so profoundly at war with itself …..But as long as we’re caught up in this endgame of proving that “our” dogma trumps “their” dogma, we’re losing sight of the greater challenge. That is, to openly question the perfection of the Koran…Since the Koran is a bundle of contradictions, at least when it comes to women, we have every reason to think. To push this idea further, I had to see whether there’s a pattern to the Koran’s blatant inconsistencies. Put simply, is Islam’s scripture also vague or conflicted about other human rights issues, such as slavery?…Still, all these primitive politics couldn’t be waged without some help from the Koran. How much help, was my question. I went to the source and discovered this passage: “As for those of your slaves who wish to buy their liberty, free them if you find in them any promise….” Whoa. I had to pause and parse that one. Read it closely and you’ll find that the Koran doesn’t direct us to release all slaves, just those whom their owners decide have the potential to achieve a better standing. How’s that for appealing to our subjective sensibilities, to our ethical agency, to our freedom of choice. In other words, Muslims today can maneuver their way out of the seventh century with the Koran’s consent–if we opt to.” (pp. 40-41). (What a maroon!)
Response: Qur’an at war or perfect Revelation?:For Muslims to debate whether the entire Qur’an or part(s) of it is Divine is a futile and pointless squabble.
–Futile, because there would be no unanimity. Only Allah is able to resolve the dispute, and He will not come. Of which difference, He will show us the truth of the matter, as He says in His Qur’an–(Qur’an 16:92; 39:46; 42:10).
–Pointless, because the instructions of the Qur’an that applies to our practice of Islam–those on Unity of God, prayer, charity, fasting, and hajj–are clear and are of moral, social, intellectual, and spiritual benefit. Those verses that are of allegorical meanings are followed by those in whose hearts is “perversity,” “seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation”–(Qur’an 3:6).
While a Muslim can question (more correctly, debate) the meaning of a verse of the Qur’an, one cannot claim to be a Muslim and question the “divine authorship” of the Qur’an. Allah says that the Qur’an is from Him:
“And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds”
“The revelation of the Book, there is no doubt in it,
is from the Lord of the worlds”
“The revelation of the Book is from Allah,
the Mighty, the Knowing”
“A revelation from the Beneficent, the Merciful.
A Book of which the verses are made plain,
an Arabic Qur’an for a people who know”
“The revelation of the Book is from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise”
“Allah is He Who revealed the Book with truth,
and the Balance”
(Qur’an 26:192; 32:2; 40:2; 41:2; 45:2; 42:17)
Allah tells us that the Prophet Mohammad does not speak out of his own desire, the Qur’an is inspiration given to him through the Angel Gabriel–(Qur’an 53:2-5; 26:192-194; 6:19). Allāh says:
“Surely We have revealed the Reminder,
and surely We are its Guardian”
“Allah has revealed the best announcement,
a Book consistent, repeating (its injunctions…”
“The Beneficent Taught the Qur’an.
He created man, taught him expression”
(Qur’an 15:9; 39:23; 55:1-4)
Allah also says that no human and/or jinn can produce the likes of the Qur’an. That the Prophet forged the Qur’an, Allah revealed to the Prophet to: “Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Qur’an, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others”–(Qur’an 17: 88. See also 10:38 and 11:13).
The Muslim who questions the “divine authorship” of the Qur’an doubts the Word of Allah. (For proofs that the Qur’an is from Allāh see Qur’an-prophecies; Qur’an-science).
Contradiction and inconsistencies: There are no “contradictions” or “inconsistencies,” be it on “women” or any other topic, in the Qur’an. But there is a lack of meditation on its verses. I challenge any one to point out any “contradictions” and “inconsistencies” in the Qur’an.
Slavery: There is no slavery in Islam! Islam abolished slavery! Islam requires that public funds be used for the emancipation of the slaves–(Qur’an 9:60). Allah tells us that righteousness includes freeing the slaves–(Qur’an 2:177; 90:13); to free a slave in expiation of a certain oath–(Qur’an 58:3); and that slave-masters assist their industrious slaves to earn their freedom–(Qur’an 24:33). These declarations were the herald for the abolition of slavery.
Regarding the verse Manji quoted: “And those of your slaves who ask for a writing (of freedom), give them the writing, if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you”–(Qur’an 24:33). Muhammad Ali commented:
“Thus every possible facility was afforded to the slave to earn his freedom. Though the practice of the master making such a contract with the slave prevailed before the advent of Islam, the important reform introduced by Islam was that, when a slave desired such a contract to be made, the master could not refuse it. Twelve centuries before any attempt was made by any individual or community to legislate for the liberty of slaves, a dweller in the Arabian desert had laid down this noble institution, that, if a slave asked for a writing of freedom, he was not only to be given that writing by the master, but he was also to be provided with money to purchase his freedom, the only condition being if you know any good in them, i.e. if he is fit for work and able to earn his livelihood. And, in addition, the duty was imposed upon the State of spending a part of the collection of the poor-rate for this object, as stated in 9:60.”
That Islam did not abolish slavery overnight and intended it to die a natural death is not without its merit. As Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din explains:
“The immediate abolition of slavery was likely to cause many and far-reaching complications. The slave class possessed no wealth. They had neither house nor property, trade nor learning. Their immediate emancipation would have produced a class of penniless vagabonds and indolent beggars, seeing that their life-long habit of abject dependence on their masters had killed all initiative in them. The task of Islam was not only to secure freedom for those already in slavery, but to make them useful members of society. And the Holy Prophet was quite alive to the situation.”
“…the Qur’an and the Prophet made the liberation of the slave a matter of great virtue. A portion of the public money was set aside for this purpose–(Qur’an 8:67). It was also declared to be a good atonement for many minor transgressions. But it was chiefly three considerations– (1) the socially elevated position of the slaves, (2) the treatment of equality that could be demanded by the slaves from their masters, and (3) the strict restrictions against harsh treatment– that led to the uprooting of the evil and paved the way to its ultimate abolition.”14
Not only did the Prophet Mohammad, through the Qur’an, advocate freedom for the slaves, he also stressed the educating of them. Said the noble Messenger of Allah about 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). (Yet some people call this wonderful man an “impostor”).
Islam, through the hands of the Prophet Mohammad, not only carved the coffin for slavery but also entombed it forever. It was Islam which set up a State fund for the welfare of the poor, freed the slave, ennobled Woman and gave her rights, gave hope to the poor and the orphans, and set up a code of life that is yet to be equaled.
There were many who rose from the chains of slavery into the crown of kingship under the liberating sun of Islam. (See Islam-slaves/slavery).
Muhammad Ali correctly points out that:
“No religion has laid so much stress on the uplift of the poor and the distressed as Islam, and it is the only religion which enjoins the duty of granting freedom to slaves, and the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the only founder of a religion who showed the noble example of freeing all slaves that he ever had and helping in the freedom of others. Yet prejudiced writers blame Islam for not taking any steps to uproot slavery. There is even a suggestion that such precepts regarding the nobility of liberating slaves as exist in the Makkan chapters were abrogated by later revelation (see Wherry), a preposterous statement in view of the plain directions given in 9:60 (the latest revelation) to the State itself to spend a part of the public funds in purchasing freedom for slaves.”15
“Muhammad was the true Emancipator and Benefactor of Slaves throughout the whole world.”16
Islam does not extol the servitude of man to man. Islam champions the liberation of man from man. Muslims who engage in slavery (whether for profit or for personal use) act on their own accord. They have no assent from Islam.
(There is slavery in Judaism and Christianity. A man may make slaves of his “heathen” neighbors–Lev; 25:44; he may sell his daughter(s) into bondage–Ex; 21:7. Canada also engaged in slavery. And it was only in the late twentieth century that Canada considered woman a person). (Regarding the charge that Islam allows Muslims to have sex with slave girls see Islam-concubinage; Christianity-Sex Slaves & Prepubescent Girls).
28. Islam–treatment of non-Muslims: “Energized, I moved to another huge human rights file: the treatment of non-Muslims. Because Islam comes from Judeo-Christian traditions, the Koran has a lot to say about Jews and Christians.….the Koran explicitly anoints Islam as the only “true faith.” Weird. Or is it? There’s an ultra-important idea here –it couldn’t be more important for our divided times– and it relates to why Islam came into being at all. Everything Muslims ought to believe was revealed thousands of years before us to the Jews. It was when some Jews strayed from the revealed Truth, by worshipping idols such as the golden calf, that they incurred God’s wrath. (I know, I know: What kind of Creator envies a baby cow? I’d say a Creator that’s striving to bring together incessantly warring tribes through the focal point of a shared faith.)….So, around 610 C.E., God revisited the prophet pool and selected Muhammad, another descendant of Abraham, to tidy the mess that both the Jews and the Christians had made of His revelations. That’s why Islam returns to original Jewish teachings for its inspiration and integrity. No matter where I opened the Koran, I was never far from an oft-repeated message, namely, that earlier scriptures deserve reverence.”(pp. 42-43). (Scriptures –Divine Revelations– deserve reverence, not the people. Reverence to Scriptures is reverence to God).
Response: If “Everything Muslims ought to believe was revealed thousands of years before us to the Jews,” why then don’t Muslims believe that Jews is God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of all others, as they claim to be? If “Everything Muslims ought to believe was revealed thousands of years before us to the Jews,” how is it that Muslims believe in Jesus and Jews do not?
Islam did not “come from Judeo-Christian traditions.” Neither did Islam “returns to original Jewish teachings for its inspiration and integrity.” Islam came from Allah. Islamic “inspiration and integrity” came from Allah. In the Qur’an, Allah recounts to us what was given to the prophets from Adam to Jesus. And He perfected religion and completed His favor to man, through the Qur’an. The Qur’an could hardly “come from Judeo-Christian traditions” or return to “original Jewish teachings for its inspiration and integrity” when the Bible contains “monumental” errors and “contradictions” and when there is no error or contradiction in the Qur’an:
“The concluding eleven verses of St. Mark (16:9-20) and the well-known verse of St. Matthew (28:19), speaking of the Son and the Father and the Holy Ghost, are forgeries, an admitted addition to the ancient MSS.” 17
“…THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES (1) HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX (2) HAS BEEN.” 18
(The Old Testament) “were written in several languages over a period of more than nine hundred years, based on oral traditions.”
(In the Old Testament) “A Revelation is mingled in all these writings, but all we possess today is what men have seen fit to leave us. These men manipulated the texts to please themselves, according to the circumstances they were in and the necessities they had to meet.”
(In Jesus’ time) “the foremost authority was the oral tradition as a vehicle for Jesus’ words and the teachings of the apostles.”
“Unfortunately, the authors of the Gospels were not eye-witnesses of the data they recorded.” 19
Maurice Bucaille notes in his book The Bible The Qur’an and Science:
(In the Qur’an) “statements are to be found in it (as has been shown) that are connected with science: and yet it is unthinkable that a man of Muhammad’s time could have been the author of them. Modern scientific knowledge therefore allows us to understand certain verses of the Qur’an which, until now, it has been impossible to interpret.”
“Whereas monumental errors are to be found in the Bible, I could not find a single error in the Qur’an.” (pp. 251, 120. Italics/emphasis added).
And, there is “an enormous difference between the Biblical description and the data in the Qur’an concerning the Creation,” says Mr. Bucaille. (Ibid. p. 148).
Thus, it is hardly credible that the Qur’an could “come from Judeo-Christian traditions” or return to “original Jewish teachings for its inspiration and integrity” when the Qur’an is superior to the Bible.
If by “Judeo-Christian traditions” and “original Jewish teachings” it is meant the “original” teachings of Moses and Jesus; if this is so then that would be an admission that what the Jews and Christians are currently following are not the teachings of Moses and Jesus. And since God did not reveal a religion by the names of Judaism and Christianity, but that Moses and Jesus practiced Islam, then Islam came from “Islam” itself.
Since Islam is the religion that was revealed to all prophets and, moreover, the nature in which God made man, Islam is the “only “true faith.””
God “envies a baby cow”: There is no advantage in idolatry. There is no advantage in subjugating one’s self to monuments of stone: objects fashioned by man’s own hands cannot confer benefit or effect harm.
By taking other humans in worship man has made himself subservient to man. By taking objects of creation in worship man has rendered himself subjective to nature rather than make nature subjective to him.
Allah made man in a state of purity, given him knowledge and wisdom and instills in him that the only presence greater than himself is his Creator. For man to then make obeisance to effigies, he has lowered himself to the depths of the lowest. (Imagine giving your child the finest in food and drink, then for him/her to feed on offal).
Idolatry is perhaps the worst of all degradations.
To even joke that God “envies a baby cow” is to make a mockery of God.
Treatment of non-Muslims: The religion that gives man a choice in belief and enjoins justice even against one’s self and to give men their dues cannot be said to hold non-Muslims as inferiors. 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. Italics/ Emphasis added).
29. Islam trumps Christianity and Judaism: “…the Koran also discourages Muslims from taking Jews and Christians as friends, lest we become “one of them.” It speaks of “them” as an “unjust people” whom “God does not guide.” There’s talk of smiting, slaughtering and subjecting non-Muslims to a special tax as a tribute to their Muslim conquerors. Truly scalding stuff, these passages lend credence to those Muslims who spit on inter-faith outreach…..Out of decency, then, ask yourself: Have I chosen to challenge the mainstream Muslim belief that Islam trumps Christianity and Judaism?” (pp. 44-45).
Response: Which is worse, not taking one as friend or to enslave him? The Bible instructs Jews and Christians to enslave their “heathen” neighbors–Lev. 25:44. It refers to non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine.”
From its inception, Jewish and Christian powers tried to destroy Islam. Christians and Jews allied to steal Palestine, to attack Egypt (to control the Suez). Christians want to have control over Muslims’ lands and resources. Christians seem to want to fragment Sudan.
Allah has given guidance to all peoples. He reveals in His Qur’an that the Jews received numerous prophets–probably more than any other nation. This does not mean that a person who receives guidance could not be or become unjust. The Muslim world –which has the ultimate in Divine Revelation– is saturated with despots.
This injunction that Muslims are not to take Jews and Christians for friends, does not relate to social intercourse. Allah does not forbid Muslims from having good relations with non-Muslims–(Qur’an 60:8); only that non-Muslims are not to be part of Muslims national affairs. Letting foreigners into your private matters give them an insight into your strengths and weaknesses. Non-Muslims would not allow Muslims to be a part in their private affairs.
Regarding Qur’an 60:8-9 which state: “Allåh forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allåh loves the doers of justice. Allåh forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers.” Muhammad Ali comments:
“This verse (8) and the one that follows (9), revealed as they were at a time when the relations between the Muslims and the disbelievers were most strained on account of the existence of a continual state of war between the two parties, settle conclusively that friendly relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, as such, are not prohibited. It is in the light of these verses that all the verses forbidding friendly relations with the disbelievers should be read, because here the true principle is revealed in unmistakable language, allowing friendly relations with one class of disbelievers and prohibiting such relations with those of another class.”
Islam trumps Christianity and Judaism:Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.” Allah reveals that He has completed His favor to mankind and has perfected religion through the Prophet Mohammad–(Qur’an 5:3); He decrees Islam to prevail over all other religions–(9:33); for man to die not except in Islam –(3:101); that whoever wants a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted–(3:84); the Qur’an is the best Message, in which nothing is omitted–(7:185; 39:23; 77: 50; 6:38; 16:89)–in these respects, Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
Islam abrogates many Biblical laws–such as stoning/burning, honor killing, enslaving the “heathen,” and selling daughters into bondage. Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
Islam tells us about scientific truths and gave clear prophecies that have already manifested, and foretold events of the Doomsday, and is of diction and style superior to the Bible and incomparable in the history of religions. Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
Islam abolished slavery, female infanticide, drunkenness and superstition, and gave hope to the orphan and the destitute. Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
Islam details heaven and Hell and gives moral, social, spiritual, and intellectual guidance that other religions do not. Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
Islam extricates woman from the bog of “transgressor” and ‘servility’ and defiler of man and gives her rights that leaves her nothing for which to strive. Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
Islam took God from the isle of “chosen people” and sat Him on the mount of Universalism, and gave His “bread” equally to the “children” and to the “dogs” and “swine.” Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
All prophets of God taught Islam–peace, and submission to the laws of God. Jews believe themselves to be God’s chosen people to the exclusion of others–a teaching foreign to Moses/Islam. In this respect, Islam does “trumps” Judaism in its teaching about the justice of God (not to favor people on the basis of their race).
Islam teaches that Allah is the God Who is One and Only; the Eternal Absolute Who begets not nor is begotten; that there is none like Him; that He does not incarnate Himself; that man is born free of sin; that every person accounts for his own sins –no one can atone for him– and Who forgives sins without the need for “satisfaction.” Compared to the Christian God of the womb who is defenseless and require human blood sacrifice in order to forgive sins. In this respect, Islam does “trumps” Christianity.
Jews and Christians follow Books that came to them through oral transmission, been “tampered” with, and is void of “all truth,” whereas the Qur’an upon its revelation was memorized and written and is in pristine purity and contains “all truth.” Thus, Islam does “trumps Christianity and Judaism.”
In fact, Islam “trumps” all other religions as well:
(See Hinduism. Hindus are divided as to whether Rama, Krishna and Hanuman are Gods or not, whether God incarnates Himself or not; and whether creatures are reincarnated into various kingdoms or as one type only; and whether the soul returns to earth or not after its Emancipation. The Mahabharata (which comprises the Bhagavad-Gita) and the Ramayana are “mythological” works; (at least part of) the Rg Veda was composed by “bard priest;” and the Gita is “opposed” to the Veda.
The origin and development of reincarnation are “very obscure,” and karma and reincarnation seem to be “new and strange” doctrines20 and it is stated that “the Austro-Asiatics may have contributed the belief in each life passing to another life. This belief later, in the form of reincarnation, became a major element in the Upanishads”).21
Islam also “trumps Christianity and Judaism” as well as other religions in manners of greeting and in assembling devotees. There is Hinduism’s Namaskar (peace be unto you); Judaism’s Shalom (peace); and Christianity’s Hello, Hi, Goodbye, Good morning, etc. How-do-you-do, compared to Islam’s Assalamo- ‘alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh–peace, and mercy and blessings of Allāh, God, be unto you. And, doubtlessly, one who has peace, and mercy and blessings of Allāh, God, he needs nothing more.
And when Muslims part company we bid each other Allah Hafiz–Allah, God, guard/protect you–there is no better guardian/protector than Allāh).
And in the method of calling devotees, there is the Hindu blowing of the conch (shell); the Jewish shofar (ram’s horn); the Christian clanging of the bell; compared to the Muslim Adhan (the Call) in the human voice, declaring five times a day in melodious intonation the Unity, Glory and Greatness of Allāh God (which is the best national anthem in the world):
‘Allah (God) is great!
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah!
I bear witness that Mohammad is
the Messenger of Allah!
Come to prayer! Come to success!
Allah is great!
There is no God but Allah!’
Islam trumps all religions in doctrine, greeting and call. However, Islamic supremacy does not lend itself to compulsion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:105; 10:99-100; 50:45); intolerance–(8:39); injustice–(4:135; 5:8), or ridicule –(6:108). Unlike Christianity and other religions Islam is endowed with the Divine allure of reason.
(Since Islam teaches–and has proven–that Mohammad is the “Seal of the Prophets,” that God’s favor to man is complete and religion is perfected in Islam, Islam does not recognize as genuine any subsequent claimant to Divine Dispensation, though there will come Reformers–Mujaddids–to call those who have lapsed from the practice of Islam).
“He (Allah) it is Who sent His Messenger (Mohammad)
with guidance and the Religion of Truth (Islam)
that He may cause it to prevail over all religions,
though the polytheists are averse (to it).
(Qur’an 9:33)
Smiting disbelievers: Islam could not be said to allow hate or discrimination against Jews or other non-Muslims, when Allah instructs us to not let hatred of another people incite us to transgress against them and not to aid one another in sin against them–(Qur’an 5:2, 8); and when He enjoins in Qur’an 49:6-7:
“O you who believe, if an unrighteous man
brings you news, look carefully into it,
lest you harm a people in ignorance,
then be sorry for what you did.”
“…..but Allah has endeared the faith to you……
and He has made hateful to you disbelief
and transgression and disobedience.
Such are those who are rightly guided.”
While it is true there are Qur’anic injunctions urging Muslims to fight because “persecution is worse than slaughter”–(Qur’an 2:191), any person with even a cursory knowledge of the Qur’an knows that there are certain parameters to this fight. For instance, fighting is allowed “against those who fight against you;” on behalf of “the weak”–(Qur’an 2:190; 4:75; 22:39); also: “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” –(Qur’an 2:193).
If Islam had counseled Muslims to kill all the Unbelievers and to make war so that Islam is accepted in every country throughout the world, the Prophet Mohammad would not have spared the Jews of Khaybar and returned the Torah to them. Neither would he have forgiven the Idolaters of Arabia upon his conquest of Makkah; nor leave “the kings of Arabia and her princes on their thrones with their territories, economies, and political structures virtually untouched.”22
If Islam had demanded that all Unbelievers be killed, the Prophet Mohammad, on reports that the Romans were preparing for battle, would not have returned from this expedition to Tabuk without wiping out the Romans who were unprepared for war.
If Islam had demanded that all Unbelievers be killed, there would not be millions of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. ‘Umar would not have spared the Christians upon his conquering of Jerusalem. Neither would Salahuddin Ayyube (Saladin) have spared the Christians of Jerusalem; nor would he have “invited the Jews to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders.”23
That the Qur’an says to kill the Unbelievers, is a statement applicable only during the time of battle; and even then Muslims are urged to take prisoners and to set them free–(Qur’an 47:4); and more importantly, to make peace with the enemies when they desire peace: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it”–(Qur’an 8:61).
As for the injunction to “slay the unbelievers wheresoever ye find them,” this refers only to those who fight against the Muslims–(Qur’an 2:191).
Regarding the statement, “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.
That Muslims are urged to fight the Unbelievers until they say none has the right to be worshipped but Allah does not mean that the unbelievers must accept that Allah is the only One that has to be worshipped. What it means is that just as how they (the unbelievers) have the right to their belief, they must also accept that the Muslims have the right to practice their belief that ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’
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).
Allah informed Prophet Mohammad that there is no compulsion in religion–(2:256); that Mohammad’s duty is only to deliver the message–(29:18; 64:12); to invite people to Allah through wisdom and best arguments –(16:125).
It is only ignorance or bigotry to claim that Islam forces religion at the point of the sword. To propagate Islam with the sword is no where mentioned in the Qur’an. For: “The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(Qur’an 18:29).
Jizya: Please see item # 40.
30.Nasty side of the Qur’an: “First and foremost, being self-critical means coming clean about the nasty side of the Koran, and how it informs terrorism. Post-September 11, I repeatedly heard this mantra from Muslims: The Koran makes it absolutely clear when jihad can and can’t be pursued, and the terrorists unquestionably broke the rules….You know the chapter and verse that’s cited as “unequivocal”? It actually bestows wiggle room. Here’s how it reads: “We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind.” Sadly, the clause starting with “except” can be deployed by militant Muslims to fuel their jihads.” (p. 47
Response:
Qur’an’s nasty side: The Qur’an which advocates peace and justice to all could not have a “nasty side.”
Allah the God Who ordains mercy on Himself could not “inform(s) terrorism.”
In His Qur’an 5:32 Allah prescribes for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person it is as though he has killed all men, and whoever saves a life it is as though he has saved all men, UNLESS in the case of murder and mischief makers in the land.
This “UNLESS” clause, in the above verse, does not allow “wiggle room” that “militant Muslims” can use to “fuel their jihads.”
While the lower form of jihad–the armed struggle–can be waged against an aggressor and those who aid in this aggression, this verse (5:32) cannot be used to justify jihad against an aggressor and his helper. The verse is clear that the exception is in the case of murder and the mischief-maker–it is only applicable to resident or local criminals.
The next verse (33) details the various punishments –death, dismemberment, crucifixion and imprisonment –for (residents or locals) who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to make mischief in the land.
With jihad, (war against disbelievers) which would entail prisoners-of-war, these prisoners are not executed etc., but, as Allah says, are to be set free or ransomed: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; then when you have overcome them, make (them) prisoners, and afterwards (set them free) as a favor or for ransom till the war lay down its burdens”–(Qur’an 47:5). Which practice of setting prisoners free the Prophet adopted, as is evident upon his conquest of Makkah.
Mohammad not only preached love, mercy and forgiveness but in the greatest demonstration of love, mercy, and human forgiveness the world has ever known he, upon his triumph at Makkah, forgave his most horrid persecutors; as Muhammad Ali has noted: “It is related that the Prophet took hold of the two sides of the gate of the Ka’bah 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.”24
No inquisition. No incrimination. No confession. No rancor. Only lofty words of benevolence and nobility -“No reproof be against you this day”*. This demonstration by the Prophet Mohammad upon his conquest of Makkah is evidence that Islam does not conquer man’s faith by steel, but by reason. * (See Qur’an 12:92 for this saying of Joseph).
There is no “terrorism” in Islam.
31. Qur’an and retribution. Abrogation in the Qur’an: “Muhammad began by proselytizing in Mecca, where slaves, widows, orphans, and the working poor latched on to his unconventional message of mercy. God knows, these outcasts needed a dose of mercy in the economically stratified and morally decadent money capital of Arabia. (And why are you latching on to this message: are you also a slave, widow, orphan, or working poor?) At first, then, the Koran’s revelation emphasized compassion. But within no time the business establishment of Mecca grew threatened–and threatening. Muhammad and his flock pulled up stakes and moved to Medina in order to protect themselves. Basically, that’s when the Koran’s message of compassion turns to retribution.” (pp. 48-49). (I’ve yet to hear of a general in battle instructing his troops on the price of pork bellies and soya beans instead of on the arts of war).
Response: The Qur’an is a message of peace, love, hope and mercy; and of truth, knowledge, wisdom and reason. Those who violate the sanctity of others are warned that they would be subjected to retribution–isn’t this the blueprint of “democratic” societies also? So where is the problem in the Qur’an’s message of retribution against violators?
The claim that earlier Makkan “tolerance” was “abrogated by later Madinan “intolerance”” is baseless. Later Madinan revelations of “retribution” did not abrogate earlier Makkan revelations of “compassion.”
In the human sphere, a nation that is perceived as evil is first requested by the World body–the UN–to change its policy on its own. Failing to comply, the nation is subjected to the second step of sanctions. And followed, if need be, by the third stage of military action against it.
Allāh is Just; He does not punish a people for its evil without first sending a messenger, to admonish them to reform to goodness: “And We destroyed no town but it had (its) warners–To remind. And We are never unjust”–(Qur’an 26:208-209. Also 28:59).
At Makkah the Idolaters not only rejected Prophet Moham-mad’s “compassion” with persecution but pursued him to Madinah to annihilate him. Hence, they entered the second phase of their war against peace–to be threatened with punishment. Yet, they were heedless. Therefore, the third phase –that of force– became necessary.
Makkan “compassion” did not change to Madinan “retribution”: the method of approach changed to suit the prevailing atmosphere. The Qur’anic message is both “compassion” and “retribution”–compassion to those who refrain from transgression and retribution against transgressors. Parent’s have both “softness” and “hardness” of hearts: exercising one or the other depending upon the child’s behavior–whether the child is obedient or delinquent. One does not abrogate the other. There are no “discrepancies” in the Qur’an, only a lack of meditating on it.
The Qur’an 16:101 and 2:106 is the basis for the supposed abrogation in the Qur’an. Qur’an 2:106 which reads: “Whatever message We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it,” does not refer to the Qur’anic verses. It refers to the Jewish law, as the context shows. The Jews “could not accept a new revelation which was not granted to an Israelite,” notes Muhammad Ali
“This is plainly stated in vv. 90 and 91….Their objection was: Why was another revelation sent down to Muhammad, and why was a law containing new commandments promulgated?…The answer is given partly in v. 105, and partly in the verse under discussion. In the former of these they are told that Allah chooses whom He pleases for His revelation. In the latter, that if one law (i.e. the Jewish law) was abrogated, one better than it was given through the Holy Prophet. It should be noted that the new law is here stated to be better than the one abrogated or like it. It is a fact that though the law of the Qur’an is decidedly superior to and more comprehensive than the previous laws in most respects, yet there are many points of likeness in the two. Hence the words one like it are added.
….The old law had been partly forgotten, and what remained was now abrogated to give place to one better and in certain matters one like it. It will thus be seen that the reference here is to the abrogation of the Jewish law, the statement being really an answer to the objection of the Jews.
That some of the Qur’anic verses were abrogated by others, though a generally accepted doctrine, is due to a misconception of the words of this verse. The word ayat occurring here has been wrongly understood to mean a verse of the Qur’an. Similar words occur elsewhere: “And when We change one message (ayat) for another message (ayat), and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say thou art only a forger” (16:101). This is a Makkan revelation and it is an undisputed fact, admitted by all upholders of abrogation in the Qur’an, that there was no abrogation at Makkah, because the details of the law were not revealed there. Therefore the word ayat, occurring there twice, could only mean a message or a communication from God, and the first message meant the previous scriptures and by the second message was meant the Qur’an.
The interpretation adopted by the commentators general-ly is not based on any saying of the Prophet; it is their own opinion. Nor is there a single report traceable to the Prophet that such and such a verse was abrogated. A companion’s opinion that he considered a certain verse to have been abrogated by another could not carry the least weight. It was the Prophet only on whose authority any verse was accepted as being a part of the Holy Qur’an, and it was he only on whose authority any verse could be considered as having been abrogated. But there is not a single hadith of the Prophet speaking of abrogation.
Another consideration which shows the erroneousness of the doctrine that any verse of the Qur’an was abrogated by another is the hopeless disagreement of the upholders of this view. In the first place there is no agreement as to the number of the verses which are alleged to have been abrogated; while some accept no more than five verses to be abrogated, others carry the number to hundreds. This shows that the view is based simply on conjecture. Secondly, if one commentator holds a certain verse to be abrogated, another calls this an erroneous view. In Bukhari especially do we find opposite views cited side by side. What happened really was this that when a commentator could not reconcile one verse with another, he held the verse to be abrogated by the other, but another who, giving deeper thought was able to effect a reconciliation between the two, rejected abrogation. This seems to be the basis on which the theory of abrogation of Qur’anic verses rests, and this basis is demolished by the Holy Qur’an when it says: “Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy” (4:82). There are no discrepancies in the Qur’an, and it is want of meditation on it that is responsible for the theory of abrogation.”25
“The words “or cause to be forgotten”–(2:106), cannot refer to the Qur’an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should first make the Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? ….That the Prophet never forgot what was recited to him by the Holy Spirit is plainly stated in the Qur’an: “We shall make thee recite, so thou shalt not forget”–(87:6)…..It was a miracle indeed that he never forgot any portion of the Qur’an, though other things he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other things that the words except what Allah pleases, in the next verse (87:7), refer. On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus the Qur’an was needed to take the place of that which was abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the world.”* (Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 38, 39, 40).
*(The Prophet’s forgetfulness in daily matters is not without its benefit. Two occasions of the Prophet’s forgetfulness that proved beneficial to Muslims, (1) Upon given the night in Ramadan when the first Revelation of the Qur’an came–known as the night of Qadr, and which Muslims observe as the 27th night–the Prophet came out to inform his followers but found two of them quarreling. Because of this the Prophet forgot the date and told the Muslims to search for this night in one of the odd night in the last ten days of Ramadan. This is a blessing in that Muslims instead of observing one night observes at least five [or the full ten]. (2) It was once pointed out to the Prophet that he offered one less rakah [sequence] in his prayer. To rectify this mistake the Prophet made two sijdahs [prostrations] and the usual two salaams [recitals to the right and left shoulders, respectively]. This is a blessing to Muslims. But for the Prophet’s forgetfulness, Muslims making similar mistakes would have been at a loss as to how to correct their error of forgetfulness. Perhaps these instances of the Prophet’s forgetfulness are of Divine artistry for the benefit of Muslims).
32. Qur’anic message all over the map: (Muslims argue that) “retribution isn’t the spirit with which Muslims started out. They resorted to it for the purpose of self-preservation, and only temporarily. The older, “authentic,” message of Islam is the one on which Muhammad launched his religion. It’s the message of justice, equality, unity–peace. How emotionally comforting. While I would have loved to believe this account of things, the more I read and reflected, the less sense it made. For starters, it’s not clear which verses came to Muhammad when. The Koran appears to be organized by size of verse–from longer to shorter–and not by chronology of revelation. How can anyone isolate the “earlier” passages, let alone read into them the “authentic” message of the Koran? We have to own up to the fact that the Koran’s message is all over the bloody map. Compassion and contempt exist side by side. Look at its take on women. Hopeful and hateful verses stand only lines away from each other. So, too, with religious diversity. There’s no single thrust in this so-called perfect, indisputable, and straightforward text. The Koran’s perfection is, ultimately, suspect. Oh dear. Have I crossed the line?” (pp. 49-50).
Response: Every message of the Qur’an is “authentic.” Verses came according to the situation. As shown in the previous topic, there is no abrogation of verses in the Qur’an–Madinan revelations do not abrogate Makkan revelations.
There are no hateful verses on women in the Qur’an. Allah, Who gave woman her form and function–of which she had no choice– could not be “hateful” towards her. To charge that the Qur’an is “hateful” towards women is to charge Allah as being unjust. Please detail these ‘hateful’ verses.
The Qur’an is not a story-book. Those who want a story-book approach will not find it in the Qur’an. Verses of the Qur’an were placed according to the dictates of Allah. The Prophet Mohammad rehearsed the Qur’an annually under the supervision of the Angel Gabriel, who came twice to the Prophet in the final year of his life–(Bokhari Vol; 4, #819).
(Regarding the sequence of the Qur’anic revelation. Muhammad Ali and Malik Ghulam Farid have given in their respective translations of the Qur’an the place and background to the revelation of the chapters and even of verses. And their preliminary notes and commentaries are a Solomon’s mine of information. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
Qur’anic message all over the “bloody map”: Abul A’la Mawdudi explains:
“Unlike conventional books, the Qur’an does not contain information, ideas and arguments about specific themes arranged in a literary order. That is why a stranger to the Qur’an, on his first approach to it, is baffled when he does not find the inunciation of its theme or its division into chapters and sections or separate treatment of different topics and separate instructions for different aspects of life arranged in a serial order. …He finds that it deals with creeds, gives moral instructions, lays down laws, invites people to Islam, admonishes the disbelievers, draws lessons from historical events, administers warnings gives good tidings, all blended together in a beautiful manner. The same subject is repeated in different ways and one topic follows the other without any apparent connection. Sometimes a new topic crops up in the middle of another without any apparent reason. The speaker and the addressees, and the direction of the address change without any notice. ”
“The different portions of the Qur’an were revealed according to the requirements of the various phases of the (Islamic) Movement. …The Prophet was entrusted with a special mission and had to appeal both to the emotions and to the intellect; he had to deal with people of different mentalities and cope with different situations and various kinds of experiences during the course of his mission. …He has also to train and reform his followers and to imbue them with spirit and courage, and to refute the arguments of opponents and to expose their moral weaknesses and so on. That is why the style of the discourses that Allah sent down to His Messenger had to be what suited the requirements of a Movement. It is, therefore wrong to seek the style of a formal book or that of college lectures in the discourses of the Qur’an.
That also explains why the same things are repeated over and over again in the Qur’an. A mission and a movement naturally demand that only those things should be presented which are required at a particular stage and that nothing should be said about the requirements of the next stage. That is why the same things are repeated over and over again as long as the movement remains in the same stage, no matter whether it remains there for months or for years. ….Moreover, it repeats at suitable places its basic creed and principles in order to keep the Movement strong at every stage. That is why those surahs which were revealed at a particular stage of the Movement generally deal with the same topics, though, of course, in different words and in various forms. Moreover, all the surahs of the Qur’an contain references to the basic creed, i.e., the Unity of Allah, His attributes, the Hereafter and accountability, punishment and reward, Prophethood, belief in the Book etc… They all teach piety, fortitude, endurance, faith and trust in Allah and the like, just because these virtues could not be neglected at any stage of the Movement. If any of these bases had been weakened at any stage even in the least, the Islamic Movement could not have made any progress in its true spirit.”26
“It is quite true that the Qur’an does not classify the different subjects and treat them separately in each section or chapter. The reason for this is that the Holy Qur’an is not a book of laws, but essentially a book meant for the spiritual and moral advancement of man, and therefore the power, greatness, grandeur and glory of God is its chief theme, the principle of social laws enunciated therein being also meant to promote the moral and spiritual advancement of man.” (M. Ali. Preface to his translation of the Qur’an, p. vi).
Compassion and retribution: Regarding the belief that later Madinan revelations of “retribution” abrogate earlier Makkan revelations of “compassion.” (This has been dealt with in item # 31).
33. Hur–Maidens or raisins?: “….it’s long been claimed that the Koran promises this reward (seventy virgins) to Muslim martyrs. But we have reason to believe that there’s trouble in paradise, a human error that’s made its way into the Koran. According to new research, what martyrs can anticipate for their sacrifices aren’t virgins but raisins! The word that Koranic scholars have for centuries read as “dark-eyed virgins”–hur–might be more accurately understood as “white raisins.” (Don’t laugh. Not excessively, anyway. Raisins would have been pricey enough delicacies in seventh-century Arabia to be considered a heavenly treat.) Still, raisins instead of virgins? Please. How can the Koran be so mistaken? The historian who makes this case, Christoph Luxemberg, is a specialist in Middle Eastern languages.” (pp. 50-51).
Response: Would martyrs (and faithful men) receive “seventy virgins” each in Paradise? And women also are martyrs. (If the martyrs and faithful men will have virgins, what will the faithful women have? And Allah is not unjust. If men get virgins wouldn’t the virgins also enjoy the men?)
There is no place in the Qur’an that expresses such a reward to the martyrs (or to faithful men). Allah tells us plainly: “And no soul knows what delights of the eyes is kept hidden for them, as a reward for their (good) deeds”–(Qur’an 32:17). And the Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said: “Allah says, I have prepared for My righteous servants that which no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and which the heart of man cannot conceive–(Bokhari Vol.’s 4:467; 6:302-303; 9:589). Man can relate to things only in the physical life. To us the ultimate in possessions are gold and precious stones, wealth and carnal pleasure. So Allah relates to us in terms of what we understand. These descriptions of paradise are to let us know that we will receive in paradise the ultimate in bliss.
There is nothing scandalous about having pleasure in paradise. This –having peace and joy– seemingly, is the desire and goal of every religionist. However, heavenly bliss is not a pleasure of the body. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out:
“The Muslim Paradise is not, it must be understood, a garden for the voluptuary, where he may sit in the company of maidens under the shade of trees, with goblets of wine circling continually for the enjoyment of the dissipated. We read, it is true, of Hur (Qur’an 44:54) in the Muslim Paradise…. But we are assured that these damsels of heaven will be possessed of a pure and spotless heart (Qur’an 56:22), which the very word Hur literally means. Their eyes, fascinating as they may be, will not be the bearers of amorous message……We shall all be free of physical appetites and there will be no further procreation of the species….It may be said that the Hurs are not wanted if they are not to play the role of wife as in our earthly sojourn. But those who say so only betray the hollowness of their own minds. Even in this life bed is not the best part of our happiness. All earthly tastes lose their attractions for us when we pass a certain age. Intellectual or spiritual pleasures alone can captivate us for good. Knowledge, and not the flesh, is our real pleasure.”27(Much like a ballerina finds pleasure in his/her dancing, and a musician in his/her music).
There are several verses of the Qur’an dealing with the rewards of Paradise, but the women mentioned in Paradise are not there to serve the “fantasies” of men. Allah says that “The dutiful will be surely in Gardens and bliss….. Reclining on thrones set in lines, and We shall join them to pure; beautiful ones”–(Qur’an 52:17, 20). (As emphasized, both men and women are “dutiful”).
It would seem that in the Hereafter there would not be any carnal relations, as Allah says we would be given new forms–perhaps, as the physical world requires a physical form, the Hereafter being spiritual, it seems that we will have a spiritual form–(Qur’an 56:61).
However, arguably, since intimacy in the physical plain is Divinely permitted in the bed of marriage, where is the problem if in the spiritual realm men would be given virgins and women youths? (See Heaven/Paradise).
Hurs–maidens or raisins: The word that means raisins (or white raisins) must be agonizingly similar to the word hur for scholars –and not only one scholar– to mistake raisins for maidens/“virgins.” Could Allāh have been “mistaken” in His choice of this word hur, which “might be more accurately understood as “white raisins””? (Might, mind you! Not for certain!) Muhammad Ali explains (Qur’an 52:20, comm. 2356):
“The word hur occurs four times in the Holy Qur’an, and on two of these occasions, here and in 44:54, the form adopted is zawwajna-kum bi-hur-in ‘in, and in 55:72 and 56:22 there is no mention of tazwij (“join”). While zawwaj-tu-hu imra‘t-an (doubly transitive without a particle) means I gave him in marriage a woman (LL), zawwaja shai’-an bi-shai’-in (made doubly transitive with particle bi) means he coupled a thing with a thing or united it to it as its fellow or like (LL). It is added, quoting 44:54 and 52:20, “the meaning is not the tazwij commonly known (i.e., marriage), for there will be no such tazwij in paradise”. Along with it is quoted 81:7, wa idha-l-nufusu zuwwijat, which is translated as meaning and when the souls shall be coupled, or paired, or united with their fellows, or according to some “when each sect, or party, shall be united with those whom it has followed” (LL). As regards the word hur, it is a plural of ahwar (applied to a man) and of haura’ (applied to a woman), signifying one having eyes characterized by the quality termed hawar, which means intense whiteness of the white of the eye and intense blackness of the black thereof. The word ahwar (singular of hur) also signifies pure or clear intellect (LL). The other word, ‘in, is plural of a‘yan (meaning a man wide in the eyes) and of ‘aina’ (meaning a woman beautiful and wide in the eye). The latter word also signifies a good or beautiful word, or saying (LL). It may be noted that whiteness is also a symbol of perfect and unsullied purity, and hence the two words hur and ‘in really stand for purity and beauty; and therefore, instead of white-eyed and large-eyed ones, I adopt the words pure and beautiful ones, as being more expressive of the true significance.
To realize the true significance of these words, two points must be borne in mind. The first is that paradise is a place for faithful women as well as for the faithful men, and hence the Holy Qur’an often speaks of the faithful as being in paradise with their wives; see for instance 36:56…13:23 and 40:8… The second is that the blessings of paradise are alike for women and men, there being not the least difference in this respect between the two sexes.….the Holy Qur’an does not speak of any conjugal relations being maintained in a physical sense in the life to come. Moreover, it has been shown on various occasions that, where the blessings of paradise are spoken of, these are nothing but physical manifesta-tions of the spiritual blessings which the doers of good enjoy in this life too. There are gardens, trees, rivers, milk, honey, fruits and numerous other blessings spoken of as being met with in paradise, but that all these are not things of this life has been shown more than once in these footnotes, and a saying of the Holy Prophet already quoted makes it clear that the blessings of paradise are not the things of this life. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: Allah says I have prepared for My righteous servants what no eye has seen and no ear has heard and what the heart of man has not conceived (Bukhari 59:8/Vol. 6, # 302). The Holy Qur’an also speaks of them in similar words: No soul knows what is hidden for it (32:17). These clear statements need no comment, and they establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that whatever blessings are spoken of as existing in paradise, the one thing sure about them is that they are not things of this world. Hence even the white-eyed, large-eyed ones, or the pure, beautiful ones, the hur ‘in, of this verse, are not actually the beautiful women of this life. These are heavenly blessings, which the righteous women shall have along with the righteous men, for v. 17 plainly says that those who keep their duty will find these blessings, and therefore the pure, beautiful ones are as much a blessing meant for the righteous women as for the righteous men.
The question may still be asked, why are these blessings described in words which apply to women? The fact is that the reward spoken of here is one having special reference to the purity of character and the beautiful deeds of the righteous, and it is womanhood, not manhood, that stands for a symbol of purity and beauty. (M. Ali explained Arabic terms and noted that) “this is another reason why the reward of good and pure deeds is spoken of in terms which apply to women. But note also that both hur (purity) and ‘in (beauty) are plurals of words applying to men as well as to women, as also to qualities and deeds.” (Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
Of the possibly tens of thousands of raisins I have so far seen, I have yet to see at least one with beautiful big lustrous eyes as the Qur’an details these hurs to have. (“Don’t laugh. Not excessively, anyway”).
Allah says that dutiful men shall be joined with hur–(Qur’an 52:20). Can you envision men joined with “raisins”? (“Don’t laugh. Not excessively, anyway”).
Allah says that these hurs, untouched by man or jinn, are confined to pavilions–(Qur’an 55:72-74). Have you ever heard of “raisins” being “untouched” by man or jinn and “confined” to pavilions? (“Don’t laugh. Not excessively, anyway”).
These hurs are likened unto hidden pearls–(Qur’an 56:22). Have you ever heard of “raisins” likened unto hidden pearls, even though it might have been a “pricey enough delicacies in seventh-century Arabia”? (“Don’t laugh. Not excessively, anyway”).
And the Prophet Muhammad, who is the foremost authority in explaining the Qur’an, said of these hurs–“Beautiful fair females”–that: “In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives….”–(Bokhari, Vol. 6, # 402). Wives not raisins. Have you ever heard of raisins being called “wives” even though it might have been a “pricey enough delicacies in seventh-century Ara-bia”? (“Don’t laugh. Not excessively, anyway”).
It is an astonishment of monumental proportion that a believer in Allah would rationalize that this infallible God, this Master Designer and Creator of all –from the gigantic orb to the minute atom– and Who instills laws for their precise operation, processes for their growth, and systems for their function is “mistaken” in his dictation of a word (hur), whereas a fallible mortal (whom He has created) is correct, or even “might” be correct, in interpreting this word. SUBHAAN ALLAAH!!!
The Arabic word for grapes, from which raisins are derived, is ‘anib, and the Arabic word for raisins, whether black or white or brown, cheap or “pricey” is zabeeb. Whether in sound or letters, ‘anib and zabeeb are apart from hur as the walls of the Grand Canyon are from each other so that the Qur’anic scholars should be mistaken in their translation.
Even without the above presentation, a few moments headwork would dictate that it is amusing to entertain that Allāh would try to attract man –especially the educated and the affluent– to trade their lives in His cause or to eschew evil with promises of “raisins,” be they “white,” black, or crimson –literal or metaphorical. And to know, Islam is the one said to be without “reason.”
(May be the reason why in these days there are no “white raisins” with “beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes,” is because those unique “white-raisins” plants eventually heard through the “grapevines” about the fig tree cursed to death by Jesus and they all died from “shock and awe”).
34. Satanic verses: “As an illiterate trader, Prophet Muhammad relied on scribes to jot down the words he heard from God. Sometimes the Prophet himself had an agonizing go at deciphering what he heard. That’s how a set of “satanic verses”–passages that deified heathen idols–reportedly passed muster with Muhammad and got recorded as authentic entries for the Koran. The Prophet later dropped those verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Yet, the fact that Muslim philosophers throughout the centuries have told this story speaks to age-old doubts about the Koran’s perfection. Now more than ever, we need to bring back the doubts.” (pp. 51-52). (Another classical example of the blind following the blind).
Response: If these verses are Satanic why are they still in the Qur’an? Why didn’t the Prophet expunge them?
In the Qur’an we are told about three deities of the Idolaters, Lat, Uzzat, and Manat–(Qur’an 53:19-21). These verses only recount the idolater’s belief in assigning female–which the pagan Arabs considered inferior–as symbols for God and males for themselves.
In verses 1-18, Allah, after assuring the idolaters that the Prophet does not err or go wrong and that he had seen of the “greatest sign of his Lord,” Allah, in verses 19-22 questioned the idolaters: “Have you then considered Lat and Uzzat? And another, the third, Manat? Are the males (which you consider superior) for you and for Him the females (which you consider inferior)? This indeed is an unjust division!”(Meaning, how could you assign things to yourself that you consider good and assign to God things that you consider inferior?” Even in their false worship they are unjust). These passages do not “deified heathen idols.” Muhammad Ali has noted:
“Verses 19-21 are made the basis of the false story of what is called the “Lapse of Muhammad” or “Compromise with idolatry” by Christian writers. Certain reports narrated by Waqidi and Tabri are the sole authority for this charge against that incessant preacher against idolatry, every incident of whose life condemns it as a bare falsehood. Muir asserts that “Pious Muhammadans of afterdays, scandalized at the lapse of their Prophet into so flagrant a concession, would reject the whole story,” as if the earlier Muslims were not as pious as the latter. The fact is that the story was quite unknown to the earlier Muslims. There is not a single trustworthy hadith that lends support to this story. Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who died as early as 151 A.H., does not mention the incident, while Muir’s earliest authority, Waqidi, was born more than forty years later. It is stated in the Bahrain that when questioned about it, Ibn Ishaq called it a fabrication of the zindeeqs. And the famous Bukhari, the most trustworthy authority on the sayings of the Holy Prophet, was Waqidi’s contemporary, and his collection of sayings contains no mention of the story. As regards Waqidi, all competent authorities entertain a very low opinion of his trustworthiness. The Mizan al-l’tidal, a critical work on the lives and characters of the reporters of Hadith, speaks of Waqidi as unreliable and even as a fabricator of reports. As regards Tabri, Muir himself represents him as guilty of “indiscriminate reception”. As against these two unreliable authorities, “those who reject this story are highly learned men” (Ruh al-Ma’ani). The six collections of reports known as the Sahih Sittah (or the Six Reliable Works) do not mention it at all, and contain instead a report which essentially contradicts the story of the so-called compromise. Internal evidence, too, is wholly against the story. We are told that instead of verse 21 [of ch. 53] the Prophet read the words: Tilk al-gharaniq al-‘ula wa inna shafa’atahunna la-turtaja, i.e. “These are exalted females whose intercession is to be sought.” But the insertion of these few words in a chapter which is wholly directed against idolatry is quite out of place: v. 23 condemns idols; v. 26 denies their intercession; v. 28 condemns the giving of names of female deities to angels, and so on. It is further asserted that 22:52 was revealed in connection with this change, but it should be noted that a period of at least eight years must have elapsed between the revelation of this verse and that of 22:52. Moreover, if the Prophet had made any such compromise, it could not have been a sudden event, and traces of it would have been met with in other chapters revealed about the same time. But a perusal of these shows clearly that the Qur’an’s condemnation of idolatry was never marked by the slightest change.” (Comm. # 2382).
And 22:52 of the Qur’an (mentioned above) reads: “And We never sent a messenger or a prophet before thee but when he desired, the devil made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the devil casts, then does Allah establish His messages. And Allah is Knowing, Wise.”
The verse refers to the devil interfering with the intentions of all messengers. It is not stated that it is revelation that is interfered with by the devil; only that when these messengers desired, perhaps an act, the devil dissuades them; at which time Allah instructs these messengers. In other words, as clearly stated in the verse, it is not revelation that the Devil interferes with; and only after Allāh negates the Devil’s suggestion to the messenger then He gives revelation to the messenger. Muhammad Ali comments:
“Some careless commentators mention here the false story relating to what the Christian critics call “the Lapse” of the Prophet. The Prophet, they say, on this occasion recognized that the idols worshipped by the Arabs could intercede with God on their behalf. That such a thing never happened is shown in 2382. This story has been rejected by all sound and reliable commentators. Thus Ibn Kathir says: “Many commentators relate here the story of the Gharaniq …. but it is from sources not traceable to any companion”. According to Rz, commentators who aim at accuracy and truth say that this story is false and a forgery. Bd makes similar remarks.
The words do not, and cannot, mean that when a prophet recites a revelation, the devil introduces his own words into his recitation. It is absurd on the face of it, and the Holy Qur’an belies it when it says: “He reveals not His secrets to any, except to him whom He chooses as a messenger; for surely He makes a guard to march before him and after him, so that He may know that they have truly delivered the messages of their Lord” (72:26-28). (See Yusuf Ali commentaries # 5751 and 5751-A). Moreover, it is absolutely inconceivable that such an important incident as the Prophet’s having accepted the intercession of idols should have been mentioned in the Qur’an eight years after it happened. The 53rd chapter, in which the change is said to have taken place, was revealed before the fifth year of the Prophet’s call, while this chapter was revealed on the eve of the Prophet’s departure from Makkah. That more than half the Qur’an should have been revealed during this long period without a single reference to the alleged story, and that it should then have been quite unnecessarily referred to in a surah where it is quite out of place, is alone sufficient to give the lie to this story.” (M. Ali, comm. #1701).
Regarding the Lat, Uzzat and Manat of Qur’an chapter 53, Ghulam Farid notes:
“It may be, as stated by Qastalani and Zurqani and supported by some other eminent scholars, that when the Holy Prophet, during the recital of the present Surah before a mixed assembly of Muslims and disbelievers, recited these verses, some evil-minded person from among the disbelievers might have loudly interjected the above-mentioned words, as was the disbelievers’ wont to create confusion by resorting to such low tactics when the Qur’an was being recited (41:27).”
And 41:27 of the Qur’an tells us: “And those who disbelieve say: Listen not to this Qur’an but make noise therein, perhaps you may overcome.”They create disturbance while the Qur’an is recited, to annoy/ frustrate the Muslims.
There are no “satanic verses” in the Qur’an!
35. Ijtihad: “One correspondent in particular shut me up and compelled me to contemplate. Dismayed by the “harrowing picture” of Islam that I’d painted, this Muslim taught me something constructive. Did I know about ijtihad?” (p. 55). (While one may paint a “harrowing picture” of Muslims, no one can paint a “harrowing picture” of Islam: in his/her effort, he or she would only be painting a “harrowing picture” of his/her ignorance of Islam).
(Muhammad Ali has dealt at length with this subject –Ijtihad– in his excellent work The Religion of Islam).
Ijtihad, “the third source from which the laws of Islam are drawn,” has its origin in the Qur’an itself, and in the Tradition of the Prophet. Allah calls on man in several places of the Qur’an to reflect, to understand, to be sensible. “Those who do not use their reasoning faculty are compared to animals, and spoken of as being deaf, dumb and blind”–(Qur’an 2:171; 7:179; 8:22); 25:44).” (The Religion Of Islam, p. 98).
“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.” (Ibid. p. 99).
(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 opin-ion 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.” (Ibid. p. 100).
The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said “The differences of my people are a mercy”–(J.S. p. 11).” (Ibid. p. 110). (Sadly, Muslims have denigrated this blessing into a curse– polarizing ourselves into sects, engaged in internecine wars, etc). Muhammad Ali notes:
“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)”
(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.” (Ibid. pp. 115-116).
Allah the Gracious revealed that He created everything in the heavens and the earth for our use (and whose subjection and utility can only be achieved through knowledge). And the Prophet Mohammad, the magnanimous, taught us, (quoting from memory): ‘The superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars.’
If Muslims are not illuminated by this brilliant flame from the mighty Messenger of Allāh to explore the expanse of reason and progress, no other human being can brighten the density of our minds.
36. Imperialist Islam: Irshad Manji writes about “imperialist” Islam. (p. 58).
Response: Islam is not “imperialism.” Islam is not for the conquest of lands or subjugation of people, or for exploiting their resource(s). Islam is for propagating the Qur’anic Message–(Qur’an 3:103; 9:122; 25:52; 50:45). Muslims do not have to conquer lands for Allah: the heavens and the earth and everything within belong to Allah. If the people of these lands accept Islam, this does not make Islam “imperialist”: Islam does not seek to usurp man’s lands or economy, which is the nature of Imperialism. Islam strives to free man from the blinkers of atheism, the irrationality of polytheism, and the degradation of idolatry.
If Islam was for the conquest of lands, Muslims would not have devoted all their effort to the pursuit of knowledge and science for the benefit all men and opened these doors of learning to students irrespective of race and religion and for free; they would have directed a portion, and probably a significant portion, of their endeavors to the development of devices of destruction and subjugation.
Allāh exhorting Muslims to have military preparedness–(Qur’an; 3:199; 8:60; and which Muslims have neglected to our detriment as is evident in Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc) is not for offense/aggression but for defence.
Islam which teaches that the Prophet’s “duty is only to deliver the message;” “There is no compulsion in religion,” “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?” “thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an,” “We have truly shown him (man) the way; he may be thankful or unthankful,” “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(Qur’an 3:20; 24:54; 2:256; 10:99-100; 50:45; 76:3; 16:125); could not be “imperialist.”
To read the entire Qur’an “metaphorically” is to be astray. Allah, the Revealer of the Qur’an, explains that some of its verses are literal and some are allegorical:“He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive –they are the basis of the Book–and others are allegorical…”–(Qur’an 3:6). Wonder how the Sufis apply prayer, charity, fasting, and hajj “metaphorically.”
That Muslims were/are “bludgeoning” Muslims is no licence for outsiders to ‘bludgeon’ Muslims; and to steal/occupy/usurp their lands. Two brothers or two sisters fighting do not give the outsider the right to steal the belongings of these brothers or sisters. This thief is to have his hand(s) chopped off.
The following are proofs that Islam promotes “rational thought” and of the “divine origins” of the Qur’an:
Scientific ideas in the Qur’an:
(Regarding certain verses on science of the Qur’an, Maurice Bucaille, the learned author of The Bible, The Qur’an and Science says: “It was not until much later, at a period not far from our own, that it was possible to translate and interpret them correctly. This implies that a thorough linguistic knowledge is not in itself sufficient to understand these verses from the Qur’an. What is needed along with this is a highly diversified knowledge of science.” (p.121).
1. Every living thing is made from water: (Qur’an 21:30). It is now known that water is the basic ingredient of all living things.
2. The various stages of the development of the fetus in the womb, and that we are covered in three layers of darkness in our mother’s womb: (Qur’an 22:5; 39:6). These three layers of darkness in which the fetus are enclosed are said to be the membrane in which the fetus is covered; the womb; and the mother’s abdomen.
3. In cattle milk is produced from between the food and blood: (Qur’an 16:66). The mammary glands receive milk “by the product of food digestion brought to them via the bloodstream.” “This very precise concept is the result of the discoveries made in the chemistry and physiology of the digestive system.”28
4. Bees make honey in their bellies; and that honey has healing properties: (Qur’an 16:68-69). The nectar collected by bees is converted to honey in “sacs” in their bodies. Honey is known to have healing properties and has been used in the treatment of minor wounds.
5. The sun and moon float in orbits: (Qur’an 21:33; 36:40). It is now generally known that the sun and moon travel a regular path. And that the moon orbits the earth.
6. The moon is a reflector of the sun’s light: (Qur’an 10:5; 25:61; 71:16) That the moon is not a source of light, but that it reflects the light of the sun, is now common knowledge.
7. There are particles smaller than the atom: (Qur’an 10:61) (Science now speaks about quarks and neutrinos, which are smaller than atoms. There may yet be smaller particles to discover).
8. Rain clouds are formed by wind collecting together vapors of water: (Qur’an 30:48; 35:9) Heat from the sun causes the water of the seas to evaporate. The water vapor rises and condenses and collects into clouds.
9. The universe was formed from gaseous matter: (Qur’an 41:11). “At the earliest time it can provide us with, modern science has every reason to maintain that the Universe was formed of a gaseous mass principally composed of hydrogen and a certain amount of helium that was slowly rotating.”29
10. Mountains are pegs/stabilizers for the earth: (Qur’an 16:15; 31:10) (The mountains mentioned here seem to refer to those at the time of creation, which were made to prevent vibrating of the earth).
11. Things created in pairs: (Qur’an 13:3; 51:49; 36:36).
12. Barrier between the salt water and sweet water of the two seas: (Qur’an 25:53; 55:19-20).
13. Expansion of the Universe: (Qur’an 51:47). “The expansion of the Universe is the most imposing discovery of modern science.”30
14. Space Travels: (Qur’an 15:14-15; 55:33). The Qur’an hints that man would travel to outer space.
15. There is more than one world: (Qur’an 1:1; 56:77-80). It is now believed that there is more than one world in the Universe.
16. Living-beings on other planets: (Qur’an 42:29). “Up to now it has been established by the scientists that inter-planetary space is permeated with stellar gases, sub-atomic particles and some forms of subtle matter. This seems to be the first step towards the acknowledgement of the truth expressed in the Holy Qur’an that there are creations of God present everywhere.”31
Mohammad could not have been the author of these scientific pronouncements.
As to the critic’s claim that these Qur’anic expressions are “putative:” it is the miracle of miracles that statements on science (and history–Pharaoh’s body saved, Roman victory over Persia, Alexander the Great, Jesus not killed/crucified) coming from the mouth of a Seventh Century unschooled desert dweller have proved accurate. (See Qur’an-science).
Events of the Doomsday in the Qur’an:
1. Sun will fold up: (Qur’an 81:1) As the sun burns itself out it “will swell up, turning into the sort of star that astronomers call a red giant”; and will end up as a “black dwarf star.”32
2. Stars will fall, become dust-colored (lose light): (Qur’an 81:2) As the sun collapses “The stars in the sky will go out one by one”. “Almost all the stars we now see would either be so dim as to be invisible or appear as faint points in a sea of blackness.”33
3. The heaven will look like molten copper; red hide: (Qur’an 70:6-8; 55:37, respectively). In its final “phase” of burning itself out, “the sun’s central temperature will have risen steadily towards a billion degrees.” 34 Thus under this tremendous heat of “a billion degrees” the heavens will likely appear as liquid metal –molten copper or red hide, as the Qur’an says.
4. Ocean will boil: (Qur’an 81:6; 82:3) As the sun burns itself out, it “will appear to fill half the sky. At that time, the oceans will boil and any life left here will perish,” says James Trefil, in his The Dark Side of the Universe, (p. 190). And, as the sun burns itself out it “may have become so distended that the inner planets will have been engulfed, the Earth’s atmosphere stripped away and the solid rocks melted or even vaporized,” says Paul Davies (God and the New Physics, p. 200).
5. Sun and Moon will join together: (Qur’an 75:8-9). “The phenomena of Moon joining the Sun was predicted by the Holy Qur’an in its verses 75(8-9), many centuries earlier than the scientific speculations of today,” says Bashir-Ud-Din Mahmood, “tidal forces keep the moon drifting away from the Earth. Its orbit is now becoming wider at the rate of about 3 cm a year. Eventually the Earth will not be able to hold the Moon, and then it will fall in the Sun.” “Thus science considers the Doomsday of the Earth as an accepted reality, though there are questions about the ways in which it will take place.” And, “As scientific knowledge builds up with rapid advancement in various fields, the extent of the wealth of knowledge contained in the Qur’an is dawning upon us.” (Doomsday and Life after Death, pp. 133, 134, 113; 19).
Prophecies in the Qur’an:
1. Victory at Badr: (Qur’an 3:12; 8:41; 54:45). In this prophecy of the battle of Badr, the followers of the Prophet who numbered only 313 men defeated over a thousand Makkan soldiers.
2. The Prophet (and Muslims) will be successful: (Qur’an 20:1-2). The success of the Prophet and of Muslims ruling the world is history.
3. Islam will prevail over all other religions: (Qur’an 9:33; 48:28; 61:9). (This does not mean that there will not be any other religion than Islam. Only that Islam will be the dominant religion). Allah says that He has chosen Islam as the religion for mankind. The first part of this prophecy has already been fulfilled–Arabia which was tribes of idolaters became an Islamic State.
4. Islam will reach remote corners of the earth; the kingdom of Islam will be established: (Qur’an 41:53; 24:55; 28:58). This is evident.
5. Pharaoh’s drowned body: (Qur’an 10:92). It was believed that the body of Ramses, the Pharaoh of Moses, had perished in the river when he drowned. But the Qur’an said that Allah saved him to be a sign for future generations. It was only about a hundred years ago that this Pharaoh’s body was discovered among the mummies of Egypt. Yet Allah revealed it to the Prophet Mohammad some two thousand years after Pharaoh’s drowning. And today, more than thirteen hundred years later, mankind has confirmed this truth of the Qur’an.
6. The Prophet will be brought back to Makkah: (Qur’an 14:14; 28:85; 57:10). (14:14a): “The prophecy of the final triumph of the Holy Prophet and of the utter discomfiture and overthrow of the power of his opponents is of very frequent occurrence in the Holy Qur’an; here, too, it is expressed in the clearest words. The opponents are told that they may expel the Prophet, but there was not the least doubt that he would ultimately come back as a conqueror, and be made the ruler in the land after their power was crushed. This verse contains, in fact, a very clear prophecy of the flight of the Holy Prophet from Makkah and of his re-entry into that city as a conqueror and ruler.”
(28:85a): “The word ma‘ad means the ultimate place of one’s returning (from ‘ada, meaning he returned) (LL). The word ma‘ad here has been taken to mean Makkah according to an interpretation given by I‘Ab, and T accepts this interpretation, because the conquest of it was promised to the Prophet, so that it was the place to which he would return. But Makkah is really called ma‘ad, or Place of Return, because the pilgrims return to it (LL). According to some this verse was revealed on the Prophet’s departure from Makkah, i.e., on his way to Madinah. It contains a clear promise of the Prophet being brought back to the city from which he was now being expelled.”
(57:10a): “By Victory here is meant the moral victory gained by the Hudaibiyah truce, or the conquest of Makkah, which made the Muslims virtually the masters of the whole of Arabia. The sacrifices made earlier had therefore a greater value on account of the trials which the Muslims had then to face.” (M. Ali).
7. The Qur’an will be free from corruption: (Qur’an 15:9; 56:77-78; 85:21-22). Fourteen hundred years later not one letter in the Qur’an has been changed.
8. Pilgrimage to Makkah: (Qur’an 22:27). This verse prophesies that people the world over will journey to Makkah. Today, Muslims, males and females, from around the world visit Makkah to perform the Hajj.
9. Victory for Romans/Believers at Badr: (Qur’an 30:1-4; 52:46; 54:45). This prophecy was made in the year 616. It is now a fact of history that the hostilities between the Romans and Persians ended with the Romans being victorious in 624.
10. Defeat of the Allies: -(Qur’an 33:22; 38:11). This is known as the Battle of the Allies. In which the powerful Makkan tribes allied themselves against the Prophet at Madinah. The result was the defeat of the Makkans.
11. Drought upon the disbelievers: -(Qur’an 44:10) (While this seems more of a miracle) this drought was brought upon the Quraish, in answer to the prayer of the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol; 6 # 297).
12. Jesus was not killed/crucified; son of God is paganism: (Qur’an 4:157; 9:30). (While these are not prophecies) there is evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross; and research has proven that son of God was pagan belief.
13. A speedy victory for Believers: (Qur’an 61:13). Muslims were victorious in the battles over the disbelievers.
14. Allah orders affairs, ascend to Him in a day: (Qur’an 32:5) Muhammad Ali explains: Al-Amr or the Affair is the Affair of Islam, and its ordering or regulation from heaven to earth means that it comes from heaven and will be established firmly on earth. Then we are told that it will ascend to God in a day, the measure of which is a thousand years according to human reckoning, which means that it will receive a set-back for a thou-sand years. As regards the period of its firmness, we are told in a hãdith that it will retain its purity for three centuries: “The best of the generations is my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them, then after them will come people who will pride themselves in abundance of wealth and love plumpness” (Tr. 31:39). According to another hãdith: “There will come a people in which there is no good” (KU. VI, 2068). The words of another are: “A crooked way — they are not of me nor am I of them” (KU. VI, 2073). That there is a prophecy here is shown by the next verse, which says, Such is the Knower of the unseen and the seen. Thus we have here a prophecy relating to the future of Islam. This prophecy was made known at a time when there was not the least indication that Islam would be established in the earth; it was the middle of the Makkan period, when the cause of Islam was utterly hopeless. At that time the Prophet was told that Islam would be firmly established at first. That the cause would go on advancing for three centuries is made clear by the Prophet’s saying. After that the cause of Islam would be chequered and it would have its set-backs, which would continue for a thousand years. The limi-tation of the period of chequering shows clearly that, after that, the advancement of Islam will again be as unhampered as it was in its early stages in the time of the Prophet and after him.”
15. Allah’s Light will be perfected: (Qur’an 9:32; 61:8) Despite the opposition to the Prophet Mohammad, Islam became dominant, and will prevail the world over.
16. Decline and rise of Islam: (Qur’an 57:16 (22). Muhammad Ali notes: Commenting on this verse, IJ quotes an earlier authority to the effect that the first thing that will be taken away from the people is khushu‘ or humbleness of heart. It is clear that this verse speaks of the Muslims of a later age, for it compares their case to those who were given the scriptures before them and then a long time having passed over them, their hearts hardened. It is therefore the later generations of the Muslims that are addressed in these words. They are reminded that after the passing of a long time, they will fall off from the high standard of the earlier generations, and their hearts will be hardened like the hearts of the earlier people.”
(Verse 22). “The book here means Divine knowledge. Disaster is here spoken of as befalling in the earth or in yourselves, i.e., it either affects the people of the world generally or the Muslims in particular. Dailami records a report from the Prophet: “A door of disasters will be opened for my community (ummah) in the latter days, which you will be unable to close, unless you meet the situation with this verse”. And then the Prophet recited this verse. In view of what has already been stated in verse 16, relating to the lapse of a long time and the hardening of the hearts of the Muslims, it is easy to see that the disasters which are predicted as befalling the Muslims in the latter days are due to their own falling off from the high standard of life which they were required to follow, and hence the remedy suggested is again the making of sacrifices as pointed out in v. 18. The great World-wars, which have brought the heaviest disasters on humanity in general, and the disasters of the Muslims in particular, are all spoken of in the Hadith, which it is difficult to quote in a footnote.”
(It is worth noting here regarding Qur’an 85:21-22 in which Allāh reveals that the Qur’an is “In a guarded tablet,” M. Ali comments that : “The lauh, or tablet, occurring here, is the same as the alwah (singular, lauh), or tablets, occurring regarding the book given to Moses (7:145, 150, 154). The Qur’an is here spoken of as being in a guarded tablet. The significance of these words is simply this, that the Holy Qur’an is guarded against corruption and against the attacks of its opponents; compare 15:9: “Surely We have revealed the Reminder and surely We are its Guardian”. There is no mention here or anywhere else in the Qur’an of the lauh mahfuz on which the decrees of God are written; but even if the reference here be to it, the significance is still the same, viz., that the Qur’an shall be fully guarded — This is a glorious Qur’an, protected against change and alteration (Rz).”
The Bible teaches that God is responsible for evil deeds as well as good ones: “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven”–(John 3:27); and that our deeds are recorded in a book: “And I saw the dead…stand before God; and the books were opened…and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works;” and “were judged every man according to their works–(Rev. 20:12-13).
There is fatalism/predestination in Christianity. That man is born with sin condemns the unbaptized and the still-born to eternal perdition, and must be buried in unconsecrated grounds. That inherited sin is washed away by sprinkling water on the new-born is charm. Even superstition).
17. Scribes (of Qur’an) will be honorable men: (Qur’an 80:13-16). “Vv. 15 and 16 clearly state that the scribes of the Qur’an will be virtuous men, who will be honoured in the world. Not only was this true of men like Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali, who were among the first scribes of the Holy Qur’an, but even in its later history great rulers of empires earned their livelihood by writing copies of the Holy Qur’an”–(M. Ali).
18. Muslims will inherit land/establish Religion: (Qur’an 24:55; 70:40-41) M. Ali comments on theses verses–(24:55): “This verse not only prophesies the establishment of the kingdom of Islam, but also its permanence, so that successors will be raised to the Holy Prophet and the Muslims made a ruling nation on earth. By those before them are meant in particular the followers of Moses (Bd). Islam at the time of the revelation of these verses was still surrounded by enemies on all sides; there was still fear for the believers, as the verse clearly shows, and idol-worship still had the upper hand in Arabia. The triumph of Islam, which is prophesied in the parable of the Divine Light first, and the gradual advent of which is referred to afterwards, is here predicted in the clearest and most emphatic terms: the believers will be made rulers in the earth; their religion will be firmly established; security will be given to them in place of fear; Divine Unity will rule supreme. All these favours will be bestowed upon the Muslims, for which they should be thankful; but, if they are ungrateful after that, they shall be dealt with as transgressors. Kafara means he disbelieved as well as he was ungrateful, and the latter significance suits the context here. Even if kufr is taken as meaning disbelief here, it would mean a denial in practice, or disobedience to Divine commandments.
Though the promise contained in this verse refers clearly to the establishment of the kingdom of Islam and to the Muslims being made successors to the Israelites as regards the promised Holy Land, there is also a reference here to the Divine promise to raise reformers among the Muslims as prophets were raised among the Israelites. Such is the clear promise contained in a saying of the Holy Prophet: “Surely Allāh will raise up for this people (i.e., the Muslims) in the beginning of every century one who will revive for it its religion” (A.D. 36:1). The promise given in the verse may therefore refer not only to the temporal successors of the Holy Prophet, but also to his spiritual successors or reformers.”
(Qur’an 70:40-41) “Note the clear prophecy that an evil generation will be brought to naught and another people, the righteous, shall inherit the land. The old order will be changed and a new order established instead of that.”
19. Mohammad to abide in land: (Qur’an 14:14) “The prophecy of the final triumph of the Holy Prophet and of the utter discomfiture and overthrow of the power of his opponents is of very frequent occurrence in the Holy Qur’an; here, too, it is expressed in the clearest words. The opponents are told that they may expel the Prophet, but there was not the least doubt that he would ultimately come back as a conqueror, and be made the ruler in the land after their power was crushed. This verse contains, in fact, a very clear prophecy of the flight of the Holy Prophet from Makkah and of his re-entry into that city as a conqueror and ruler”–(M. Ali).
20. Muslims shall be made guardians of the Ka’ba: (Qur’an 8:34; 22:25). “(8:34) The disbelievers are here declared not to be the true guardians of the Sacred Mosque, because while that Mosque was an emblem of the Unity of the Divine Being, its name having been clearly associated with monotheism since the time of Abraham, the disbelievers who now posed as its guardians were idolaters. So they are told that they are unfit to hold its guardianship, which would henceforth be made over to a people who keep their duty, i.e. the Muslims. The words contain a prophecy not only as to the deprivation of the disbelieving Quraish of the guardianship of the Ka‘bah, but also as to the passing of the guardianship into the hands of the Muslims.”
“(22:25) Or, ‘åkif may signify the dweller in Makkah, and båd, the dweller in the desert, or the two may respectively signify one who dwells in it constantly and one who comes to it occasionally. The disbelievers, being then in possession of the Sacred Mosque, prevented the Muslims from using it. They are told that this state of things will be brought to an end, for it must be open to all visitors, and that could only be brought about by the Muslims being made masters of it”–(M. Ali).
21. Muslims shall be made eminent: (Qur’an 2:152). “The opening words of the verse fa-dhkuru-ni adhkur-kum may be translated either as remember Me I will remember you or as glorify Me I will make you eminent, for the word dhikr carries either significance, remembrance or honouring. Adopting either significance, what is stated here is that if the Muslims keep God in the forefront of their programme, they will be made great as a nation.” (M. Ali).
22. Muslims shall be masters of the Holy Land: (Qur’an 21:105). “The Qur’an had repeatedly warned the disbelievers that Islam would be made triumphant in the land, and the righteous servants who were made to suffer persecution would one day be masters of the land. The words also contain a prophecy of the possession of the Holy Land by the Muslims, which was fulfilled in the caliphate of ‘Umar. Compare Ps. 37:29. But as already noted, it is of the whole world that the Qur’an is speaking and we are here told that Truth will ultimately triumph in the whole world, which would thus be inherited by the righteous. This is made clear in v. 107.” (M. Ali).
23. Muslims shall be made rulers on earth: (Qur’an 24:55; 27:62) (27:62a). “The manifestation of the marvellous power of God in nature, the creation of the heavens and the earth, the sending down of rain, the making of rivers and mountains — all these wonderful signs of the existence of the Great Creator are here followed by another equally wonderful sign of the existence of God, the manifestation of His marvellous power in man. But mark the contrast. This manifestation of the existence of God is not to be sought in the greatness and power of man as the conqueror of the forces of nature, but in his weakness in his great distress when, unable to find help from any source, he throws himself on the Divine threshold and seeks help from God. We are thus told that the manifestation of God’s great power in the mighty forces of nature is as clear an indication of the existence of God as the manifestation of His power in a weak mortal who finds himself in extreme distress. But what is more, this manifestation of God’s power is beautifully mingled with prophecy — and He will make you successors in the earth. The distressed ones here are no other than the Muslims, who were being cruelly persecuted and tortured, and they are told that the manifestation of God’s power in making them rulers of the earth would be as great as it was in His creation of the heavens and the earth. This also shows the purpose underlying the narration of the histories of David and Solomon.” (M. Ali). (See also prophecy # 18).
24. Muslims shall make conquests outside of Arabia: (Qur’an 33:27) “The land which you have not yet trodden refers to the foreign lands which are here promised to the Muslims and which they conquered later.”(M. Ali)
25. Muslims shall triumph at Makkah: (Qur’an 2:196; 17:76; 17:81; 90:2). (196a): “Apparently a new subject, the subject of pilgrimage is introduced here, but it would be seen that the Holy Qur’an has generally linked up the two subjects of war and pilgrimage. The reason is that the Muslims were free at Madinah to perform all the religious ordinances required by Islam, but they were not free to perform the pilgrimage, their Spiritual Centre, Makkah, being in the possession of their enemies who were at war with them.
Hajj and ‘umrah, the latter of which is generally translated as the minor pilgrimage, but which may more correctly be rendered as the visit, differ slightly. The ‘umrah may be performed at any time, whilst the hajj or the pilgrimage proper can only be performed at a particular time. Of the ceremonies connected with pilgrimage proper, the staying on the plain of ‘Arafat is dispensed with in the case of the ‘umrah. Thus the principal require-ments of ‘umrah are ihram, making circuits round the Ka‘bah and running between the Safa and the Marwah. The pilgrimage in fact represents the last stage in the progress of the spiritual pilgrim. Of the principal requirements of the pilgrimage, the first, or ihram, represents the severance of all worldly connections for the love of God. All costly dresses in which the inner self is so often mistaken for the outward appearance, are cast off, and the pilgrim has only two seamless wrappers to cover himself. The other important requirement is making circuits round the Ka‘bah, called tawaf, and running between the Safa and the Marwah, called sa‘y, and both these are external manifestations of that fire of Divine love which has been kindled within the heart, so that like the true lover, the pilgrim makes circuits round the house of his beloved One. He shows in fact that he has completely surrendered himself to his beloved Master, and sacrificed all his interests for His sake.”
(17:76a): “When the opponents failed to make the Prophet swerve from the path of Truth, they planned to expel him from the land, though they were told before-hand that in that case they themselves would not retain power but for a short time. It was only eight years after the Hijrah that the Prophet entered Makkah as a conqueror.”
(17:81a): “The advent of the Prophet is here spoken of as the advent of the Truth, in reference to the prophecy in John 16:13 as to the coming of the “Spirit of truth” to guide men into all truth: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come.” The vanishing of falsehood is here spoken of in the past tense to indicate the certainty of its occurrence. Falsehood finally disappeared from Makkah when the Prophet entered it as a conqueror, and as the House of the Holy One was cleared of the idols, the Prophet recited this verse, The Truth has come and falsehood vanished (B. 46:32), thus showing that he understood it to contain the prophecy of the conquest of Makkah.
According to another report, he also recited on this occasion 34:49: “Truth has come, and falsehood neither originates, nor reproduces,” showing that idol-worship was being swept away from Arabia forever. The statement made here, however, is general and it means that falsehood cannot stand before Truth and that Truth must finally prevail in the whole world, as it prevailed in Arabia in the lifetime of the Prophet.”
(90:2a): “The words are parenthetical. Hill is an infinitive noun, and signifies the same as halal, meaning in a state which is the opposite of haram, and hence it signifies free from obligation or responsibility with respect to a thing. English translators have generally adopted a different translation: And thou a dweller in this land (Palmer); and thou residest in this territory (Sale); the soil on which thou dost dwell (Rodwell); which is wrong, because halla, as meaning nazala, i.e., he alighted, or abode, or lodged in a place, has its infinitive hulul or hull (LL) and not ill, which is the word occurring here. Some commentators have also been led into this error. The significance which I adopt is in accordance with the true significance of the word hill, for you say anta fi hill-in min kadha, meaning thou art free from obligation or responsibility with respect to such a thing. The statement in this case is prophetical, indicating that the Prophet would be made free from obligation in respect to the sacredness of the territory of Makkah, being allowed to enter it by force.” (M. Ali).
26. Makkah shall be the Muslim centre: (Qur’an 22:27). (22:27a). “The words are addressed to the Holy Prophet, and contain a mighty prophecy that Makkah will become the centre to which men will come for pilgrimage. It was announced just at the time when the Holy Prophet was being driven away from Makkah by his enemies, who were the sole masters of the place. Just when Makkah seemed to have lost every chance of becoming a Muslim centre, and when the Muslims themselves were in danger of being entirely destroyed, a mighty prophecy is announced in the most forcible words that Islam will spread to all countries of the world, and Makkah will become the universal centre to which pilgrims from all nations will resort.”
(22:27b). “The lean camel is particularly mentioned here to indicate the great distances from which the pilgrims would come. The addition of the words from every remote path shows that people will come from the remotest parts of the earth.” (M. Ali).
27. Makkah will be made a place of security: (Qur’an 28:57). “The verse speaks first of the unfounded fears of those who thought that the weakness of the Muslims would result in the seizure, death, or expulsion of those who accepted the faith of Islam. In reply they are told that the prophecies which declare Makkah to be a safe and sacred territory, to which people will flock in all ages, must come to fulfillment, and Makkah will ultimately be theirs for whose sake these prophecies were uttered.” (M. Ali).
28. Makkah to be made the universal spiritual centre: (Qur’an 6:93). (6:92a). “Umm al-Qura, lit., the mother of the towns, is the title by which Makkah is known. The reason why Makkah is called umm al-qura is not only that it was both the political and the spiritual centre of Arabia, but also because it was destined to be the universal spiritual centre — the real mother of the whole world.” (M. Ali).
29. Supremacy of Muslims over disbelievers: (Qur’an 83:34-35). “The laughing of the believers is not to be taken literally. The word dabikah, which literally means laughing, also occurs elsewhere regarding the faces of the righteous (80:39), and signifies only the brightness of hope in their faces. The laughing in this case simply expresses a condition of joy which should make one laugh. The reversal of the condition of the believers and the disbelievers is all that is meant.” (M. Ali).
30. Three prophecies relating to the future of Makkah: (Qur’an 3:96). “Bakkah is the same as Makkah (R) from tabåkk meaning the crowding together of men (Rz). Others say it is from a root meaning the breaking of the neck, and the name is given to it because whenever a tyrant forced his way to it, his neck was broken (Rz). Some think that Bakkah is the name of the mosque or the House itself that is in Makkah. The Jews and the Christians are told that the Temple at Jerusalem was erected long after Abraham, while the Holy House at Makkah was there even before Abraham, and was, in fact, the first House on earth for the worship of the Divine Being. The subject has been fully discussed in 2:125a.”
“If, on the one hand, Makkah is declared to be the first House raised on earth for the worship of the Divine Being, it is, on the other, announced to be mubårak, which word, though ordinarily rendered as blessed, signifies the continuance for ever of the blessings which a thing possesses, or that from which extensive good flows (LA).
Thus Makkah is the first spiritual centre that was appointed for men, and it is the ultimate spiritual centre for the whole of humanity.” (M. Ali). (Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
Further, as Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din noted:
“(e) The art of navigation was discovered and brought to a high pitch of perfection by early Muslims. Though everyone before Islam knew well enough that the blowing of the winds did aid the course of the ship on the sea, the Qur’an disclosed a wonderful truth, so helpful to navigation that the winds might be made subservient to human will, and the mighty ocean itself would become the servant of man as soon as he acquired proper knowledge (Qur’an 14:32-33)
(f) The world knew something of the heavens in early days, but the Qur’an increased immensely our knowledge of the subject. It inspired the early Muslims to rescue astronomy from the clutches of astrology and place it strictly on a scientific basis (Q; 36:38), leading to many valuable discoveries. The Qur’an not only asserted that the luminaries moved in their respective orbits but it revealed that each orbit or sphere consisted of a sort of liquid matter in which it floated (Q; 36:40): this again is a recent discovery.
(g) No one knew of the roundness of the earth in pre-Islamic days, but the Qur’an clearly hints at this when it speaks of numberless Easts and Wests (70:40). ……if the earth be round, every inch of it is a new East and a new West. If, for instance, “B” is distant two hundred miles from “A” which, let us suppose, is situated to the West of “A”, the sun will rise there some three minutes before it will rise at “B”. Similarly, it will set at “B” three minutes after it has set at “A”. If, therefore, we take two places on the hemisphere two hundred miles apart as rising and setting places for the sun, there will be thousands of Easts and Wests on the earth, thus confirming the truth of the Qur’an.”35
Clearly, the above prophecies and scientific truths are proofs that the Qur’an could not have been the work of man, but was revealed by the All-knowing God, Allah.
Al-Mamun may be forgiven for his doubts about the Divine origins of the Qur’an; as he is not around to know about the scientific statements of the Qur’an that has been realized by modern science (though he should have known about the prophecies that were fulfilled); but what about modern man who is aware of these truths in the Qur’an and yet choose to doubt the Divine origin of the Qur’an?
39. Shari’ah: “Having been told that the Sharia represents Islamic ideals, most Muslims assume it’s holy. Hooey. “[T]he bulk of the shari’ah,” writes reform advocate Ziauddun Sardar, “is nothing more than the legal opinion of classical jurists”–in other words, those belonging to the four schools of Sunni thought). (p. 66).
Response: Qur’anic precepts are applicable to all situations and for all times.
There is much confusion among people –Muslims and non-Muslims– as to the verdict of Shari’ah regarding adultery, dishonor, apostasy, blasphemy and homosexuality. Some arguing, and citing hadith, that Islam requires the penalty of death for these infractions.
What is to be kept in focus is that the Qur’an was revealed over a period of twenty-three years. The question is: was the “death” penalty for such infractions given before or after Divine Qur’anic Revelation on the subject?
As the Prophet Mohammad could not change a practice of society until and unless he received Divine Revelation in the matter, the Prophet followed the teachings of the Bible, which requires death to the adulterer, the unchaste bride, the apostate the blasphemer, and the homosexuals:
(Apostasy): Those who “secretly” entice another to follow an unknown God are to be stoned to death–(Deut. 13:5-16; 17:2-5).
- A “stubborn and rebellious son” is to be stoned to death–(Deut. 21:18-21).
- (Honor killings): Married damsel without the “token of virginity” is to be stoned to death: “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”–(Deut. 22:20-21).
- A virginal damsel who lies with a man other than her “betrothed,” both are to be stoned to death–(Deut. 22:23-24).
- A witch is to be put to death–(Exodus 22:18).
- Who curses his father or mother is to be put to death –(Lev. 20:9).
- Punishment for adultery is death–(Lev. 20:10-12; Deut. 22:22).
- Homosexuals are to be put to death–(Lev. 20:13).
- A man who takes a “wife and her mother,” both shall be burnt with fire–(Lev. 20:14).
- Who commits bestiality are to be put to death–(Lev. 20:15-16).
- (Blasphemy): “And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed….And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying…let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.…And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.” “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses”–(Lev. 24:11-16, 23).
- The adulteress is to be stoned–(John 8:3-5).
The Prophet’s practice of following these Biblical laws was annulled by subsequent Qur’anic revelations. These are some of the Biblical laws that the Qur’an has abrogated–(Qur’an 2:106; 16:101). The Prophet taught according to the Qur’an–Qur’an 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4.
-There is no stoning in the Qur’an–(Qur’an 24:2; 4:25. Stoning to death “could not be halved;” but flogging can be “halved”)
-There is no honor killing in the Qur’an–(Qur’an 24:3. Adulterers/fornicators could not be left to have sex or to marry their kind if Islam had required honor killings).
-There is no death to apostates in the Qur’an–(Qur’an 2:217; 3:85; 4:137; 16:106. If apostates were to be killed there would be no question of them “believing” then “disbelieving” then “believing again”).
-There is no death to blasphemers in the Qur’an–(Qur’an 3:185; 4:140; 5:75, 76; 6:68, 109; 9:61; 33:57. There is no order to kill).
-There is no death for homosexuals in the Qur’an–(Qur’an 4:16. Lesbians are to be imprisoned–Qur’an 4:15. Lesbians receive a harsher penalty because a woman’s/mother’s conduct impacts more on society/ family than a man’s. Islam honors womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise; correspondingly, her responsibility is greater. (For details see Islam-apostasy; Islam-blasphemy; Islam-honor killing; Islam-stoning).
Perhaps it is because of his earlier practice of following the Biblical laws that were later abrogated by Qur’anic revelations–as well as a guard against sayings forged in his name, and which forgeries were done even in his lifetime*–that the Prophet is reported to have instructed that whatever saying of his contradicts with the Qur’an, to discard his saying and follow the Qur’an.
As Shari’ah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah–sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammad–and as the Sunnah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an, and as there is no discrimination in the Qur’an whatever in Shari’ah that is the opinion of the Jurist(s) that discriminates is to be removed.
*(Nahjul Balagha, Sermon #215. The Caliph, Hazrat ‘Ali, 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.”
Hazrat Ali also made a very interesting statement, he said: “Orders of our Holy prophet (AS) are of two kinds. Some are meant for special persons while others are for all Muslims and for all times.
There were many persons who could not fully understand the significance of what the prophet had said. They could remember all right, but could not grasp the true relevance of these traditions and began interpreting them as they desired.”
And Bokhari records the Prophet as saying: “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire”–(Vol. 1; #106-109; Vol. 4; # 667).
40. Dhimmitude and Jizya: “There’s an Egyptian-born European scholar who dumps cold water on any dreamy view of how Muslims have historically dealt with the “other.” Bat Ye’or is her name. Actually, it’s her pseudonym, adopted because what she argues drives a lot of Muslims into fits of fury. Ye’or coined the word “dhimmitude” to describe Islam’s ideology of wholesale discrimination against Jews and Christians. Why “dhimmitude”? It comes from al-dhimma, the Arabic term for those groups–our fellow Peoples of the Book–who are entitled to protection in Muslim societies. (All peoples in Muslim societies are entitled to protection).
Protection? Let’s home in on the premise behind this principle. Why would Jews and Christians need special protection if they’re kindred People of the Book, deserving of rights and responsibilities equal to those of Muslims?….An illustration: Under Muslim rule, Jews and Christians have historically bought their protection –in essence, paid for their lives– by handing over a poll tax. It’s known as the jizya, and the Koran permits this tax in order to maintain the general peace. Not exactly a dignity-stoking practice, is it? Yes, Prophet Muhammad proved you can exercise free will here. When the general peace didn’t appear to be jeopardized, he didn’t impose the jizya. Still, the sheer option to levy such a tax screams “blackmail” to me.” (pp. 67-68). (While Muslims may be guilty of discrimination, to say that Islam discriminates against Jews and Christians or any other people is to say that Allah discriminates against His own creation. This is blasphemy. This charge has already been dealt with).
Dhimmis, Jizya, Muslims and non-Muslims:Jizya is not a religious tax. Tributes and taxes were in vogue long before the advent of Islam, and are levied even today. And they have nothing to do with religion. The Muslim states also require finances for their operation. Able-bodied non-Muslims pay the jizya in lieu of military service–the annual charge of “half a guinea or a dinar” is certainly a cheap cost for being exempt from military service and enjoying the benefits of a country. Muslims not only had to do military service but paid zakaat, a greater tax. Jizyah is mentioned in only one place in the Qur’an–(Qur’an 9:29). Muhammad Ali on jizyah, from his The Religion of Islam:
“All that happened in the time of the Prophet was that certain small non-Muslim states were, when subjugated, given the right to administer their own affairs, but only if they would pay a small sum by way of tribute towards the maintenance of the central government at Madinah. It was an act of great magnanimity on the part of the Prophet to confer complete autonomy on a people after conquering them, and a paltry sum of tribute (jizyah) in such conditions was not hardship but a boon. There was no military occupation of their territories, no interference at all with their administration, their laws, their customs and usages, or their religion; and, for the tribute paid, the Muslim state undertook the responsibility protecting these small states against all enemies. In the later conquests of Islam, while it became necessary for the Muslims to establish their own administration in the conquered territories, there was still as little interference with the usages and religion of the conquered people as was possible, and for enjoying complete protection and the benefits of a settled rule they had to pay a very mild tax, the jizyah.” (pp. 560-561).
(Jizya) “was a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects under the rule of Islam, so called because it was a tax for the protection of life and property which that rule guaranteed them. Muslim subjects were exempt from this tax in consideration of military service, which for them was compulsory. As a matter of fact, they too were made to pay for that protection, but in different form. They bore the hardships of a military life, they fought the country’s battles, they laid down their lives in defence of the country. Non-Muslims were exempt from all this, and in lieu of this they contributed their share in the shape of money. It is obvious which of the two alternatives is the easier. In countries where conscription is the law today, there would certainly be many who would be glad to buy their exemption from military service so cheaply, paying a small amount as tax. It must be remembered, furthermore, that the tax was not indiscriminately charged to every non-Muslim subject. Males under twenty and above fifty, all females, those suffering from some chronic disease, the blind and the poor were all exempt. As a matter of fact, the Muslims had also to pay a tax in addition under the name of zakaat, and this was much heavier than jizyah as it was levied at the rate of 2 1/2 percent, on all savings annually.”36
Payment of “half a guinea or a dinar a year” is a cheap price than suffering the hardship of military life and for putting one’s life on the line for the welfare of the country. Muhammad Ali notes:
“…jizyah, which was originally a tribute paid by a subject state, took the form of a poll-tax later on in the time of ‘Umar; and the word was also applied to the land-tax which was levied on Muslim owners of agricultural land. The jurists, however, made a distinction between the poll-tax and the land tax by giving the name of kharaj to the latter. Both together formed one of the two chief sources of the revenue of the Muslim state, the zakat paid by the Muslims being the other source.”37
Thus, Muslims also had to pay not only kharaj but zakat as well, (and do military service). This disparity clearly shows that there is no basis that the kharaj and jizya are discriminatory taxes.
All governments levy taxes to raise revenues. If Muslim rulers of later times discriminated against non-Muslim subjects Islam is not to be blamed for this. Islam forbids discrimination. Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Early Caliphate that when a Muslim government could no longer provide the protection for which jizya was taken, this amount was returned to the people. He gave the example of Abu ‘Ubaidah when he
“gave up his position at Hims and returned towards Damascus. On leaving Hims, however, he ordered that the whole amount of jizyah realised from the people of Hims should be returned to them. Jizyah, he said, was a tax in return for protection. When they could no longer give that protection, they had no right to keep the money. The whole amount was consequently withdrawn from the treasury and made over to the people …who were all either Christians or Jews. In vain will the critic ransack the dusty pages of history for another such brilliant spot, such scrupulous regard for the rights of citizenship in time of war. The treatment by Muslims of the inhabitants was such that, at their departure, Christians as well as Jews actually shed tears and prayed God to bring them back. 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]).”” (p. 86).
Muhammad Ali notes that during the reign of ‘Umar when the whole of Persia “came completely under the rule of Islam” that while “jizya was imposed in some parts, there were other adjacent parts where the people neither embraced Islam nor paid jizya. They only agreed to render military assistance in time of need.” “In affairs of state, non-Muslims were duly consulted.” ‘Umar also ordered “that old-age pensions must be granted to all the old people among non-Muslim subjects, who must also be exempt from jizya. Poor-houses for the weak and the disabled were open to Christians just as to Muslims.” (Ibid. pp. 101, 118, resp.) To say that jizya is a “discriminatory” tax is, in the words of Muhammad Ali, “to betray ignorance.”
Dhimmi does not refer to Jews and Christians only, but to all non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Again, Muhammad Ali:
“The very name ahl al-dhimmah (lit., people under protection) given to the non-Muslim subjects of a Muslims state, or to a non-Muslim state under the protection of Muslim rule, shows that the jizyah was paid as a compensation for the protection afforded; in other words, it was a contribution of the non-Muslim towards the military organisation of the Muslim state. There are cases on record in which the Muslim state returned the jizyah, when it was unable to afford protection to the people under its care.”
“The following classes were exempt from jizyah: all females, males who had not attained majority, old people, people whom disease had crippled (zamin), the paralyzed, the blind, the poor (faqir) who could not work for themselves (ghair mu’tamil) the slaves, slaves who were working for their freedom (mudbir) and the monks…..”
“Caliph ‘Umar once saw a blind Dhimmi (non-Muslim) begging, and finding on enquiry that he had to pay jizyah, he not only exempted him but, in addition, ordered that he paid a stipend from the state-treasury, issuing further orders at the same time that all Dhimmis in similar circumstances should be paid stipends.”(pp. 561, 562, 564).
Contrary to the charge of it being “discrimination,” facts reveal that Jews and other non-Muslims benefited tremendously under Muslim’s “dhimmitude.”
Prevailing social conditions have nothing to do with jizya. As noted, Jizya was a tax in lieu of military service. Prophet Mohammad did not impose the jizya, Allah did. To charge that jizya is “blackmail” is to accuse Allah as being guilty of “blackmail.” This is blasphemy!
(Those who are jaundiced against jizya and “dhimmitude” must turn their sights to the Biblical Fathers and the Defenders of the Faith–David and Joshua and the Christian conquerors of Jerusalem and Spain–whose victims were shrouded in blood, expelled or forced to convert. Not to mention the 800-year Inquisitions–Medieval, Roman and Spanish–from 1000-1834. Praise be to Islam’s mercy and tolerance– to jizyah and “dhimmitude”!) (See Bat Ye’or-Eurabia & Muslims).
41. Mohammad and the Jews of Khaybar: “Consider the terms that Muhammad reportedly dictated to a group of Jewish peasants after his soldiers looted their oasis at Khaybar, north of Medina. She (Bat Ye’or) writes, “The Prophet allowed the Jews to farm their lands, but only as tenants; he demanded delivery of half their harvest and reserved the right to drive them out when he wished.” (Palestinians are being kicked off their lands without receiving even a quarter of their crops; and they are not guilty of treachery or of any transgression). I’m not trying to pick on the Prophet; it’s just that his conduct would have set the tone for real-politik in Islam. (Do, pick on him. I would love to feast on your pickings).
To be fair, other historians suggest that Muhammad showed an abiding admiration of his Jewish neighbors. He urged Muslims to join the fast that Jews performed on their day of atonement. He designated Friday, the start of the Jewish Sabbath, as the time for Muslim communal prayers. And he picked Jerusalem, not Mecca, as the original direction of prayer. Lovely gestures. But we have to confront this question: Is it possible that these were only gestures, offered up by an excellent politician, and that over -emphasizing them distracts us from the malignant underside of Islam?” (pp. 68-69).
Response:
Jews of Khaybar: Muslims did not “loot” from the Jews. These farms were the spoils of war. These “peasants” were also enemies of war. Like the previous Jewish tribes–Quraizah, Nadir and Qaynuqa, who proved treacherous and were vanquished by the Prophet–the Jews of Khaybar were also inimical towards the Prophet. They “were anxious for an opportunity to take revenge upon” the Prophet; “their enmity and bitterness surpassed that of the Quraysh,” as noted by Haykal. After intense fighting, the Muslim’s triumphed over the Jews. In despair, the Jews “begged for peace.” The Prophet “accepted their plea and permitted them to stay on their land whose title now passed to him by right of conquest.”
The Jews were allowed to farm the land. Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes: ‘Abdullah ibn Rawahah, Muhammad’s deputy for the division of the Khaybar crops, dealt justly with the Jews, following in this regard the instructions of the Prophet himself. So honorable was his conduct that he returned to them copies of the Torah seized by the Muslims in the course of the hostilities–(and it is claimed that the Qur’an says to “hate” Jews). This is in direct contrast to the manner in which the Romans treated the Jews when they conquered Jerusalem and burned all the sacred writings they found in the temple and trampled them under foot. It is also far from the Christian persecution of the Jews in Spain where every Torah seized was put to the torch.”(The Life of Muhammad, pp. 366, 370, 371).
That Mohammad gave sanctuary to those who were a deadly threat to him and his followers and had them benefit from half of their produce is yet another proof of Mohammad’s mercy and tolerance. A tolerance afforded by the sublime spirit of Islam.
These Jews not only received half of their crops from Mohammad; most importantly, they received their lives. They were doubly fortunate. Instead of blindly condemning “dhimmitude,” Bat Ye’or is to show ‘gratitude’ to Mohammad. But for Mohammad’s mercy her ascendants may have been wiped out and she never born.
Fasting on Jewish day of atonement: This fasting of the Muslims is known as Ashura, and is observed on the tenth day of the month of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar. The Prophet Mohammad urged Muslims to fast not because he “showed an abiding admiration of his Jewish neighbors” –there is no admiration, abiding or other, for a people who broke their covenant with God; killed His prophets; inimical towards you, intrigues to kill you; arrogant to their prophet (Moses) telling him to go and fight while you sit and wait; tampered with their Scripture; the majority of whom are faithless, arrogant, mischievous, treacherous, and who are to be chastised to the Resurrection (see Judaism; Palestine; Bible corrupt & obsolete; Rabbi Marmur & Farouk Hosny)–but because he was closer to Moses than the Jews were. The Prophet was closer to Moses in that they both were messengers of Allāh –of the brotherhood of prophets– both were Muslims, and both taught Islam.
(While all prophets were Muslims and taught Islam which would make the followers of these prophets Muslims, Jews and Christians are not following the teachings of Moses and Jesus, respectively: (1) There is no such Divine teaching as “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; and no “superiority” of people based on their race –which is attributing injustice to God, of Him choosing people based on their race/nationality, a factor in which we had no choice; a factor He gave us; and Jews are required to follow Mohammad, which rejection of Mohammad has subjected them to be “chastised” to the Resurrection. (2) The Christian doctrines of Divine sonship of God, Trinity, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation; and are repugnant to reason. The doctrines of inherited sin attributes injustice to God –of Him putting one person’s sin onto others and then loading everyone’s sins onto Jesus– and the doctrine of vicarious atonement –of Him sending Jesus to be killed for the sin of others– makes God complicit in murder. (See Christianity-lies, evil, hate; Jesus-inherited sin to ascension).
Friday prayer: Mohammad did not designate Friday as the Muslims communal prayer, Allah did–(Qur’an 62:9). Notably, whereas Christians claim an annual Good Friday, every Friday is a Good Friday for Muslims. In fact Muslims have:
-the beset day, Friday
-the best night, night of Qadr which is better than a thousand months
-the best fortnight, I’tikaf–seclusion in the mosque during the last ten days in the month of Ramadan
-the best month, Ramadan
-the best gathering, Hajj–the only Divinely ordained pilgrimage.
-the best Book, the Qur’an
-the best Prophet, Mohammad. (See Jesus or Mohammad-greatest, Pastor James Mc Donald).
-the best Religion, Islam–the only religion from God.
Qiblah: This is the direction/station which Muslims face to offer their prayers. This Qiblah is the Ka’ba in Makkah. Mohammad did not change the Qiblah from Jerusalem to Makkah so as to gain the acceptance of Jews and Christians. Allah instructed him to do this–(Qur’an 2:143, 149-150). It was not Mohammad’s duty to get anyone to accept him as Messenger of Allah. His duty was only to preach the message of Allah–(Qur’an 24:54). Since Allah informed Mohammad that He instructed Abraham and Ishmael to purify His House for His righteous servants–(Qur’an 2:125, which House at Makkah is the first House of worship appointed for mankind–Qur’an 3:95), it is obvious that Mohammad was anxious for the House of Allah to be made the Qiblah for Muslims; and was wondering why the order to make this sacred (and first) House at Makkah the Qiblah was not yet given. As well, since Jerusalem was the center of the Israelite prophets–a brotherhood (of prophets) of which he himself was a member–Mohammad had no choice but to honor Jerusalem as the center of worship (until he received revelation to change to the Ka’ba at Makkah).
Islam, the Divinely crafted Religion for the moral, social, spiritual and intellectual progress of man could not have a “malignant underside.”
42. Pact of ‘Umar: “Not many years after the Prophet’s death, a disturbing and supposedly authoritative document appeared. (“supposedly” authoritative?) It decreed that non-Muslims will stand when any Muslim wishes to sit, that non-Muslims must watch their houses of worship decay without repairing or replacing them, that a Muslim’s testimony in court will trump that of a non-Muslim. You get the grim picture. This document was called the “Pact of Umar.” Who was Umar? Prophet Muhammad’s second successor.” (p. 69).
Response: Pact of ‘Umar (viewed on the Internet): It says:
“The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria;” “We heard from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab…. accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows: …. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab]….from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:” (it lists 15 conditions which the Christians proposed), “(When I brought the letter to Umar….)” “Umar ibn al-Khattab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.” (from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230). Note: This was a from [I believe this should read ‘from a’] hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given”). (Emphasis added).
As emphasized, ‘Umar did NOT design this “pact.” This “pact” was submitted by the Christians. Umar only accepted it and made two stipulations, as evidenced in the concluding paragraph.
‘Umar could not have been unjust to the Christians when Islam requires justice even against one’s own self. To cite one instance of Muslims’ benevolence towards non-Muslims, 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 Early Caliphate, p. 86. Emphasis added).
‘Umar shared his camel with his slave; running along side while his slave rode. ‘Umar followed the injunctions of Allah Who commanded to give justice even if it be against one’s own self; and that “if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down”–(Qur’an 22:40). To charge then that this magnificent Caliph would be unjust to anyone–to rob them of their seat and testimony–or to demand that Christians let their Churches fall into ruins, one would have to be, to use Manji’s term, “Brain-dead!” If this “Pact of ‘Umar” is authentic, it was not drafted by ‘Umar. If it is not authentic why foist blame on Islam?
Further, Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate, that ‘Umar “showed just the same charity of heart to Christians and other non-Muslims that came in contact with him. On his death-bed, he enjoined his successor to take particular care of the rights of non-Muslim subjects and not to burden them beyond their capacity.” “A Muslim assassin of a Christian was condemned to capital punishment. In affairs of state, non-Muslims were duly consulted.” He ordered that “old age pensions must be granted to all the old people among non-Muslim subjects, who must also be exempt from jizyah. Poor-houses for the weak and the disabled were open to Christians just as to Muslims.”
However, “things that were likely to disturb public tranquility were forbidden. For instance, it was forbidden to carry the cross in procession through Muslim crowds (Muslim women are today prevented from wearing their hijab in school in some Christian jurisdictions), to blow the church bugle at Muslim prayer hours (Muslims are restricted in some Christian countries from sounding the adhan–call to prayer–publicly), to carry pigs towards Muslim quarters and so forth. Those who have generalized these prohibitions to mean that the Christians were absolutely forbidden these things are mistaken, as careful study would show the wisdom of such restrictions at their times. One such prohibition was that the children of Christians who embraced Islam must not be baptized until they attained the age of puberty. To generalize this to mean that baptism as such was absolutely forbidden is wrong.” (This prohibition against baptizing these children may have been so in the event that they themselves would have wanted to embrace Islam). (pp. 118-119).
Jews and Christians who held important offices under Muslim rule were not tolerated for their talents; these non-Muslims were compensated handsomely for their services. (See Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam). (Are there not Muslims in Christian countries who are denied certain positions because of their creed?)
Whereas Muslims are raked over the coals for alleged “discrimination” against non-Muslims. One paper* notes that Irish Christian leaders were “barred from praying” at the Western Wall at Jerusalem. Why? Because they “refused to remove the crosses” they wore. And the official explanation for requiring the clerics to remove their crosses? Because to display “symbols of other religions” would “offend the sensitivities of Jews.” Wonder what Bat Ye’or (and her sympathizers) would have said to this.
That these Christian leaders were “barred from praying” at the Western Wall at Jerusalem is ironic. Considering that it was Christian governments–primarily American and British–that put Jews in occupation of Palestine. (Notably, the Prophet Mohammad allowed the Christians of Najran, who were there to debate the Divinity of Jesus, to pray in his Mosque. See Christians of Najran & Prophet Mohammad). (Why non-Muslims are not allowed worship in Arabia see Arabia -Non-Muslims and Worship). *(Toronto Star, Friday, May 2, 2008. Irish clerics barred from praying at Wall, p. AA4. Italics/Emphasis added).
Regarding the idolaters (sura 9:1, 28): Muslims never broke any agreement made with the idolaters. Regarding those idolaters who broke theirs with the Muslims, Allah gave “immunity” to Muslims–(9:1). Verse four of chapter 9:
“makes a clear exception in favour of those who did not fail in their agreements. It is a fact that the idolatrous tribes of Arabia broke their agreements with the Muslims again and again (8:56), yet the Muslims were enjoined to accept peace if the disbelievers consented to it, even after repeated violations (8:61). But this state of things could not continue long, for it was soon found that it was impossible to trust such neighbours. This repudiation of agreements took place on a large scale when the Muslims were absent on the Tabuk expedition. The first thirteen verses of this chapter were publicly proclaimed by ‘Ali, on the occasion of the pilgrimage in the ninth year of the Hijrah, and the following announcements made as the result: (1) that no idolater shall approach the Sacred House after this; (2) that no one shall go naked round the Ka’bah (B.65: ix, 3). The attitude of the tribes to whom this ultimatum was given through ‘Ali is well indicated in their reply: “O ‘Ali, deliver this message to thy cousin (i.e. the Prophet), that we have thrown the agreements behind our backs, and there is no agreement between him and us except smiting with spears and striking with swords”(Rz).”38
Also, verse 7 (of chapter 9) makes it clear that, “So long as the idolaters were true to their agreements, the Muslims were required to be true to them. Just as in the case of war, the Muslims were not allowed to fight until the enemy had first attacked, so, in the case of repudiation of agreements, it was the enemy who first repudiated the agreement.”39
With regards to verse 28 (of chapter 9), the idolaters were restricted from the Sacred House because they were “unclean” –i.e. “they indulged in evil practices and went naked round the Ka’bah. Compare 5:90, where idols are declared to be unclean.” (M. Ali, comm. # 1046).
43. Arabic in-flight: (On her flight to Occupied Palestine, Manji wrote): “I got another hint of Israel’s complexity. The flight’s safety video, though narrated in Hebrew, had Arabic subtitles. Arabic is an official language in Israel. Who knew?” (p. 80). (Who cares? As Arabic is an official language, let them narrate in Arabic and put Hebrew subtitles? )
Response: Jews occupy the Palestinians country but retain their language and Palestinians should rejoice. Someone should occupy Manji’s dwelling but retain her name on the door and watch her do the Hallelujah hoops.
44. Freedom of expression: “Israel’s laws guarantee freedom of expression, and that says something.”(p. 82). (And after the spotlight is turned off, you may get a visit from the pair in dark suits and bloodshot eyes).
Response: Tell that to the Palestinians who have lost their lives because of “freedom of expression.” (Read Edward Said’s The Question of Palestine). (See next topic).
45. Ha’aretz and democracy: “Ha’aretz, the New York Times of Israel. It skewered a government proposal to allocate state lands to exclusively Jewish towns, You know how Ha’aretz described this bill? “Racist.” Right there in the headline, “A racist bill.”…. I have to tell you about another controversy being reported in the papers during my trip. It revolved around the fairness with which foreign news networks were covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel’s communications minister threatened to pull CNN off the national airwaves and replace it with Fox. To which Ha’aretz responded: If you do, you’re no better than Arafat, who once slammed the phone on CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. In a rousing defense of principle over propaganda, the most influential newspaper in Israel asserted, “It is the right of Israelis to know that CNN and the BBC are not mirror reflections of official Israel’s point of view….”” (pp. 82-83).
Response: (As already noted, at the time of the Partition of Palestine, Jews were 34% of the population and owned about 6% of land). Ha’aretz and Irshad Manji must put their dignity where their pens are. They are to demand, since Jews owned only six percent of land, for the Zionist State to return the fifty percent to the Palestinians. How’s that for “principle” from “the most influential newspaper in Israel” and the woman who calls for “honesty and change”?
The Toronto Star* reported that “RAM FM, an English-language” non-political affiliated radio station allowing Jews and Palestinians to voice their views in “Israel;” were raided by “Israeli police,” “arresting seven” employees –who were “held overnight and interrogated at length;” and brought in “leg-irons, shackles and handcuffs” before a judge– and “confiscating $70,000 worth of broadcasting equipment.” With the explanation that RAM FM had “installed an unlicensed secondary transmitter” which “interfered with communications” at the airport.
Employees arrested, “held overnight and interrogated at length”? And brought hog-tied before a judge? And equipment confiscated? All because the boss installed an “unlicensed transmitter”? Whew! Wonder what would have happened if they were “terrorists”?
This station was in operation for some “eighteen months.” Is this how long it took to determine that its transmitter was affecting airport communications? Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the desert heat may make some officials and/or workers sleepy and they like to indulge in mighty long siestas. One would expect that the “democratic” response to such an infraction would first be to instruct the owner to correct the problem. Or, if the interference is dramatic enough, given that people’s lives are in the air (never mind the lives of Palestinians that are on the ground), one can understand booting the employees out and barricading the station. Maybe even slapping the boss with a fine. But to use Gestapo measures? Lest we forget now! *(Toronto Star, Wednesday, April 30, 2008. Oakland Ross, “A familiar song, but in a different land,” p. AA2).
According to the Bible, three individuals went to heaven–Elijah, Enoch and Jesus. (Buddha is also said to have ascended).
That “Muhammad found a spiral ladder that carried him to heaven.” Reason would dictate that Mohammad could not have climbed a “spiral ladder” to heaven–no ladder, “spiral” or other can reach to heaven. The Prophet rode a “buraq,” described as “a white animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey,” –(Bokhari Vol 4, # 429; Vol. 5, # 227).
The Prophet Mohammad’s journey to heaven is known as the Isra–trip from the Sacred Masjid in Makkah to the Remote/ Farthest Masjid* at Jerusalem–and the Mi’raj–trip to the heavens–(Qur’an 17:1; 53:1-18). Both the Isra and the Mi’raj are believed to have been undertaken on the same night. The Isra is believed to be the first stage in the Prophet’s Mi’raj (Ascension).
Some Muslims are of the view that this journey was physical–undertaken bodily–while others hold it to be spiritual–a vision. Each party citing its own point of reference (though according to a lengthy narration in Bokhari Vol. 9, # 608, this journey seemed to have been a spiritual one, as it records that at the beginning, when the angels came to the Prophet he was “sleeping,” and the end records that after this journey “The Prophet then awoke”).
M. H. Haykal expressed in his book The Life Of Muhammad that much of the descriptions surrounding the Mi’raj are “the product of pure imagination.”(p.144). What is important is the significance of this journey of the Prophet: the Mi’raj “indicated his triumph in the world,” and his being carried to the Mosque at Jerusalem “signified that he would also inherit the blessings of the Israelite prophets”–(M. Ali. Qur’anic comm; #1410). (M.H. Haykal has dealt with the Mi’raj in his book The Life of Muhammad. See also Muhammad Ali’s Qur’anic commentaries 1410 and 1441). *(Note: Allāh says this was a Masjid not Synagogue or Temple. See Al-Aqsa Masjid/Mosque. The Al-Aqsa Masjid is NOT the Dome of the Rock Masjid).
47. Occupied Palestine: (During her trip to Occupied Palestine. Manji quotes one individual): ““Let’s not kid ourselves. There is no such thing as a benign occupation. An occupation means that you lose control of your destiny. You saw in the checkpoints you went through that we cannot move.” Stop the suicide bombings, one journalist says, and everyone will have their movement back. Dr. Jirbawi disputes that Palestinians had much freedom of movement before the explosions became epidemic.”(p. 97). (Wonder what the journalist would have said if the Palestinian had quipped: Return our homes, lands and country and the “suicide bombings” will stop. Pharaoh and Goliath also believed they were invincible).
Response:
(It is crass intellectual, political, and rabbinical putrefaction that Hamas does not have the right to fight for what is his; but that Jews have the right to kill for what is not theirs. Let’s see these “self-respecting”(?) intellectuals, politicians, and teachers of religion [and those who parrot them] accept this grotesque monstrosity for themselves that they are trying to foist onto the proud and intrepid Palestinians. Twistedly, like Saddam Hussein being blamed for the deaths of Iraqi children from US/UN sanctions, Jewish killing of Palestinian civilians is blamed on Hamas. Why then isn’t Hamas rocketing of Jews blamed on these Jews themselves for being occupiers/usurpers, and the deaths of their children blamed on these Jewish fathers and mothers for setting their children as objects against liberation?)
The French can battle German occupation and they are not terrorists. Britain can sail half way round the world to reclaim the disputed Falklands from the Argentines, and they are not terrorists. The U.S. can take the right to fly halfway round the world to devastate Iraq and he is not a terrorist. But Palestinians are terrorists for striving to liberate their lands from occupation? (Wonder if Jews ever reflected on what their life would have been like if they had accepted the British’s offer and established their homeland in Uganda).
The pro-Jewish platform is the usual Jews “inalienable right” to defend itself and to “retaliate”–and what about the Palestinians “inalienable right” to “retaliate” against the theft of their homes, lands, and country? The occupier has NO “right” –“inalienable” or otherwise–to “retaliate” against his victim; he being the transgressor to begin with. A mugger has no “right” to break the arm of his victim when his victim turns on him. “Right” is for the victims; and in this instance it is the Palestinians who are the victims. America is pursuing Al-Qaeda as those responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Centers, if Al-Qaeda should carry out more bombings and/or thrash the US, would the US concede that Al-Qaeda has the “right” to “retaliate” or to “self-defense” against US pursuit of them? If so, why is the Khadr member in leg-irons at Guantanamo Bay? These prisoners could claim they were “retaliating” for the theft of Palestine.
Enforcement of UN Resolutions against Arabs are vociferously demanded but not a squeak is heard about the Resolutions against Jews.
Another line of defense is that the Jews are “facing threat.” Palestinians were not only “facing threat,” they were evicted: dispossessed of their homes, lands, and country. (So, Jews are “victims” for fighting to hold on to what is not theirs, and Palestinians are “villains” for fighting to hold on to what is theirs).
Another delicate coo from the tiny vulnerable dove: “Israel is now a military superpower….For the Americans there is nothing more important than a strong Israel. All the forces of European countries are weaker than we are. Israel can conquer in one week the area from Khartoum to Baghdad and Algeria.”40 The dainty defenseless little dove has sprouted into an arrogant hawk with vicious talons. Then again, vicious talons are needed to cling onto the flesh (country) of another.
The odd sentiment has been expressed, why go back to 1948 (when the UN stole Palestine and gave it to the Jews). Coming from a Muslim this would be not only a defeatist attitude but also an ignorant attitude. If Jews can go back two thousand years to ‘God gave us this land’ as justification to dispossess the Palestinians of their homes, lands, and country, certainly Palestinians can go back sixty years to assert their right to Palestine. In fact, Palestinians can go back four thousand years, seeing that their presence in the land predates the Jews. Who will be the next Salahuddin Ayyube (Saladin), the majestic?
48. Arafat and the peace offer: (In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected a peace plan. Someone asked, why did Arafat reject this plan) “brokered by U.S. President Bill Clinton to grant Palestinians the vast majority of their demands? Dr. Jirbawi decries the offer as a deception, intended to recreate Bantustans, or quasi-independent colonies, prevalent in apartheid-era South Africa. Even if that’s true, we ask, why didn’t Arafat table any counteroffer” (p. 97).
(Read Noam Chomsky, Pirates & Emperors–International Terrorism in the Real World, to know how many viable “peace” plan supported by Arafat and the PLO that were rejected for no good reason).
Response: The Palestinians homes, land, and country have been stolen from them, and they have to bargain for it. Hallelujah for democracy! Manji and the advocates of such a mentality should bargain with a mugger for a partial return of their wallet rather than its full worth, and to have the rogue thrown into jail.
Those who parrot the propagandist that Jews are making great concessions to Arabs and slam Arafat for refusing the “peace” deal must read the fine print of these so-called grand deals.
Regarding the Jewish withdrawal plan from the Occupied territories, Haroon Siddiqui points out: “The Palestinians in the West Bank will be clustered into enclaves, more or less cut off from each other and also the Arab world, except through a crossing into Jordan.”41And columnist Richard Gwyn reveals: “What would be left for the Palestinians by all of this imposed disengagement would be an impoverished, ungovernable rump. In the phrase of the Washington-based Stratford Geopolitical Intelligence Report, it would mean “simply leav(ing) them to rot.”42 All this, while the world, which effected the theft of Palestine, looks on in seemingly self-inflicted impotence. Where are the vociferous demands for economic, military, and diplomatic barricades?
The peace offer(s) to the Palestinians amount to nothing more that this: Someone takes over your house and says to you, ‘if you do not make trouble for me I will let you have the basement.’ Manji and the proponents of such a scheme should accept this deal for themselves. (For a revealing look into the meaning of this “peace” read Professor Noam Chomsky Pirates & Emperors –International Terrorism in the Real World. Read also Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine).
49. Zionism and the Partition of Palestine: From pages 104-123 Manji pained to justify the Zionist Occupation/usurping of Palestine. She glorifies Jewish material progress; cites inept Palestinian leadership; and blames Arab countries for the Palestinian refugee situation –which argument is contestable. All of which are moot points.
Response: The crux of the matter is: Britain had no right to promise Muslim /Arab lands to Jews for a national homeland. America had no right to “pressure” non-Muslim countries to vote for the Partition Plan:
To capitalize on Jewish influence in the Bolshevik party and keep Russia on Britain’s side in the war, Arthur Balfour, British foreign secretary, in November 1917, informed Lord Rothschild, a British Jew and banker, that: “His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”43 But Britain reneged on her promise. Resulting in Jewish terrorism against the British.
Shortly “after 1945” the American Government, under President Harry Truman, took the lead in the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Ismail Zayid notes: “Sumner Welles affirmed: “By direct order of the White House, every form of pressure, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside the Moslem world, that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to Partition.”” And “James Forrestal, then U.S. Secretary of Defense, wrote: “The methods that had been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely on scandal.””44
No Court of Justice would view as one’s legal property an item acquired through “pressure” and/or “coercion and duress.” (Why haven’t Muslims challenge this theft in the World Court?)
The U.N. was not the sovereign owner of Palestine to apportion this land between Arab and non-Arab.*
*(“Non-Arab” instead of Jews, is used to illustrate the mendacity of His Majesty’s Government: in the Balfour Declaration, Arabs are referred to as “non-Jewish.” It is doubtful the British people would accept being referred to as the “non-Jewish” population, or as the “non-black” sector of Britain. To refer to Arabs their own country, and who were the majority, as “non-Jewish” is blatant British arrogance. (Ency. Brit. 15th Ed; Art. Syria and Palestine, History of, The Balfour Declaration, Vol. 17; p. 957).
50. Zionists in Palestine: “The movement to establish the state of Israel, a movement called Zionism, sprouted in Europe during the late 1800s. Zionists realized that anti-Semitism wasn’t going away and might just be getting worse. Jews, they warned, needed a national homeland. (Have their occupation/usurping of Palestine put an end to “anti-Semitism”?). And Jews needed it not in the Antarctic, nor in Uganda, but in the Near Eastern strip of sand and soil to which they traced their earliest, deepest, and most persistent roots–the land that Arabs belatedly called Palestine.” (p. 104). (Belatedly called Palestine? And you’re calling for truth and honesty?)
Response: To say that Palestine was “belatedly called Palestine” is to say that the Hindus, who renamed Bombay with its original name Mumbai, “belatedly” refer to their city as Mumbai. And if Iranians were to rename their country Persia, they would be, using Manji’s logic, “belatedly” calling their country Persia.
Jews may be a “historical nation” and may have need for a homeland –and doesn’t the Gypsy of Europe and the Natives of the Americas also have a historical identity and need for an independent homeland?– but their historicity and need for a homeland does not entitle them to uproot another people, and even one whose presence in the land precedes their own, for their settlement; and moreover, to receive fifty-six percent of that land. If a national homeland was all the Zionists wanted they would have taken it in Uganda, and even in the “Antarctic.” But their scheme, from their own pronouncements, was to depopulate Palestine of the native Palestinians and repopulate it with alien Jews.
It is claimed that Jews could live with the “other”; that the Arabs did not want the Jews to “exist” in Palestine; that the Arabs want to “exterminate” the Jews. But the indelible truth is, it was Jews that did not want to exist with Palestinians, it was the Zionist’s declared plan to rid Palestine of Palestinians. From their own declarations, Jews are the ones who have tried to “exterminate” the Arabs from Palestine. (Read Edward Said, The Question of Palestine. Also Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine).
In his book The Question of Palestine, Edward Said quotes from the writings of Jewish Fathers Theodor Herzl and Joseph Weitz, chilling instructions that can be said to be the blue-print for the depopulating of Palestine of Palestinians, for the creation of “Eretz Israel.” Said also notes Zionist’s policy towards Arabs that would make a grand mockery of its claim to being a democracy.
In matters of truth and justice, people of honesty and dignity are not cowered by charges of “anti-Semitism.” Truth is not anti-Semitic. Truth is not “anti” anything: Truth is truth. To charge that truth is anti-Semitic is to be anti-Truth. The “intellectual” who is selective in condemning injustice could hardly be honored as “self-respecting.”
In the modern era, no other people have been the victim of such long-suffering human savagery as the Palestinians.
That truth and justice are without border: unless and until the masses become courageous to detonate this explosive truth and obliterate the wicked walls of partisanship, patriotism, and politics truth and justice will remain subjugated under the jack-boot of injustice.
Jewish roots in Palestine:
Notably. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not Jews or Israelites. By nationality Abraham was a Chaldean and later a Canaanite/Palestinian, and Isaac and Jacob were Canaanites/Palestinians. And religiously, they, as all prophets, were Muslims. The term “Jew” originated from Judah, one of the twelve sons of the prophet Jacob/ Israel. And the term “Israelite(s)” refers to the twelve sons/tribes of Jacob/Israel and their descendants.
Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham (2500 BC). 44A Abraham came to Canaan/Palestine at the age of 75 years, about 2400 BC–(Gen. 12:1-6). Thus whereas Abraham’s arrival in Canaan/Palestine dates back to roughly 2500 BC, Canaanite/Palestinian residency/civilization dates back beyond 4000 B.C.
Jacob and his entire household, numbering seventy, left Canaan/Palestine to join his son, Joseph, in Egypt; where they dwelt –(Gen. 46:26-27). Jacob died in Egypt but was buried in Canaan/ Palestine–(Gen. 47:28; 49:33; 50:12-13). Joseph and the entire household of Jacob died in Egypt without ever returning to Canaan/Palestine; and their subsequent generations were enslaved by the new ruler of Egypt–(Gen. 50:22-26; Exod. 1:1-14). Thus the time spent by these Biblical Fathers in Canaan/ Palestine –between Abraham’s arrival in Canaan/Palestine and Jacob’s household’s migration to Egypt– was about a hundred and twenty-five years. As Abraham lived in 2500 BC, this would mean that Jacob left for Egypt somewhere around 2300 BC. Thus, between then and Moses’ arrival–(2300BC-1400BC) the Israelites spent nearly a thousand years in Egypt–eight times more in Egypt than in Canaan/Palestine. Whereas the indigenous Canaanites/Palestinians presence not only dates back further than the Israelites presence but was also continuous.
Palestinians are the “Arabised” descendants of the Philistines and pre-Abrahamic Canaanites who inhabited Palestine centuries before the arrival of the Children of Israel, following their freedom from Egypt, in the 13th century. B.C. Thus, whereas Jewish presence in Palestine dates back less than 3,500 years, Palestinian existence exceeds 6000 years. And as Edward Said points out, “the entire historical duration of a Jewish state in Palestine prior to 1948 was a sixty-year period two millennia ago.”45 Since “the entire historical duration of a Jewish state in Palestine prior to 1948 was a sixty-year period two millennia ago,” plus their initial 125 years, Jewish presence (or at least a significant presence) in Palestine was barely two hundred years. Compared to the presence of the native Palestinians whose roots are not only the “earliest, deepest, and most persistent” but are also “indigenous” and continuous.
Since “the entire historical duration of a Jewish state in Palestine prior to 1948 was a sixty-year period two millennia ago,” compared to their centuries of life under Pharaoh, it is not Palestine but Egypt where Jews have their “earliest, deepest, and most persistent roots.” In fact, so strong and commanding was this Jewish “earliest, deepest, and most persistent roots” in Egypt that even after witnessing all the miracles of God and feeding on heavenly manna and quail and crossing the Red sea Jews wanted to return to Egypt, they preferred slavery at the feet of Pharaoh than liberty in the hands of God, and even intrigued to do so:–(Exodus ch’s 7-11; 14:12; 16:3, 12-13; 14:21; 17:3; Num. 13:31-34; 14:2-3):
“Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying,
Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians?
For it had been better for us to
serve the Egyptians, than that we should die
in the wilderness.”
(Exodus 14:12)
“And the Children of Israel said unto them
(Moses and Aaron), Would to God we had
died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt,
when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we
did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought
us forth into this wilderness, to kill this
whole assembly with hunger.”
(Exodus 16:3)
“And the people thirsted there for water; and
the people there murmured against Moses,
and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast
brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and
our children and our cattle with thirst?”
(Exodus 17:3)
(Moses sent Joshua and some men to spy out
the land and the strength of the enemy. Upon
their return they reported to Moses and Caleb that
the land was luscious; but that the city was fortified
and the people “strong.” The congregation began to
fear to fight. Whereupon)
“And Caleb stilled the people before Moses,
and said, Let us go up at once, and possess
it; for we are well able to overcome it.
But the men that went up with him said,
We be not able to go up against the people;
For they are stronger than we.
And they brought up an evil report of the land
which they had searched unto the Children
of Israel, saying, The land through which we
have gone to search it, is a land that eateth
up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people
that we saw are men of great stature.
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak,
which come of the giants: and we were in our
own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
And all the congregation lifted up their voice,
and cried; and the people wept that night.
And all the Children of Israel murmured
against Moses and against Aaron: and the
whole congregation said unto them, Would
God that we had died in Egypt! or would God
We had died in this wilderness!
And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto
this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives
and our children should be a prey? were it
not better for us to return into Egypt?
And they said one to another, Let us make
a captain, and let us return to Egypt.”
(Numbers 13:30-33; 14:1-4
In fact, those who call themselves Jews may not even be of the lineage of the Biblical fathers but of the Turkish tribe, the Khazar, in which event Jews “earliest, deepest, and most persistent roots” would be in Turkey. Maybe even in Russia. As the horn of history unclogs she may yet sound the muffled truth that Biblically there is no Jew.
(As noted elsewhere, at the time of Partition Jews consisted about 34% of the population of Palestine and owned less than 6% land. Yet they were allotted 56% of land, including the valuable coastal area). Manji (and those who support her) must move into the basement of her house (or into a cubicle in her apartment) and give 56% of her dwelling to a native family.
Manji (and those who support her) must petition the governments of North, South and Central Americas to give 56% of their countries to the Native populations for their national homeland –after all these natives have their “earliest, deepest, and most persistent roots” in these countries. In fact, these natives have all their “roots” in these countries.
Manji (and those who support her) must advocate that the U.S. give to the sons and daughters of the slaves brought to America 56% of the U.S. for their independent homeland–after all these descendants have their “earliest, deepest, and most persistent roots” in the U.S. In fact, these descendants have all their “roots” in the U.S.
Manji (and those who support her) must advocate that Britain. give to the sons and daughters of the slaves brought to Britain 56% of the British Isles for their independent homeland–after all these descendants have their “earliest, deepest, and most persistent roots” in Britain. In fact, these sons and daughters have all their “roots” in Britain.
51. Palestine–Promised Land or Stolen Heritage?: (Ishmael and Isaac were brothers from one father, Abraham, and two mothers, Hagar/Hajra and Sarah, respectively. Trying to find Islamic legitimacy for the Jewish State in Palestine, Manji quotes the Qur’an, referring to the Children of Israel/Jacob, which states): “‘Dwell in the land. When the promise of the hereafter comes to be fulfilled, We shall assemble you all together.’” (And she comments): “I hate to be selective, but not mentioning this verse would be selective too.….To squawk that Jews are alien usurpers of Palestine is as ignorant as to rant that Arabs have no place in Israel. How, then, did Palestinians become refugee outcasts, even within the Arab world? Through the disruptions of war–a conflict initiated by Arab countries that couldn’t accept Israel’s existence in their midst.” (p. 105).
Response:
By their own admission Jews purpose was to dispossess Palestine of its native Palestinians and populate it with alien Jews–read Edward Said, The Question of Palestine; Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage; Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. See also Palestine.
Excellent quote from the Qur’an! But why did you stop at this verse? Why didn’t you quote the verses on which the favors of Allah are based and of the disposition of Jews? When Abraham asked Allāh, God, about His covenant for his offspring, Allah says to him: “My covenant does NOT include the wrong-doers”–(Qur’an 2:124). Muhammad Ali correctly points out that God’s “covenant was made, NOT with Israel but with Abraham… Ishmael and Isaac were equally to be blessed.” And that His curse is on the Jews–(Qur’an 2:88); that most of them are faithless–(Qur’an 2:100), treacherous–(5:13), transgressors–(5:81); and declared that “He would send against them to the day of Resurrection those who would subject them to severe torment” –(Qur’an 7:167).
Interestingly, Ahmed Deedat notes (through his knowledge of two South African Jews experience, as he wrote), that: “One of the above Jews bemoaned the biggest joke in Israel. If you ask any Jew in Israel, “Who gave you Palestine?” (They have all programmed themselves with the idea of Genesis 17:8…..). Without the slightest hesitation every Jew will reply ‘GOD!’ That it was God Almighty who had given Palestine to the Jews. But over 75% of the Israeli Jews if questioned, “Do you believe in God?” They immediately respond with “NO!” Yet these atheist and agnostic Jews falsely use God’s name for their usurpation of the land of the Palestinians.”46 Let’s examine your “twice-promised land” of the Jews:
The Biblical aspect: That ‘God gave us this land’ as justification to dispossess Palestinians of their country is one of the three biggest crocks peddled under the name of God and religion –the other two biggest crocks are: that God has a “chosen people” to the exclusion of other people, and that God has a son. God did not promise to fulfill His covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob twice.
Ahmed Deedat also notes that whereas God promised Abraham: “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee ….all the land of Canaan…”–(Gen. 17:8), that when this promise is tested for validity, it is shown to be without foundation. God has given us “in the Torah a test with which we can ascertain whether a prophecy attributed to Him is actually His Word or not.” He (God) says:
“And if thou say in thine heart,
How shall we know the word which
the Lord hath not spoken?
When a prophet speaketh in the name
of the Lord, if the thing follow not,
nor come to pass, that is the thing
which the Lord hath not spoken,
but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:
thou shalt not be afraid of him”
(Deut. 18:21-22).
According to the Bible, God made no such promise to Abraham. For the Bible testifies (about “Abraham and the elders of Israel”) that:
“These all died in faith,
not having received the promises,
but having seen them afar off”
(Heb. 11:13).
“And He (God) gave him (Abraham)
no inheritance in it (Palestine),
NO, NOT SO MUCH AS TO SET HIS FOOT UPON;
Yet He promised that He would give it to him for a
possession, and to his seed after him…”
(Acts 7:5)
According to these Biblical expositions God promised/gave Jews nothing! Zero! Zilch! Squat! Kadoodle!
God says He had chosen the earlier Children of Israel because they were a “holy people,” that He “loved” them, and because He “would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers” –(Deut. 7:6, 8; 10:15).
(These earlier Israelites whom God “loved” were those preceding liberation from Pharaoh, as the liberated ones from the time of their leaving Egypt were provocative, stiff-necked, and rebellious:“Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the Lord thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the Lord”–Deut. 9:7; 31:27. And Ex. 33:3; Isaiah 65:2-3. These rebellious Jews, twenty years and older, perished without reaching the land that God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel–Num. 14:20-35. The later Israelites also were “provocative” “rebellious” “treacherous” “transgressor” and an “impudent children and stiffhearted” –Isaiah 65:2-3; Jer. 5:11, 23; Ezek. 2:3-4; Hosea 5:3-7).
And that His grace upon the laterIsraelites was dependent upon them keeping His commandment (one of which was for them to follow the prophet like Moses which “prophet like Moses” is the Prophet Mohammad–Deut. 18:18-19. Qur’an 46:10; 73:15):
“Wherefore it shall come to pass, if you hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers”–(Deut. 7:12).
And this covenant that God swore is that of Genesis 17:8; God says to Abraham: “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee…all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.”
(Notably, and significantly, Ishmael was also the “seed” of Abraham. And that God’s promise was made with Abraham NOT with the Israelites. And as Prof. ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud explained, and shown further on, this promise of God to Abraham was fulfilled through the descendants of Ishmael –Muslims NOT Jews– who were made to inherit all the territories of the Middle East).
God’s promise was not made to the later Israelites (who drove Him up the wall) with their stiff-neckedness, rebellion, and provocation–(Ex. 33:3; Deut. 9:7; 31:27; Isaiah 65:2-3); nor was God’s promise made for the children of those who killed the prophets of God, lost the kingdom of God, and on whose head was poured all the righteous blood from Abel to Zacharias son Barachias, and whose house is cursed into desolation–(Matt. 23:31; 21:43; 23:31-38); and most of whom are faithless, treacherous, transgressors, on whom His curse is upon, and whom He has declared to subject to severe torment to the day of Resurrection–(Qur’an 2:88-89; 2:100; 5:13; 5:81; 2:88-89; 7:167).
(That Jews do not believe in Jesus and Mohammad is of no significance. Jews cannot dispute Jesus’ claim to be a prophet of God as he taught and as substantiated by the Qur’an. Neither can Jews dispute the Divineness of the Qur’an and Messengership of Mohammad. Even if we omit Jesus and the Qur’an there is still the verdict of the Old Testament to contend with).
To emphasize, these descendants of Abraham refer to his early descendants who were righteous–Isaac, and Jacob who was renamed Israel by God (Gen. 35:10). These descendants are not the later Israelites descended from the Twelve tribes of Jacob/ Israel that are described by God as being “stiffnecked” and “rebellious.”
These later Children of Israel/Jacob being made to inhabit Canaan/Palestine under Joshua–(Joshua 6:21; 12:1-24)–was only incidental: incidental through God fulfilling His promise to Abraham and his early descendants Isaac and Jacob; as evidenced by God Himself; God told the later Israelites that after they are brought into the land of the wicked nations that:
“Speak not in thine heart…saying, For my righteousness the Lord hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee… and that he may perform the word which the Lord unto thy fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people. …from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious unto the Lord”–(Deut. 9:4-7).
As clearly shown God’s covenant was made with Abraham for Isaac and Jacob not with the Children of Israel/Jacob: these later descendants of Abraham (i. e. of the Twelve Tribes of Jacob/ Israel) were made to inhabit Palestine despite their “stiff-neckedness” and “rebellion” and “provocation” only so that God could fulfill His word to Abraham and his early descendants who were the righteous ones.
(And these later descendants, if they really are descendants of Jacob/Israel and not descendants of converts to Judaism, who are “stiffnecked” and “rebellious” and do not keep God’s “judgments” want God’s/Palestinians’ land. And are taking God’s name in vain to achieve their goal. God warns those who take His name in vain: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain”–(Exodus 20:7).
As noted, Allāh’s, God’s favor/promise does not include the wrong-doers–(Qur’an 2:124); and: “Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked–(Ex. 23:7).
And to intrigue and dispossess the non-“wicked”, non-“stiffnecked,” non-“rebellious,” non-“provocative,” and non-“treacherous” Palestinians of their homes lands and country, forcing them into horrific refugee camps and, moreover, to slaughter these “innocent” Palestinians to hang on to “stolen” property as they jihad–engage in their God-given right of struggle–to reclaim their “stolen” property is “wicked” and evil.
Jewish claim that God gave us (ancient) Palestine (because of merit) or modern Palestine–is at best fanciful, and at worst sacrilegious.
(As noted above, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not Jews or Israelites. By nationality Abraham was a Chaldean and later a Canaanite/Palestinian, and Isaac and Jacob were Canaanites/Palestinians. And religiously, they, as all prophets, were Muslims. The term “Jew” originated from Judah, one of the twelve sons of the prophet Jacob/Israel. And the term “Israelite(s)” refers to the twelve sons/tribes of Jacob/Israel and their descendants.
Deuteronomy 32:43: which says: “Praise his People, O Nations: For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance against his adversaries and make expiation for his land and his People,” does not refer to future “nations;” it refers to those nations at the time of the many “ites” kingdoms that Joshua would exterminate [so God can keep His word to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]. This is clearly stated a few verses later, in verse 49, where God showed Moses the land of Canaan: “and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the Children for Israel for a possession.” And this blessing was tied in to Jews following the Prophet Mohammad as stated early in the next chapter: “And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the Children of Israel before his death. And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them”–(Deut; 33:1-2).
If Sinai and Seir refer to Moses and Jesus, respectively, “Mount Paran is not found in any other country except Arabia, Makka being located in its valley”47 and refers to Mohammad; the ten thousand saints is the number of followers the Prophet Mohammad had upon his conquest of Makkah; and the fiery law in his right hand is the Holy Qur’an. (This shows that the Prophet Mohammad is this blessing to Jews). This prophecy of Moses is tied in to that of Deut. 18:18-19 (noted later) that speaks of the prophet like Moses that God will raise up and in whose mouth God will put His words. And these two prophecies (Deut. 33:1-2; 18:18-19) are tied in to that of Jacob as noted in Genesis 49:10 which decrees: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Prof. ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani) in his book Muhammad in the Bible, has explained this prophecy in detail to show that it cannot apply to either Moses, David, or Jesus, but, that this prophecy could relate only to the Prophet Mohammad because “Muhammad came with military power and the Qur‘an to replace the old Jewish worn-out sceptre and the impracticable and old-fashioned law of sacrifices and of a corrupt priesthood.” Prof. Dawud notes, that the Jewish “institutions” of “Royal Sceptre and the Prophetical Succession” “have been extinct for over thirteen centuries;” and that “the tribe of Judah also has disappeared together with its royal authority and its sister –the prophetical succession”– both have been out of existence for the same period of time as the advent of Mohammad. (Moreover, present-day Jews may not even be Biblical Jews, but off-springs of converts to Judaism).Thus, “The Jews are forced to accept one or the other of the two alternatives, namely, either to admit that Shiloh has come already, but that their forefathers did not recognize him (Allāh, God, says they knew–Qur’an 2:146; 26:197),or to accept the fact that there exists no longer a tribe of Judah from which Shiloh will have to descend.” Moreover, the prophecy clearly states that Shiloh “is to be a total stranger to the tribe of Judah, and even to all the other tribes,” the Prof. points out –the sceptre and the law-giver were to remain with Judah until the arrival of Shiloh. “If Shiloh be a descendant of Judah, how could those two elements [sceptre and law-giver] cease to exist in that tribe?” Shiloh “could not be a descendant of any of the other tribes either, for the sceptre and the lawgiver were for all Israel, and not for one tribe only. This observation explodes the Christian claim as well. For Jesus is a descendant of Judah–at least from his mother’s side.” It is clear from the above that “the Jews are vainly expecting the coming of another Shiloh, and that the Christians are obstinately persisting in their error in believing that it was Jesus who was intended by Shiloh.” (pp. 54, 55, 58, 57).
Even if we put aside all the prophecies and Divine sayings against Jews. With the mischief and mayhem on their hands probably more than the hairs on their heads, to claim that the Just and impartial God is telling future “nations” to “praise” Jews (or “acclaim” them or “rejoice” with them as other translations have) has to be a fantastic fantasy; or morbid delusion:
“Keep thee far from a false matter;
and the innocent and righteous slay thou not:
for I will not justify the wicked”
(Ex. 23:7).
“My covenant does not include the
wrong-doers, said He (Allāh, God)”
(Qur’an 2:124).
Jews salvation lies in them following
Mohammad/Islam).
That Jewish presence in Palestine would be transitory is evident from the fact that not only did they not fulfill their covenant with God –which necessitates them following Mohammad as per Deut; 18:18–19– but that God had decreed power and prophethood to the Israelites to end with the advent of Shiloh (who has been shown to be the Prophet Mohammad)–(Genesis 49:10), and that the kingdom of God will be taken from Jews and given to another people–(Matt. 21:43).
The Qur’anic aspect: After their freedom from Pharaoh, Jews were made to inherit the Holy Land–(Qur’an 5:21; 7:137; 26:58-60). The Children of Israel were required to accept the Prophet Mohammad who was a Prophet like Moses–(Deut; 18:18. Qur’an 2:41; 46:10; 73:15); and of whose mission the “learned men of the Children of Israel” knew–(Qur’an 26:192-197).
Jews could not be promised a “return” when they are required to be Muslims–to follow the Prophet Mohammad.
Jews could not be promised a return to Palestine when this promise was already fulfilled. God did not make a second covenant–for them to have Palestine twice. Moreover, as noted above, Jews were made to inherit this land not because of their righteousness but for the wickedness of the other people and because of God’s promise to Abraham–(Deut. 9:4-7).
Allāh says that the Jews would twice “do mischief on the earth”–(Qur’an 17:4). After the first warning–Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in the 6th century BC–Allah gave the Jews prosperity–(Qur’an 17:6). After the second warning–Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD–Allah says: “It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you. And if you return (to mischief), We will return to punishment”–(Qur’an 17:7-8.Jews did return to mischief: violating their agreement of mutual protection with the Prophet Mohammad by siding with the enemies; and feigning conversion to Islam to create dissension among Muslims–Qur’an 3:71. For a marathon-long list of Jewish “mischief”/atrocities read Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World; Edward Said, The Question of Palestine; Ismail Zayid’s booklet, Palestine–A Stolen Heritage; 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/. Perhaps in their occupying/usurping of Palestine Jews are setting themselves up for another Divine chastisement–Qur’an 7:167. Maybe the hands of Allāh God are already tightening around their feet).
On Allāh’s decree that “It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you. And if you return (to mischief), We will return to punishment” Muhammad Ali notes:
“This relates to the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, when the Israelites were again given a chance to reform, but they are told that if they return to mischief they will again be punished. When the Holy Prophet came to Madinah, the Jews were at first in a conciliatory mood, but their enmity increased day by day, until they joined hands with the enemies of Islam, devising plans to take his very life. The result was that they were swept out of Arabia, while their lot in all other countries of the world has always been one of hard trials and severe afflictions, and spiritually the Jewish religion has no future.”
In His Qur’an 17:104, Allah instructed the Children of Israel to dwell in the Promise Land: “but when the latter promise came, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.”
This “latter promise” does not mean that Allah will have Jews inhabit the Holy Land a second time. Jews were not to be gathered at a future date after the ministry of the Prophet Mohammad, as in 1948.
Allah Already “gathered” (past tense) them, before 1948. Jews were in a “mingled crowd”–Arabs, Africans, Armenians, Persians–in pre-Islamic Arabia. Jews can only be ‘gathered together in a mingled crowd’ if they are among non-Jewish peoples, and are under dominion; not if they are in an entity of their own and have dominion over others–“mingled crowd” cannot mean the twelve Jewish tribes living together: if so, Jews were already “mingled” when they left Egypt and occupied Palestine under Joshua. Also, a Jew could hardly identify himself tribally: they may all now be of the same tribe. Arthur Koestler convincingly theorized in his book The Thirteenth Tribe that present day Jewry may not be Biblical Jews but descendants of the Khazar, an 8th century Turkish tribe, that converted to Judaism. The twelve Jewish tribes living together is not a “mingled crowd”: they are collectively one unit termed “Children of Israel.”
This “latter promise” as commented on by Muhammad Ali, refers to “the promise given to Moses for the raising up of another prophet like him. This is corroborated by what is said in the next verse about the revelation of the Qur’an, which came with truth, i.e. in fulfillment of a true promise”: “And with truth have We revealed it, and with truth did it come. And We have not sent thee (Mohammad) but as a giver of good news and as a warner”–(Qur’an 17:105).
When something has come to the end of its term or a document is complete it is idiomatically said to be “gathered” or “rolled up.” Jews being “gathered” or “rolled up,” as Muhammad Ali translated, “is meant that they (Jews) would make way for another people, who would inherit the kingdom of God.” This concurs with Jesus’ prophecy that the kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and given to another people–(Matt. 21: 43).
As stated, when Abraham asked Allāh, God, about His covenant for his off-spring, Allah says to him: “My covenant does not include the wrong-doers”–(Qur’an 2:124); and Muhammad Ali correctly points out that God’s “covenant was made, not with Israel but with Abraham …Ishmael and Isaac were equally to be blessed.”
Allah says that His curse is on the Jews–(Qur’an 2:88); that most of them are faithless–(Qur’an 2:100), treacherous–(Qur’an 5:13), transgressors–(Qur’an 5:81); and declared that “He would send against them to the day of Resurrection those who would subject them to severe torment”–(Qur’an 7:167).
It is doubtful that Allāh, God, would then dispossess the believing Palestinians–who are not of “wickedness,” but worship Him in His Purity as the One and Only, the Eternal Absolute, Who begets not nor is begotten, Who is the Incomparable, and Who has no “chosen people” to the exclusion of others–and give their country to a people who are “stiffnecked,” “rebellious,” “provocative,” “treacherous,” and will lose the kingdom of God; and most of whom are faithless, treacherous, transgressors, on whom His curse is upon, and whom He has declared to subject to severe torment to the day of Resurrection; and mostly when this promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was already fulfilled and when there is no such second covenant by Him (and when these Jews may not even be of the Twelve Tribes of Jacob/Israel but descendants of the Khazar converts to Judaism and maybe even descendants of European converts to Judaism).
If it be argued that these pronouncements against Jews were applicable only to Jews of ancient times, the claim that God gave us this land would also now be redundant. Such argument would also deny the prophecy of Jesus that the kingdom of God shall be taken from the Jews and given to another people. That Jews would be made to return to the Holy Land (as in 1948) has NO foundation in the Qur’an.
After their freedom from bondage, Allah made the Children of Israel/Jacob inheritors of the Holy Land. This inheritance is not to be taken to mean an automatic reclamation of the Holy Land by a future generation. Moreover, Allah had already fulfilled His promise to Abraham by having the Children of Israel inherit the Holy Land. If the Children of Israel were dispossessed of this land recourse to it could hardly be made in the name of God, because: “Allah never changes a favor which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition”–(Qur’an 8:53). Allah having granted the Holy Land to the Children of Israel, he did not deprive them of it. For the Children of Israel to have lost possession of this Land they must have changed their own condition from one of favor from God to one of disfavor. They cannot now claim this Land on the ancient promise from God and dispossess the inhabitants, because Allah does not aid in evil. To intrigue and dispossess peaceful, believing Palestinians with the ultimate object of erecting “Eretz Israel” is evil. But (God is) “a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He–(Deut; 32:4).
Palestine was not “consecrated” in the hands of Jews for “thousands of years.” God does not make a thing holy by putting it in the hands of the “stiff-necked” and the “rebellious” and who did not fulfill their covenant.
This “land” was not “consecrated” in the hands of Jews. Jews were given control of this land –which control lasted for a mere “sixty years” instead of the bally-hooed “thousands of years”– because, as already noted, of God fulfilling His promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–(Deut. 9:4-7). Paramountly, God’s covenant does not include wrong-doers. And Allāh, God, promised to have Jews chastised to the Resurrection–(Qur’an 7:167). Jews having lost this land recourse to it could hardly be made under the name of God –perhaps, Jerusalem being destroyed and Jews taken into captivity was one such Divine chastisement.
Jews who are “stiffnecked” and “rebellious;” have killed the prophets of God, and even tried to kill God’s “only begotten son” (Jesus); having lost the kingdom of God; on whom are God’s curse; most of whom are faithless, treacherous, and transgressors; and would be tormented to the Resurrection; and are yet to fulfill their covenant with God could hardly trumpet any claim to special Divine gifts.
Putting aside Jesus’ pronouncements on Jews killing the prophets of God, losing the kingdom of God, and on whose head was poured all the righteous blood from Abel to Zacharias son Barachias, and whose house is cursed into desolation. Putting aside the Qur’an’s revelation on Jews most of whom are faithless, treacherous, transgressors, on whom His curse is upon, and whom He has declared to subject to severe torment to the day of Resurrection. Putting aside the fact that Palestinians are not wicked as the Biblical Children of Anak were, nor are “stiffnecked” and “rebellious” against God; but who believe in God and proclaim His Unity, Glory, Greatness, and Grandeur five time a day, and worship Him in His uniqueness and in all His glory from Adam, Noah, and Abraham all the way down to Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad). To claim that God would again give Palestine to Jews who are “stiff-necked” and “rebellious” and do not keep His judgments (and who may not even be Biblical Jews)and when He only gave them Palestine in the first place just so He could fulfill His promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and meant only for the Twelve Tribes of Jacob: for these twentieth century Jews to claim Palestine as being a favor of God to them –and given to them not through Divine agency but through American diplomatic thuggery (at the UN) to satisfy then US President Harry Truman’s political agenda47A– has to be the biggest hoola-hoop in history. And anyone who dances in this hoola-hoop must be the biggest maroon in creation.
As shown, this promise of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was fulfilled two thousand years ago through Joshua, and lasted for a mere “sixty-year” period. Apart from this God gave Jews NOTHING! ZERO! ZILCH! SQUAT! KADOODLE! That “Jews are alien usurpers of Palestine” is no “ignorant” “rant(ing).”
Palestine is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims:
-Morally: they are the descendants of the natives.
-Socially: a country is not dissected because one sector does not wish to live with the “other”(a country forced into dividing because two races militate against each other is not the same as Jewish intent to create a state–(See Edward Said The Question of Palestine; and Ismail Zayid Palestine, A Stolen Heritage– or because they desire their own state (the Sikhs of Punjab and the Gypsies of Europe should petition the UN for their respective State in India and Europe, if only to test the integrity of the UN); those who do not wish to live with the “other” must leave. If ownership to a piece of land constitutes the right to secede from the whole, or if a country is dissected because one sector does not wish to live with the “other,” or along sectist, racial, and theological lines, or for want of their own state many a country might now be standing in rumps.
-Historically: their history in Palestine predates that of Jews–Jewish sovereignty in Palestine was for a mere sixty years, two thousand years ago.
-Spiritually: as in the Bible (noted below, by Prof. Dawud)–As stated, Allāh, the God of Justice and Goodness, would not take Palestine from the believing Palestinians and give it to a stiffnecked and rebellious people, most of whom are faithless, treacherous, transgressors, on whom His curse is upon, whom He has declared to subject to severe torment to the day of Resurrection, and who are decreed to lose the kingdom of God.
(Regarding the Palestinians/Muslims spiritual heritage of Palestine, Professor ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud–the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani–explains in his revealing book Muhammad In The Bible:
“There are three distinct points which every true believer in God must accept as truths. The first point is that Ishmael is the legitimate son of Abraham,his firstborn, and therefore his claim to birthright is quite just and legal. The second point is that the Covenant was made between God and Abraham as well as his only son Ishmael before Isaac was born. The Covenant and the institution of the Circumcision would have no value or signification unless the repeated promise contained in the divine words, “Throughout thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,” and especially the expression, the Seed “that shall come out from the bowels, he will inherit thee” (Gen. xv. 4). This promise was fulfilled when Ishmael was born (Gen. xvi.), and Abraham had the consolation that his chief servant Eliezer would no longer be his heir. Consequently we must admit that Ishmael was the real and legitimate heir of Abraham’s spiritual dignity and privileges. The prerogative that “by Abraham all the generations of the earth shall be blessed,” so often repeated–though in different forms–was the heritage by birthright, and was the patrimony of Ishmael. The inheritance to which Ishmael was entitled by birthright was not the tent in which Abraham lived or a certain camel upon which he used to ride, but to subjugate and occupy forever all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, which were inhabited by some ten different nations (Gen. xvii. 18-21). These lands have never been subdued by the descendants of Isaac, but by those of Ishmael. This is an actual and literal fulfilment of one of the conditions contained in the Covenant.
The third point is that Isaac was also born miraculously and specially blessed by the Almighty, that for his people the land of Canaan was promised and actually occupied under Joshua.….The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancour that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and interpolated many passages in their Scriptures.Toefface the name “Ishmael” from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place “Isaac,” and to leave the descriptive epithet “thy only begotten son” is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael. It is expressly said in this chapter by God: “Because thou didst not spare thy only begotten son, I will increase and multiply thy posterity like the stars and the sands on the seashore,” which word “multiply” was used by the Angel to Hagar in the wilderness: I will multiply thy offspring to an innumerable multitude, and that Ishmael “shall become a fruitful man” (Gen. xvi. 12. It is Muslims whose numbers are “like the stars and the sands on the seashore”–(Gen. 22:17). Now the Christians have translated the same Hebrew word, which means “fruitful” or “plentiful” from the verb para–identical with the Arabic wefera–in their versions “a wild ass”! Is it not a shame and impiety to call Ishmael “a wild ass” whom God styles “Fruitful” or “Plentiful”?” (pp. 30, 31, 32. Emphasis added).
Man can alter Scripture(s), man cannot alter decree of God.
(That Ishmael, and not Isaac, was the son Abraham offered in his intended sacrifice is also borne out by Allāh, God, in His Qur’an: Abraham prayed for an heir and is given a son; then he had a vision about him sacrificing this son–(Qur’an 37:100-111), and AFTER-WARDS Abraham was promised Isaac as stated in verses 112-113: “And We gave him the good news of ISAAC, a prophet, a righteous one. And We blessed him (Abraham) and Isaac.” Allāh blessing Abraham as Muhammad Ali explains: “Abraham and Isaac are spoken of distinctly to show that by blessing Abraham is here meant blessing his descendants through Ishmael.” Muslims who say that the Qur’an is not clear about which son was the intended sacrifice are to study the Qur’an carefully).
Muslims have all rights and the Highest Authority to undertake the noble jihad to reclaim every grain of Arab sand: “and drive them out from where they drove you out”–(Qur’an 2:191). The Occupied has the right to fight by whatever means and whatever methods available; man has no right to edict judgment against them: this judgment is only for Allāh. The occupier/usurper has no “right,” “inalienable” or otherwise, to “retaliate” against his victim: he being the transgressor to begin with (a mugger has no “right” to break the arm of his victim when his victim turns on him. “Right” is for the victims. Palestinians are the victims). Muslims who acquiesce to this foreign domination of Palestine are traitors to Allāh and His noble Messenger–(Qur’an 48:10; 2:190-191; 8:72-73; 60:9; 42:39-41. Such Muslims are to begin formulating their excuse for their betrayal of their trust when they face Allāh on Judgment Day).
This is not a Palestinian struggle; this is not an Arab struggle; this is a Muslim struggle and a human struggle–it is a human struggle for truth and justice in that no one would expect any less for himself or herself–it is a Muslim struggle in that all the lands in the Middle-east are Muslims’–a bequeath from Allah, God, as per the Covenant of Genesis for the posterity of Ishmael “to subjugate and occupy forever all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates.”Truth and justice are not to be butchered on the stones of politics and friendship.
In replanting the gardens of the world to suit their parasitic designs the Emperors sow the venomous seeds of hatred that grow into towering trees of conflict whose bitter fruits are tasted long after the sordid wretches are gone.
All the nations that were signatories to this grave offence –the Partitioning of Palestine– against the Palestinians must apologize to the Palestinians, return to them their homes, lands and country and compensate them for their more than half-a-century of loss and suffering and humiliation. Or continue to live unrepentant with this indelible stain of shame and injustice on their history.
Why are Palestinians refugees in Arab States?: The Arab states granting citizenship to the Palestinians would be giving legitimacy to the theft of Palestine. Palestinians want more than citizenship: they want the return of their own country–Palestine!
Palestinians as “refugee outcasts” is a stark reminder to the nations–whether or not they voted under “pressure” “coercion” or “duress” for the destruction of Palestine–of the dastardly black deed they committed against the Palestinians. Which they must now redress or continue to exist with this indelible stain of shame on their histories. These refugee camps are a living museum of the Palestinian genocide.
Arabs “initiated” war against Jews: Wrong! This conflict was not “initiated” by Arab countries. This conflict was “initiated” by those who stole Palestine. The actions by the Arab countries are a natural “retaliation” –a natural response which any person would undertake– to this flagrant theft. If there was no theft, there would not have been this Arab response.
To state that this war was “initiated by Arab countries” would be like saying that World War II was “initiated” by the Allies.
Palestinians/Muslims are not calling for the destruction of the Jewish state: only for the return of what was stolen from them.
In modern history, if there ever was a people who had all legitimacy to rise up with whatever means and in whatever manner against the injustices perpetrated against them this right, unequivocally, belongs to the Palestinian people. It behooves not only all Muslims but also all honest human beings to support them in this striving. No human being –religionist or atheist– would expect any less from his fellow human-being for himself and herself.
52. Palestinian Refugees: “The U.N. has also contributed to the crisis. Today, it considers 3.5 million Palestinians to be refugees, but it applies a definition that’s given to no other displaced people.That definition includes not only the original refugees, who numbered about 700,000, but also their children and grand-children.…(This is so because no other people has had their homes, land and country stolen and given to another. Whether your property was usurped or not wouldn’t you consider it your childrens’ heritage and want them to have it? Wouldn’t you be justified in demanding this? Why is it that Jews born anywhere in the world can have automatic citizenship to Palestine but Palestinians born in his own country is a refugee? You will not accept this obscenity for yourself and family. And no one else will either).
Sad and unnecessary. After all, hundreds of thousands of Jews found themselves kicked out of Arab lands by the 1950’s…. Israel absorbed and integrated the vast majority of them. For that matter, Israel has granted citizenship to ninety-eight thousand Palestinians under a family reunification effort. What have Arab governments by and large done for Palestinians?” (p. 106).
Response: Whether Palestinians were encouraged by their leaders to leave, was evicted or left on their own –what would you do if your life was threatened?– is irrelevant. They could leave for whatever reason(s) and for how long. Palestine is the land of the Palestinians; this is what matters. Palestinians want their own country returned to them. The refugee camps are a stark reminder of the Jews and the world’s injustice inflicted upon the Palestinians.
Jews kicked out of Arab countries: While this eviction may have been unjustified, there is no comparison with the Palestinians: these Jews were not dispossessed of their country, nor were they and their children massacred. (In fact, the Zionists must have welcomed this banishment, as its policy was [still is?] to dilute the Arab population of Palestine).
Ninety-eight thousand: The Zionist state may have re-united “ninety-eight thousand” Palestinians with their families. This hardly merits a crown, in face of the “seven hundred thousand” that lost their homes, land and country; and their “three and a half million” sons and daughters who are deprived of their heritage. These descendants of the Palestinians who fled their country or left expecting to return later, whether living in Kuwait or elsewhere, have all rights over the alien Jews that flooded Palestine and their descendants as well as over the Jews of Russia and elsewhere, to return to Palestine.
Injustice is the “incubator” of terrorism.
53. Jews could live with the other: “However grudgingly, the Jews could live with the “other.” They adopted the UN plan and, six months later, proclaimed independence.” (p. 113). (Why would Jews not accept this Crown Jewel of a Plan that gave them 56 % territory when they owned only 6 % land?)
Response: Right! Jews could live with the other, that is why Theodor Herzl notes that Jews would have to “spirit the penniless” Arabs out of Palestine “while denying” them “employment in our own country” 48 (? our “own” country? How did Palestine became your country? Arrogance at its peak),and Joseph Weitz wanted an Israel “without Arabs,”49Chaim Weizman “promised” Jews a Palestine “as Jewish as England is English,”50 and Israel Zangwill envisioned “a land without people (Arabs) for a people (Jews) without land.”51
And in his column Israeli unilateralism won’t produce peace, columnist Haroon Siddqui notes the result from a “recent poll by the Haifa-based Centre Against Racism, reported by AFP news agency,” which showed that “68 percent of Jews surveyed would be unwilling to live next to an Arab neighbour.”52 So much for the ultra-hyped claim of Jews willing to live with the “other.” (See also item #89).
Arabs did not transgress against Jews. It is not the Arabs that are the enemies of Jews. It is the other way around: it is the Jews who are the enemies of the Arabs.
Professor Noam Chomsky notes “Israeli diplomat Chaim Herzog, later President” (enunciating in 1972): “I do not deny the Palestinians a place or stand or opinion on every matter…But certainly I am not prepared to consider them as partners in any respect in a land that has been consecrated in the hands of our nation for thousands of years. For the Jews of this land there cannot be any partners.”53 (Who is a Jew? And can Chaim Herzog [and those who parrot him] prove that he is descended from one of the twelve tribes of the prophet Jacob/Israel?)
This is more Jewish posturing to justify the unjustifiable occupation/usurpation of Palestine. This “land” was not “consecrated” in the hands of Jews. Jews were given control of this land –which control lasted for a mere sixty years instead of the ballyhooed “thousands of years”– because of God fulfilling His promise to His prophets: “but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people”–(Deut. 9:4-7).
God did not promise to fulfill His covenant twice. Paramountly, God’s covenant does not include wrong-doers, as He revealed in the Qur’an–(Qur’an 2:124). And Allāh, God, promised to chastise Jews to the Resurrection –(Qur’an 7:167). Jews having lost this land, recourse to it could hardly be made under the name of God –perhaps, Jerusalem being destroyed and Jews taken into captivity was one such Divine chastisement. (Some Jews are of the belief that the Holocaust was Divine chastisement). And Jews who are “stiffnecked” and “rebellious;” most of whom are faithless, treacherous, and transgressors; on whom God’s curse is upon; and whom He has decreed to chastise to the Resurrection could hardly trumpet any claim to special Divine gifts.
That God would dispossess the believing Palestinians –who are not of “wickedness” but worship Him in His Purity as the One and Only, the Eternal Absolute, Who begets not nor is begotten, Who is the Incomparable, and Who has no “chosen people” to the exclusion of others–of their homes, lands, and country and give them to a people who are “stiffnecked,” “rebellious,” and will lose the kingdom of God; and most of whom are faithless, treacherous, transgressors, on whom His curse is upon, and whom He has declared to subject to severe torment to the day of Resurrection; is not only hilarious but is the biggest joke of creation!
As shown earlier, this land was “consecrated in the hands of” Abraham and Ishmael –this “land” is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims. No amount of Jewish “verbal acrobatics” can negate this indelible and Divine truth! (It is sometimes asserted that these are ancient texts and are not relative to modern times. Really? Didn’t Jews use the “ancient texts” that God gave us this land to scheme and kick Palestinians off their land; and are slaughtering them to hold on to it and also believe that God will make future nations beholden to them?–Deut. 32:43.* These may be ancient texts but Allāh is Omniscient; a survey should be done to test the words of Allāh that the majority of Jews are faithless, arrogant, mischievous, and treacherous). *(See Judaism for Jewish delusion over this claim).
(Lest we forget!It was Muslim Salahuddeen Ayyube [Saladin] the majestic conqueror of Jerusalem whose mercy brought Jews back to Jerusalem from where they were barred by the Christians. And this is how Jews repay Muslims’ love and benevolence–dispossess them of their homes, lands, and country, and slaughtering them for sixty years now. But this could hardly have been unexpected; considering that they were treacherous to God–breaking their covenant with Him54–and were arrogant/ungrateful to their prophet–telling Moses to go and fight while they sit and wait–(Num. 14:1-4; Qur’an 5:22-24); killed the prophets of God–(Matt. 23:31-35, and even tried to kill God’s “only begotten son,” Jesus); was treacherous towards the Prophet Mohammad; and tried to deceive Muslims–(Qur’an 3:71); and as M. H. Haykal points out “their opposition and hostility were never open;”55 and in post-1948 Palestine they colluded with France and Britain and attacked Egypt so Britain could “occupy” Egypt’s Suez Canal;56 were the first airplane hijackers in the Mid-East;57 and provoked the war in Lebanon.58 And “Ariel Sharon” “advised that the way to deal with demonstrators is to “cut off their testicles.””59 [Wonder what Sharon had in mind to “cut off” from female demonstrators]. For a marathon-long list of Jewish atrocities read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, if you can digest intellectual and “civilized” savagery. One instance of this sickening savagery against Arabs noted by the Professor:
“These included regular exercises of humiliation, such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another and crawl on the ground while they call out “Long Live the State of Israel” or lick the earth; or on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.”” (p. 9).
And they expect to be viewed through rose-“colored glasses” and garlanded with flowery words. Speak out against their atrocities and you are slammed with the brick-walls of “anti-Semitism” and promoter of ‘hatred against Jews’. They are likely to become faster’n Wyatt Earp on the “law-suit” draw. These fellas are giving laugh stories. They should be comedians.
Truth is truth!
Truth is not “anti-Semitism”!
Truth is not “hatred”!
[Notably, Muslims are profiled because of 911].
Ironically –and this is no mockery, only an observation; though some might say it is poetic justice– whereas Ariel Sharon “advised” to “cut off their (demonstrators) testicles” he now has his brains “cut off”: lying senseless/comatose in hospital.
Whether we call Him Ishwar, Eli, Yahweh, Allāh, Atnatu or Manitou, one by one the arrogant butchers of Palestine (and of the world) are returned to God to toast for their crimes. The magnificence of it is, in the Court of Allāh, God, there is no diplomatic immunity, no legal technicality, no hung-jury/no mistrial; no bribery; no one to “pressure” or bring “coercion and duress” on; and no godfather to shield behind his coat –in fact, the godfather would be hustling for a skirt for himself to hide behind– you did the crime, or was involved in it, you toast the time. And considering that one Divine day is equal to a thousand human years, even if the maximum time spent in Hell is twelve months, in Divine terms that would be 365,000 human years. You’re well crisped!)
As noted above, Arab prisoners are made, “on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.””
(When one is forced to believe and is subjected to Judiciary for denying a thing the truth of such a thing becomes highly suspect. If an event or doctrine is truth there is no necessity to legislate belief in it or to criminalize question or denial of it; proponents and opponents alike must provide proofs of their claim and let the public judge who is truthful and who is liar. To institute a law against denial of a thing is an abomination and an insult to the intellectuals and to all members of society –it may be equated with tyranny; and may be an avenue to other such legislation(s). Laws do not prevent people from being violated: laws can only bring violators to justice; laws do not sanctify or justify a claim: truth does. Forcing people to not speak out only serves to silence voices: it does not change mentality. Such a law may bring more harm than benefit –it may attract more opposition to the “truth” it professes to protect. It is a monumental disgrace that “civilized” society would allow such a law to be instituted. Such a law is repugnant to reason. And is to be repealed. Forthwith! Be it history or theology Truth stands by itself; Falsehood needs to be propped up!)
The despots must be having a “laugh-a-rama” at this “democratic” law: ‘and they call us tyrants. Hah!’
54. Sexless virgins and alcohol-free wine jokes: (Palestinians are) “also ribbing each other about the limp faith of martyrs in paradise. “In some jokes the black-eyed virgins turn out to be sexless, or the wine is alcohol-free,” says Arab Israeli professor Muhammed Abu Samra. These jokes “express a kind of distrust in what the Islamic faith promises in the next life.” (p. 115). (Curiously, what does non-Islamic faiths promise in the next life?)
Response: These Palestinians must know that the rewards of Paradise are no “jokes.” Ignorance of the bliss of the Hereafter is no excuse to poke fun at the promise of Allah. Such jokes reflect the paucity of knowledge these Muslims have of Islam. Muslims who serve Allah to receive “virgins” and “wine” in Paradise have a monumental problem. The time they spend in such useless talk, they should study their Scripture.
As man can only relate to material items, the rewards of Paradise as expressed in the Qur’an are only an indication that we would receive the ultimate in bliss. These expressions are not to be taken literally: Allāh reveals, “So no soul knows what refreshment of the eyes is hidden for them: a reward for what they did”–(Qur’an 32:17); and the noble Messenger of Allāh expounded: “Allāh says, I have prepared for My righteous servants that which no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and which the heart of man cannot conceive”–(Bokhari, Vol. 6, #302). And this is no “joke!” The professor, unless he himself is theologically impoverished (or is non-Muslim) is to enlighten his brothers instead of repeating these vain and unGodly sayings.
55. “Israel”–alpha and omega of Palestinian oppression: (Nabil Amr, “a former minister in Arafat’s cabinet.”) “a few more Palestinians have publicly echoed him. They’ve acknowledged that Israel is not the alpha and the omega of their people’s oppression. So why do we in the West increasingly perceive Israel as the viper?” (pp. 116-117). (Because we in the West are not myopic as some in the East –and as some in the West– who engage in such warped cerebration).
Response: While Palestine, without the yokes of Jewish occupation, may –or may not, and no one can tell for certain– have been a dictatorship as other Arab States; the situation as it is, the Zionist State is the alpha and omega of the Palestinian sufferings.
Without the Partition/Occupation there would be no Arab exodus; no Deir Yassin massacre; no Kafr Qassim; no Kibya; no Sabra and Shatila and their massacres; no refugee camps; no military attacks on Arab civilians “en masse;” no Palestinian refugees in their own country; no destruction/invasion of Lebanon (1978, 1982, 2006); no civil war in Lebanon; no destruction of the Akraba wheat fields; no destruction of Palestinian properties and farms; no confiscation of their properties and lands; no Arafat era; no torturous six decades of the daily humiliation and suffering and injustice.…..And there would be no Arab “suicide bombers.” (Palestinians can detail what are missing).
Interestingly, Ofir Gendelman, “Second Secretary (Political) and consul, Embassy of Israel, Ottawa,” in his letter to the Editor of the Toronto Star, Thursday, January 25, 2007, in response to an article by columnist James Travers who is said to have compared Palestinian Freedom-fighter group, Hamas, with Jewish terrorist groups which Geldelman sanitized as “pre-state Jewish underground groups”(which should make Al-Qaeda post-Palestine Airwaves group. The spin doctors for these “pre-state Jewish underground groups” must get a hernia polishing coals into diamonds). Gendelman claims that the “analogy” is “not only unacceptable but misleading.” Arguing that whereas Hamas is labeled a “terrorist organization” and “targets defenceless Israeli civilians,” the Jewish terror groups “made every effort to ensure” that “civilians” “would not be harmed.” (What utter malarkey! Tell this to the people of Deir Yassin, Kafr Qassim and Kibya as well as those who are attacked “en masse” and those who are “provoked” so you could “smash them”).
Gendelman’s claim was refuted the next day by a letter writer to the Star, who listed a few examples of Jewish terrorists not so “every effort” to avoid killing “civilians”: bombing of the “King David Hotel in Jerusalem,” killing “91” and injuring “45 British and Arabs;” “assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944;” “letter bombs to British cabinet ministers” in 1947; bombing of the “Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem, killing the “Viscount de Tapia and 19 other civilians;” the “assassination of Count Bernadotte and his aide.” Plus the Deir Yassin massacre of 250-300 “old men, women, children, and newly born.”
It hardly needs any detailed evidence to refute the apologist’s claim –since Jews, already entrenched in Palestine, would attack Arab civilians “en masse,” consider how much more savage and brutal their approach and methods would be when they were yet trying to get a toe-hold in Palestine. That Jewish terrorism was meant to be as severe as could be with the purpose of depopulating Palestine of its native people –to terrorize them into fleeing their homes, land and country– is evidenced by the gruesome murders of the 250-300 “old men, women, children and newly-born,” of Deir Yassin with “knives and grenades” –this horrific butchery was glorified by Menachem Begin, the leader of the Irgun terrorist group that committed this massacre, as a “victory”– and that which followed:
The Irgun stormed and captured the village of Deir Yasin and massacred much of the population, terrorizing the Arab villagers, who began a mass exodus from Palestine.” (Ency; Brit; 15th Edn; Vol. 17, p. 960. Italics/emphasis added).
After the massacre of Deir Yassin, “the Zionist forces, using loud-speakers, roamed the streets of cities warning Arab inhabitants “The Jericho road is still open,” they told Jerusalem Arabs–“Fly from Jerusalem before you are killed, like those in Deir Yassin.””60
Then there was, in 1956, the point-blank execution of 52 Arab peasants, –men women and children returning home from their fields–for violating a curfew of which they had no knowledge, and of which fact the murderous officer(s) was aware.
Glossifying the Jewish terrorist groups as “pre-state Jewish underground groups,” that “made every effort to ensure” that “civilians” “would not be harmed,” also seems to imply that it is condonable to kill others to take from them what is not yours, so long as you avoid killing innocents. If so, Germany should not have been booted out of France; Saddam Hussein should not have been turfed out of Kuwait; and Argentina should not have been chased off the Falklands Island.
Gendelman also wrote: “Hamas, which Canada has labelled a terrorist organization, do not have a single piece of ideology in common” with the Jewish terrorist groups. Absolutely true! Whereas Jewish ideology was (still is?) to depopulate Palestine of its native Palestinians, Hamas’ ideology is to liberate Palestine, an effort which any patriot would undertake.
So Jewish terrorists are “pre-state Jewish underground groups” whereas Palestinian Freedom-fighters are “terrorists.” Jews are not terrorists for wrenching Palestine from its owners but Palestinians are terrorists for fighting to reclaim their country. Are you shocked by such “political” gymnastics?
It is doubtful that an honest person familiar with the history of Palestine would be shocked at the “verbal acrobatics” employed to justify (and even perpetuate) the theft of Palestine.
Would Canada/Canadians in the same situation as Hamas/ Palestinians consider themselves “a terrorist organization”? It is doubtful they would. No one would. And rightly so).
(Who is Canada, and others, to label Hamas/Palestinians as “terrorists” and prevent their supporters from contributing financially to these liberators of Palestine? After we have paid taxes on our income; what right does any government have to dictate what we do with our money or to whom we give? Why haven’t Muslim legal brains challenge this tyranny in the Court? And even in the World Court if need be.
It is hardly surprising that Canada would condemn Hamas/Palestinians and support Jewish occupation of Palestine considering that two hundred years after herding the proud natives onto reservations–glorified refugee camps or glorified concentration camps, the intellectual may argue–Canada’s treatment of the natives is noted as ““shameful.””61
It is amusing and hypocritical that Canada is killing Afghans/Talibans to institute democracy in that nation and is practicing tyranny in her own –criminalizing denial of the “holocaust” and financial contribution to Hamas freedom fighters. Why not a law criminalizing denial of the Deir Yassin massacre and one criminalizing denial of the “virgin birth” of Jesus?)
Timely. On Friday January 26, 2007, Khaled Mouammar, National President, Canadian Arab Federation, sent a letter to the Toronto Star detailing some “racist policies” in “Israel”–where nearly half or more of the Jewish population would either refuse to be neighbors to an “Israeli Arab;” would “support the segregation of Jews and Arabs in places of recreation;” that “Arabs are a security and demographic threat to the state” –this from the people who was less than 35% of the population of Palestine and owned less than 6% land and yet were allotted 56% of land, including the valuable coastal area–and that “the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens” –the zeal to depopulate Palestine of its indigenous people is alive and well: the forefathers would be joyed.
In response to Mr. Mouammar’s letter, Frank Dimant, “Executive Vice-President, B’nai Brith, Canada, Toronto,” wrote (Toronto Star, Tuesday, January 30, 2007), that “Israel” is a “democratic society founded on the principles of tolerance and respect for all of its citizens.” But as shown in this presentation, by their own actions and pronouncements, this claim is a crock! Only the ignorant would be duped by flowery statements, as that made by Ofir Gendelman and Frank Dimant.
That Arabs “participate” in the Jewish “political process” and hold “top-level positions in society.” So what! A few token appointments are proofs of justice and equality?
That “Israel” is a “stark contrast” to “Arab nations” is a desperate attempt to shore up belief that “Israel” is a democracy and fair to Arabs. Deplorable as the Arab states are towards their subjects, no Arab state has claimed to be a democracy for them to be compared to “Israel.” But for world opinion Palestinians may have long been eviscerated out of Palestine. Democracy is more than to be tolerant of political demonstrations and disgruntled religionists. The country that “must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens.” could not have “tolerance and respect for all of its citizens.”(See item #56).
Regarding the charge of “discrimination of Arabs in Israel,” Frank Dimant also notes that Palestinians often “expressed their preferred desire to live in Israel” than “be placed under the control of the Palestinian Authority.”
But Palestinian’s aversion to be “under the control of the Palestinian Authority”–which might be so only because the Authority is said to be corrupt; it is certain Palestinians would not be averse under Hamas, whom neither Jews nor the West accept, even though Hamas has been victorious in the democratic process so highly prized by the West; yet these hypocritical “democracies” has the shamelessness to speak of freedom and justice– could hardly be taken as an expression of appreciation for their Jewish occupier. Israelites, in spite of their years of sufferings under Pharaoh, also wanted to return to Pharaoh after their liberation–(Exodus 14:12; 16:3)–and unlike the Palestinians who are subjected to the degradations of road-bocks, ID and body checks and lineups, impounded revenues, social discriminations, and the tormentor armed to the forehead; the Israelites only discomfort was the craving for the “flesh pots” and “bread.”
Given the appalling and humiliating conditions under which the Palestinians are forced to live, it is doubtful that anyone would like to be there if they had a choice. Perhaps these conditions are deliberately made to be as inhumanly unbearable as possible to force the Palestinians to abandon their country. Palestinians who choose to be there are either without choice or are there to preserve their heritage to the land.
Vive le Palestine Libre’!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Azad Philistine Zindabad!
Long live Free Palestine!
56. Zionism and Apartheid: From pages 118-122 Manji, citing the Zionist State’s so-called democracy, tried to prove that this State is not “Apartheid.” Arguing. Could the Zionist state be labeled apartheid when its citizens enjoy democratic rights, such as mixing of Arab and Jewish children, free press, voting rights to women and the poor in local elections, Arab candidates in elections, and so on?
Response: If Zionism views itself as God’s “Chosen race” to the exclusion of others, the answer to the question would be ‘yes.’ If Zionism considers that “The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races,”* the answer to the question would be “yes.”
*(The Jewish, “KHUZARI BOOK, which is approved by the office of education. In the introduction to the book Dr. Tzifroni writes: “The nation of Israel is a chosen nation because of its race, its education and the climate of the land in which it was brought up. The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races.””62 (And Hitler was pilloried (still is) for his view that Germans is the master race. If supremacy is based on race, residency, and knowledge; then Palestinians/ Arabs are the “most superior of all races”; having resided in Palestine for six thousand years, is the best nation, as Allāh says in His Qur’an, and has given Muslims knowledge that brought light to the world –at a time when Jews and everyone else were running around with flint tools and torches).
Considering that man was formed of “dust” and is reproduced through sperm and ovum (penis and vagina) –Genesis 2:7; 1:27-28. Qur’an 32:7-8; 49:13; 76:2. How rightly then the Prophet Mohammad gave the celestially and profoundly perfect answer to this mis-shapen mentality (of high-birth) that is unworthy not only of the enlightened Twentieth century but unworthy of all centuries. Said the magnificent Messenger of Allāh that whoever prides himself on being of high-birth ‘tell him to bite on his father’s penis’:63 (that is where he came from; that is the lowly beginning from where we all came). And the Prophet made it the point that when using this saying not to alter the word “penis” so as to make it a delicate expression; (the proud one must face the full impact of his vain pride; that his pride originated from or lies in his father’s “penis”). One is “superior” to the other only through his belief in God and doing good deeds).
In the shrewd Apartheid system, religious, social and political freedoms are all tolerated (to a certain degree) to facilitate ease in governing. That one is superior to others by virtue of his race is the first tenet of this system. The second building block in this grand mirage is the erecting of a base to perpetuate this belief. This Government would endeavor to maintain that its people remain in ruling power; resulting in efforts to prevent the “other” race from ever becoming the majority, which would dilute its own supporters, eventually, probably, replacing it with “another” government and/or state.
But are not the Arab states also apartheid–ensuring Muslim majority? No! While Muslims believe, and can prove, that Islam is superior to all religions, in Islam it is not the race that is superior: it is the religion that is superior. A Muslim, regardless of his color or status, is better than another Muslim only through his good deeds. In Islam, a black ‘convert’ to Islam can become leader of the Muslim state. In Judaism, can a black ‘covert’ to Judaism become leader of the Jewish (or the Zionist) state? Absolutely not! For he is not truly a Jew: a Jew is a descendant of one of the twelve tribes of Jacob (specifically from the tribe of Judah, from which the name Jew originated).
Physical integration is no proof of the absence of mental segregation.
Regarding the Jewish “unilateral withdrawal” plan from the “Occupied Territories,” columnist Haroon Siddiqui quotes the Jewish State’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, as saying: “We would be completely separate from the majority of the Palestinian population and preserve a large and stable majority in Israel.”64 Isn’t this Apartheid? And this declaration was made in 2006.
(It will be Armageddon the day Jews allow a Palestinian Prime Minister. There is no Muslim entity occupying Jewish lands, nor has made them refugees in their own country as well as in others –as the Palestinians are refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan– and made them “second-class” citizens in their own country, for them having to allow a Jewish Prime Minister).
Significantly, Professor Noam Chomsky in his book Pirates & Emperors–International Terrorism in the Real World, notes as part of the “doctrine” of Zionism is that the Jewish state “must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens.” (p. 33. Italics/emphasis added).
To emphasize. For one, by virtue of his race, to plume himself as the monarch of men, which may impel him to mete out monumental miseries onto others in the name of this irreverent crown of vanity, is a mentality that is unworthy of the “civilized” Twentieth centuries.
57. Edward Said on Apartheid: “Edward Said, states flat out that “Israel is not South Africa…” How could it be when an Israeli publisher has translated Said’s seminal work, Orientalism, into Hebrew? I’ll cap this point with a question that Said himself asks of Arabs: “Why don’t we fight harder for freedom of opinions in our own societies, a freedom, no one needs to be told, that scarcely exists?”(p. 119).
Response: The “Israeli” publisher may have published Said’s book because as a businessman he saw profits. Or may be he is one of those Jews who, even though occupying the Palestinian’s country, rail against other forms of injustice. (Perhaps the publisher should be asked why he did it).
That “Israel is not South Africa” does not mean that the Zionist State is not Apartheid. (See item # 56).
Even if that was what Said meant, it does not mean that he was correct. Said calling his fellow Arabs to fight for freedom of opinions could hardly be taken to be his sanctioning of Jewish occupation/usurping of Palestine.
58. Racism and the UN: “No less a figure than the Syrian defence minister is publishing books and producing a movie to tag Jews as bloodsuckers…..Israel was the only country in the world to be criticized in documents presented at the official UN conference against racism. Why this staggering moral disconnect? Somebody?” (pp. 120-121).
Response: The reason why “Israel” was “criticized” is because not only it is an occupying/usurping power but also of its treatment of the native Palestinians. Palestinians are treated as “second class” citizens and in their own country. Ismail Zayid notes: “Derek Tozer, a British correspondent, writing in The American Mercury, stated: The official policy of the Government (of Israel) is unequivocal. Arabs, like the Jews in Nazi Germany, are officially ‘Class B’ citizens, a fact which is recorded on their identity cards.”65 (Grand “democracy”).
Isn’t it “racism” to view yourselves as “the most superior of all races”? As noted, regarding the Jewish “unilateral withdrawal” plan from the “Occupied Territories,” columnist Haroon Siddiqui quotes the Jewish State’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, as saying: “We would be completely separate from the majority of the Palestinian population and preserve a large and stable majority in Israel.” (Italics/emphasis added). Isn’t this racism? And this declaration was made in 2006. This is no “staggering moral disconnect.”
Jews as bloodsuckers: Syrian defence minister may be depicting Jews as “blood suckers,” but how are Jews portraying themselves to the world? Ismail Zayid and Edward Said and Noam Chomsky have documented a legion of Jewish atrocities against Palestinians (which generally are not reported by the West); yet, these are the same people who present themselves to the world as “doves of peace and examples of injured innocence.”66
On page 91 in his book The Question of Palestine, Edward Said notes about Jewish writings for children: “Children’s literature is made up of valiant Jews who always end up by killing low, treacherous Arabs, with names like Mastoul (crazy), Bandura (tomato), or Bukra (tomorrow). As a writer for Ha’aretz said (September 20, 1974), childrens’ books “deal with our topic: the Arab who murders Jews out of pleasure, and the pure Jewish boy who defeats ‘the coward swine!’ ””
And, as noted from Ismail Zayid in item #56, “No less a figure than the” Jewish “office of education” is declaring in books for students that Jews are “the most superior of all races.”
And Prof. Noam Chomsky notes in his insightful work Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, pp. 29-30: “Zionism is thereby conceived as the doctrine that Israel must be accorded rights beyond those of any other state; it must maintain control of occupied territories, thus barring any meaningful form of self-determination for Palestinians; and it must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. It is perhaps of some interest that those who declare themselves “supporters of Israel” insist on the validity of the notorious UN resolution declaring Zionism to be racist.” (Italics/emphasis’ added. As shown this UN resolution is not “notorious.” A fact even admitted to by “supporters of Israel.” Please read this book, obtainable from a local library).
Not that Syria’s depiction of Jews is condonable, of which it is doubtful that all Arabs entertain. And for certain not all Jews share the belief that they are the “most superior of all races.” But Syria’s propaganda evaporates like a dewdrop in Hell contrasted to Jewish ‘supremacy,’ which may very well be said to be the nucleus of Apartheid –mental, physical and spiritual.
59. Jewish Law of Return: “Just as the Third Reich lionized the racial purity of the Aryans, so Israel exists to nourish the biological privilege of Jews. (Why then castrate the Third Reich?) Let’s figure out what’s what. David Matas, the well-known international human rights lawyer, suggests it’s bizarre to conflate Zionism and racism. “Jews come in every color,” he reminds us. “There are black Jews –Falashas– who, under the Law of Return, were airlifted from Ethiopia to Israel.”…My question leads to the bigger one posed by Matas: Can the Law of Return, which encompasses every race, be legitimately stamped “racist’?”(pp. 121-122). (Jews, the occupiers/usurpers, can have Law of Return but Palestinians, the natives, cannot have Law of Return???)
Response: Falashas does not mean “black Jews.” “Falashas, (is) a derogatory word, an Ethiopian slave-name meaning “stranger” or “exile.””67
Since “Israel exists to nourish the biological privilege of Jews” “Just as the Third Reich lionized the racial purity of the Aryans,” why then was the Third Reich blasted as hatred and racist? And how does “Israel” nourish this privilege of superiority? Jews may not have killed “six million” but their method of “nourish (ing)” is no more acceptable than that of the Third Reich.
Law of Return: “Can the Law of Return, which encompasses every race, be legitimately stamped “racist’?” Yes!–if that Law views itself as God’s “Chosen race” to the exclusion of others, and views itself as the “most superior of all races.”
Would (white?) Jews descended from one of the twelve tribes of Israel consider a black convert to Judaism to be in the circle of God’s “Chosen race”? If yes, how could this be when the convert is not a member of any of the twelve tribes of Israel? And if no, then the convert is judged by his nationality, which is racism. This is why Judaism “By its own laws, it can’t evangelize,”because only descendants of Jacob–the twelve tribes–are considered to be God’s “chosen people.” However, there is no Jewish “Law of Return.” (See next topic).
Jewish Messianism: The Old Testament “never speaks” of a messiah who would come in the last days; “and even the “messianic” passages containing prophecies of a future golden age under an ideal king never use this term. Nevertheless, many modern scholars hold that Israelite messianism grew out of beliefs connected with kingship.”68
“The English word messiah is derived from hameshiach (“the anointed one”), the title of the kings of the line of David. Thus, in later times of disaster, Israel began to wait for a messiah, a new mediator of the power of God that would redeem the people and its land.”69 “Messianic faith tended to develop into mass enthusiasm, frequently fed by calculations based on the Book of Daniel and other biblical passages.”70
God decreed in Genesis 49:10 that the time shall come when power and prophethood will be taken from the Children of Israel and given to another, and at that time the Children of Israel are to follow this new prophet: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”
Prof. ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud (former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani) has explained this prophecy in detail that “Muhammad came with military power and the Qur-‘an to replace the old Jewish worn-out scepter and the impracticable and old-fashioned law of sacrifice and of a corrupt priesthood.”71
God says He will not take power from Judah until He sends Shiloh. This means, if Shiloh has not yet come, the scepter is still with Judah or the tribes of Israel. But, putting aside the fact that the house of Jacob, even at its very inception, consists of non-Jewish genes, and the probability that present world Jewry may be descendants of the Khazar converts to Judaism–which would mean that there is no tribe of Israel in existence, or only a few of its members–the tribe of Judah, which is unidentifiable today, should still be reigning over the twelve tribes of Israel. But there is no such tribe ruling over the house of Jacob (the twelve tribes of Israel). In fact it is doubtful that a present follower of Judaism would be able to identify him or herself as being a member of one of the twelve tribes of Israel.
If Shiloh has not yet come, “lawgiver” –prophethood– should also still be with the Children of Israel. But in the two thousand years since Christ, there has been no prophet of Israelite descent (or least, no claimant to prophethood who could substantiate his claim to Divine dispensation). The only prophet to come after Jesus, and who substantiated his claim –the Qur’an being his indisputable proof– and who was given power and law is the Prophet Mohammad. Mohammad is the Shiloh and the Prophet foretold by Moses–and this truth the elders of the Children of Israel knew, and ‘concealed’–(Qur’an 2:146; 73:15. Also 61:6; 26:197; 46:10). In fact, God was with Ishmael–(Genesis 21:20-21); and Jesus foretold (John 4:21) that the time will come when Jerusalem will cease to be the focus in the worship of God: “…the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.”
This place of universal worship decreed by Allah (God) is Makkah. Shiloh is already come. The scepter and lawgiver have already passed from Judah.
Judaism could not have a Law of Returnor an eschatological Messiah when Jews are required/covenanted to follow the Prophet Mohammad –to be Muslims.
As noted, the Old Testament does not speak of an eschatological Messiah to redeem the Israelites. God sending a Messiah to redeem Jews and their land would contradict His decree that power and prophethood would be taken from the Israelites, who are to follow Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); contradict His sending another prophet like Moses, whom the Israelites are to follow–(Deut. 18:15-19); contradict His sending the Comforter who will guide us into “all truth”–(John 14:15-16; 16:12-13); contradict His taking of His kingdom from the Jews and giving it to another people, as Jesus said–(Matt. 21:43); contradict His decree that Jerusalem would cease to be the focus of Divine worship–(John 4:21; Isaiah. 60:7; 65:15; Haggai. 2:9; Mal. 1:11); contradict His sending “another” angel with the “everlasting gospel”–(Rev 14: 6); and also contradict His decree to chastise Jews to the Resurrection (unless they follow Mohammad). And which Shiloh and prophet like Moses and Comforter and “another angel” are, indisputably, the Prophet Mohammad, as the Elders of Israel knew, and where Makkah is the new focus of Divine worship–(Qur’an 2:146; 26:192-197; 46:10; 61:6; 73:15; 3:95; 22:26-27); and which “an-other people” and “another gospel” are the Arabs/Muslims and the Qur’an, respectively. God would also be contradicting His decree that the posterity of Ishmael will inherit “all the territories” of the Middle-east–(Gen. 17:18-21)–as Prof. Dawud, (former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani) explains (already noted above). (See also item # 51). (See Judaism).
60. Muslims and education: (The Zionist State) “It’s the only country in the Middle East to which Arab Christians are voluntarily migrating. They’re also thriving, notching much higher university attendance rates than the Arab Muslim citizens of Israel.”(p. 122). (Perhaps some of the Arab Muslims cannot afford university costs. And perhaps because their parents face job discrimination. Or because their parents are forcibly prevented from going to their farms to work, as noted recently in the Toronto Star –perhaps they are forcibly barred from going to their farms so that after a while Jews can claim them as abandoned lands and confiscate/usurp them).
Response: If Muslims, Arab or non-Arab, neglect or refuse to seek knowledge, it is not because of the teachings of Islam. Allah, the Glorious and the High, instructs Muslims to seek knowledge and the noble Messenger of Allah encourages us to go even to China –meaning wherever there is knowledge–for this knowledge. And which the early Muslims did and, within a hundred years after the Prophet, became the torch-bearers of progress. So if Muslims desire their children to go to America, even if they loathe America for its injustices against them, where is the problem?
America (Christians) may be at the helm of knowledge at the present, but the root of this progress goes back to Islam, as noted in previous pages. Another example of this; Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, in his Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, notes from the writings of Lord Headley, titled WHEN INTELLECTUAL DARKNESS FACED EUROPE, THE TORCH-BEARERS OF ISLAMIC CULTURE:
“Referring to our mission in South Africa, a writer in the Press has remarked that science, culture and civilization have flourished in Christendom while Muslim nations are backward in their achievements, and thereby the writer tries to establish a superiority of the former over the latter. In this connection some Christian writers also point to the great charitable institutions, hospitals and schools, and homes for suffering humanity run on Christian lines. But one fails to wee why these charitable institutions should be ascribed to a religion which could not give birth to them for many centuries. They are the growth of modern culture, and owe their origin to quite different external causes, the greatest among them being Islam in Spain. Islam speaks highly of these charities in its teachings, and brought them into existence within two centuries of its birth.
Islam can claim superiority in one respect–Muslim universities opened their doors in Baghdad in the days of Nizam-ul-Mulk, and in Granada in the days of Abdul Rahman to students without distinction, caste, colour or creed, where they looked after, boarded and lodged at the public expense.
Besides hospitals, libraries, and other institutions there were public baths in every town in Moorish Spain, which were demolished in the time of Ferdinand, because cleanliness was strange to Christian piety in those days.
The short mission of Jesus did not leave him time enough to evolve a system which could further science, culture and civilization; on the other hand, the Qur-‘an and Muhammad emphasized things that caused a great upheaval of science and culture unknown before.
The early Muslim listened to the recitation of the Qur-‘an and was moved by it to learn to read and write in order to know it himself. The study of the Qur-‘an led to the foundation of an elaborate and scientific Arabian grammar and rhetoric, to philosophy and other branches of language; to research in ancient history and the record of passing events, and to the writing of erudite treatises on law. It also resulted in a strong desire being created to learn all that could be known about Nature and its laws.
Muslim messengers were sent to ransack India, Persia and Greece for hidden treasures of knowledge. Fabulous sums were paid for works which had been concealed for ages from the world. All this wisdom was translated into Arabic and compared with the natural facts observed, then revised and at last brought a system from out of chaos.
These unprecedented world-wide efforts need not surprise us. Muhammad created an insatiable thirst for knowledge, such as: “A Muslim should traverse mount and valley even unto China to acquire knowledge; the difficulties met with, however arduous, are one great way of worshipping God.”….”Preserve knowledge to posterity by writing it,”… “It is the business of every Muslim to discover wisdom from whatever source.”… “It is obligatory on every Muslim, male or female, to acquire knowledge.”… “A Muslim should study from the cradle to the grave.” A Muslim should learn from the wise of any religion. Such sayings were the seed which the Qur‘an brought to fruition.
History and Geography. (From here on material is edited).
Several thousand books on history were written differing in magnitude from one volume to eighty. ….The Muslims were the first to teach the world the art of making encyclopaedias and dictionaries, linguistic and biographical.
For Geography, they sailed the oceans and traversed the land. They described the phenomena of both sea and land and everything else they saw.…The Arabic language can boast of many immortal works on geography. The spherical shape of the globe was held to when its flatness was asserted by the scientists of priest-ridden Europe. The earth’s circumference was calculated and proved to be 24,000 miles. Other geographical facts were revealed, while discoveries were made in the East and the West.
Political Economy and Sociology. These sciences were unknown until the Muslims brought them to light. …..
Medicine and Pharmacy. In Baghdad there were eight hundred doctors of different classes. Each class made one branch of medicine a special study. There were surgeons, opticians, dentists, specialists in the diseases of women, and so on.
The Muslim doctors through practice and experiment, arrived at advanced ideas which gave ancient medicine its death-blow. They upheld that many diseases caused by unsatisfactory diet could be eradicated by the use of cooling vegetables, herbs and plants. They were the first to use anaesthetics and describe diseases heretofore misunderstood and to prescribe their cure.
Modern pharmacy is an institution of their invention. They studied the effect on the body of drugs from many parts of the earth and discovered many new remedies.
Chemistry and Botany. It has been stated that modern chemistry was founded by the Muslims. Nitric acid, sulphuric acid, silver nitrate and many other compounds were first discovered by Muslim chemists. A Muslim historian said that when wood was painted with a certain compound made by those chemists it became fireproof. They were the first to teach the world distillation, filtration, crystallization, solutions, etc. They showed in treatises the worthlessness of ancient chemistry.
Botanical students, accompanied by artists, traveled far and wide to study the different vegetations and described them minutely by pen and brush; ultimately these researches were recorded in scientific botanical treatises.
Hospitals. Hospitals were founded in large towns from the Indus to the north of Spain….There were separate wards for each disease. …
Astronomy. Wonderful discoveries concerning the movement of the solar system and other astral bodies were made. The size of the earth, the variation in the lunar longitudes, the precession of the equinoxes were ascertained. The astronomical tables of Albani were translated into Latin and were the base of astronomical study in Europe for centuries.
As they had done with ancient chemistry, the Muslims were the first to show the falsehood of astrology, and set out in treatises, based on observation and experience, the facts and usefulness of astronomy, For this purpose many observatories were established all over the wide empire. Many instruments were invented, such as the telescope and others.
Mathematics. The Arabic figures as well as alphabet are too well known to need any comment. Geometry and other mathematical branches were zealously studied and improved.
Fine Arts. Music was made a science and universally practiced. Animal sculpture and painting were developed to a high degree of excellence, while Arabic architecture is world famous.
Education. No town, however small, was without colleges or schools, while the principal cities of the empire had their separate universities.
High and low, rich and poor, were all absorbed in one intellectual pursuit or another. …….
Science and Learning. Islam annulled fortune-telling, magic and many other obsessions which were predominant at the time of Muhammad. Reason and natural laws replaced them in ruling life. Islam eradicated the idea of a person being entitled to recognition, respect or superiority merely because he was high-born. The individual was to be estimated by how he conducted himself, by his knowledge and usefulness.
The status of women was raised; the laws of marriage were reformed, and in fact the present civilization owes its growth to the influence of Islam. For fully ten centuries Islam made headway in power, civilization and science. Then Muslims became intoxicated with their success and wealth. Luxury caused enervation, foreign economic pressure reduced them to their present condition, and a sort of blight overtook them. If the present-day Islam is lacking in culture and science it is on account of their failure to maintain their religious standard. The case is different in Christendom. 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.” (Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, pp. 142-147).
To repeat: “If the present-day Islam is lacking in culture and science it is on account of their (Muslims) failure to maintain their religious standard.” In the words of Prof. ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani): “I must draw the attention of my Muslim brethren to think who they are; to remember the favours of Allāh; and to live accordingly.” (Muhammad In The Bible, p. 197).
The Qur’an gives success: “O man, We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful”–(20:1-2). This throne of excellence is ever available for Muslims to ascend: “Allāh has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them rulers”–(Qur’an 24:55).
Since the death of the Prophet we have thrown behind us the wisdom of Allāh to have military preparedness and protect one another–(Qur’an 3:199; 8:60; 8:72-73). We have foolishly, against the injunctions of Allāh, polarized ourselves into sects –in the face of all our urgent adversities we are yet quibbling over who should have succeeded the Prophet and whether Jesus had a father or not. It is unGodly, tragic and disgraceful that Sunnis and Shi’as distrust and are even fearful of the other. We must visualize what countenance we will face Allāh and His noble Messenger on the Day of Judgment.
We must uproot and incinerate the cancer of sectism ravaging the Ummah of Mohammad: “Be not of those who split up their religion and become parties; every sect rejoicing in that which is with it;” He, Allāh will make clear to you wherein you differ–(Qur’an 30:31-32; 16:92; 39:46; 42:10: to foster sectism is to defy Allāh); end internecine war: “Never should a Believer kill a Believer;” Muslims are of one Brotherhood; so make peace bet-ween your brothers; “After my death, do not become disbelievers by cutting the necks of one another”–(Qur’an 4:92; 21:92; 49:10; Bokhari Vol. 9, # 7); avoid prohibited things; take to the text books and lab “and say: My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114).
The venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace”–(Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 100).
Hjrah 1436 (year 2015) can be our reunification date. It is not a stupendous task for Muslims to be united–we already are, under the Holy Kalimah. The tribes of 7th century Arabia had lascivity, poetry and idolatry: they united. We have Allāh, the Prophet and Qur’an–the invincible trio: Power, morality, spirituality. With Allāh, the Prophet and the Qur’an we have the world at our feet and eternity in our arms: “certainly the remembrance of Allāh is the greatest (force)” “And trust in Allāh. And Allāh is enough as having charge (of affairs)” “Surely Allāh will not fail in (His) promise” “Allāh is the Friend of the dutiful” (29:45; 33:3; 13:31; 45:19). Allaho Akbar!!!
Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant. Let us embark on our destiny. (See Islam-Muslims’ destiny).
61. Muslims imitating American culture: Manji notes Muslims businesses which mimics Western businesses; Muslims preference to send their children to American and European schools; and Muslim women buying seductive private wear. (p. 123-125).
Response: Islam does not prohibit wives and husbands to beautify their bodies with seductive underwear for the other. Only that woman should not apparel herself as man and man as woman.
There is no such distinction as “secular knowledge” in Islam. Allah created everything for man’s use; and He is the one Who gives knowledge to man–(Qur’an 96:4-5); and has made man in the nature of Islam–to submit to Him–(Qur’an 30:30). Thus, all knowledge–religious and scientific–are Islamic. Whether we use this knowledge for good or for evil is our choice.
If by imitating American culture it is meant the engaging in science and business, seeking the good things in life and striving (honestly) to become a “millionaire,” this also is Islam.
If American and European schools provide knowledge in the various sciences, technology and other fields, it is required of Muslims to go to these seats of learning. This also is in keeping with the teaching of Islam.
Muslims seeking knowledge from America and Europe do not mean that Muslims are to condone their injustices.
If by imitating American culture it is meant indulging in illegal carnal relations, narcotics, alcohol etc; (while some Muslims do indulge in them), it is clumsy at best to write that Muslims want to imitate this American culture. In fact, it may be said that not even some Christian Americans want to indulge in this culture of their country.
62. Ali Salem, Humanity of the Jewish state: (Ali Salem) “One of his books, A Drive to Israel, captured the humanity of the Jewish state and got Salem thrown out of the Arab Writer’s Union.” (pp. 130-131). (Ali Salem must have been given the scenic drive, and free gas and pretzels).
Response: Regardless of how productive and/or courteous the Occupier/usurper may be there is no “humanity” in occupying/usurping the homes, lands, and country of another people; and to “provoke” them so you can attack them “en masse.” (Read Edward Said, The Question of Palestine, and Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, Old and New, International terrorism in the Real World).
Perhaps had Hitler been given the opportunity he also might have proved to be not only a “humanity” occupier/usurper but a fabulous one. After all Jews also believe that the “race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races.” (See item #56). People of today are apt to select the sex and intelligence of their fetus (aborting what is unwanted); and man is apt to clone geniuses only (selecting a master race?).
Ali Salem was fortunate he was only “thrown out of the Arab Writer’s Union.” Had he try to peddle his “humanity of the Jewish state” to the million-and-more strong Palestinians who for six torturous decades suffer the daily rigors of humiliation and degradation under the jack-boots of their Jewish occupiers/usurpers he might have been “thrown out of” the high-storey window. Torpedo-style! (Zionist Jews must adore such naiive Muslims -and others- like Ali Salem and Irshad Manji).
63. Prophet Mohammad and pre-emptive strikes: (During a party with Muslims, Manji wrote): “A group of them button-holed me to say they found it strange that more Muslims weren’t admitting the wisdom of a pre-emptive strike against Saddam. Strange, they said, because pre-emptive action was exactly the strategy used by Prophet Muhammad to oust those whom he suspected to be plotting against Islam. (Prophet Mohammad did not “suspect” them; they had proven themselves to be treacherous). “If pre-emptive war was good for Muslims then,” shrugged one of the celebrants, “why not for Americans now?” (Saddam did not threaten America. Prophet Mohammad did not threaten, or manufacture evidence to lie and to deceive).
“Because standards of behavior have evolved since the seventh century,” I said, playing the contrarian. “Tell that to the Islamic countries that still treat women like dirt.” (The countries may be doing so, but not Islam).
…“As we swapped observations, it became clear to us that Muslims have a choice to make: acknowledge that Prophet Muhammad’s pre-emptive assaults on Jews were morally wrong, in which case Muslims have credibility when slamming the Bush doctrine. Or accept what the Prophet did as necessary and divinely guided, in which case the same could be said for Bush, a born-again Christian who has his own communion with God. Muslims can’t have it both ways. That’s called a double-standard. Isn’t it only Americans who practice that?” (pp. 133-134).
Response: Christ –this God and son of God, as he is hailed– had no wife and children (according to the Gospels), he had no Cadillac and mansion and servants; in fact, whereas “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests,” Christ had “no where to lay his head”–(Luke 9:58).
A leader who claims to be Christian or “born-again” Christian must be Christ-like. If he is Christ-like he must not “bear false witness” or support those who do; he must not bomb the country of another in retaliation, but must turn the other cheek and allow the bombers to have a blast all over his domain; he must not lasso an enemy, but must go another mile with this enemy, all the way to his military parity; he must not shape high-tech swords and pile billions into safe-houses on earth, he must plough fields and shovel treasures into store-houses in heaven; he must not trumpet himself as master of the musket and destroy another’s country for the profit of his nation, he must be meek and mild and a fisher of Godly men. Mostly, this Christian or “born-again” Christian must be aware of his Good Shepherd’s classic gems on “Ye hypocrites” and “Ye that work iniquity.”
Prophethood is a Divine gift;
it is not a self-appointed status;
nor a human conferred knighthood.
Unlike today’s pre-emptive strikes which are materially motivated, the Prophet Mohammad’s strikes against those who drove him from his home and intrigued against him and tried to kill him were based on justice and peace.
A timely example of Mohammad’s non-aggressive nature is the time when he was informed that the Romans were planning to attack Muslims. Assembling an army, the Prophet went to Tabuk, to confront the threat. Upon discovering that there was no threat, he returned home. What prevented the Prophet from annihilating the unprepared Romans? Islam did.
Unlike the Prophet Mohammad, nations of the world today who engage in pre-emptive strikes are themselves transgressors.
Unlike the countries today who take the right to pre-emptive strikes, which are conducted on mere suspicion only, and have to fly thousands of miles to this perceived enemy, the Prophet Mohammad’s enemies were not a “perceived” one, it was not a “suspect” one, but a living, ominous threat, one biding the opportunity to strike. And this enemy was not thousands of miles away, but a treachery on his own soil. There is no nation today that would leave such treachery on his soil untouched.
It is sheer ignorance of facts and poor rationale to equate modern day rulers “pre-emptive” strikes with those of the Prophet Mohammad.
(While Muslims are at liberty to debate, it is tragic that Muslims would equate the Prophet’s purpose for taking up arms –which was solely to end persecution, aggression, and treachery– with today’s leadership –which is to be world dictator [and exploiter?]. Hardly surprising such Muslims find Trouble With Islam).
64. Why Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslims. Marital rape. Rape: (pp. 134, 135, 137).
Response:
Woman–cannot marry non-Muslims: See Women marrying non-Muslim men.
Marital rape: Why would the Muslim wife having no justification withhold herself from her husband? If the Muslim wife must at all times submit to the demands of her husband, then the Muslim husband must at all times submit to the demands of his wife, seeing that she has rights similar to those against her–(Qur’an 2:228). And if the Muslim wife for whatever reason is not prepared to welcome her husband’s affections, would it kill him to wait another day? After all, isn’t this one of the benefits of fasting –to effect control/restrain of the carnal passion? Allāh tells us in His Qur’an that:
-wife and husband are garment to the other–to protect, beautify, comfort, and conceal flaws–(Qur’an 2:187). It is not protection, beautification and comfort to force one’s self onto the unwell wife.
-He has established marriages between men and women; created her to be his mate, that he might find peace and comfort in her, and has put between them love and compassion–(Qur’an 25:54; 16:72; 24:32; 7:189; 30:21)–that woman is a source of peace and comfort condemns the act of marital rape, for, any man who forces himself upon his wife, abuses her, causes her distress, or places her under duress, he can not find peace and comfort in her. Marital rape is not love and compassion and peace and comfort! And the noble Messenger of Allāh taught us that the best of us are those who are best to their wives. Forcing one’s self onto his wife is not being “best” to her. With such a magnificent masterprint from Allāh and His Prophet to regulate our intimate life it is a monumental disgrace that Muslims should require a national law to dictate our conjugal moments.
Rape: Slandering a woman’s virtue is such a grave sin that four witnesses are required as proof of her having committed carnal sin–(Qur’an 24:11-13, 19). Since to slander a woman’s chastity is sinful; consider how graver the penalty for violating her chastity. This act of rape would seem to fall under the category of “mischief in the land,” which allows for a range of punishment: “that they be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned”–(Qur’an 5:36).
65. Are Ahmadis Muslims? (pp.137-138).
Response: How can a believer in Allāh who advances his arguments from the Qur’an be a called a kafir (disbeliever)?
The person who professes belief in Allah and the Messengership of Mohammad is a member of Islam. As acceptance of the Holy Kalima–There is no God but Allāh, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh–is what brings one into Islam; only a renouncing of it can remove one from Islam.
Whether Jesus had a father or not, whether he died or is in heaven and would return are not cardinal doctrines of Islam: our practice of Islam is not dependent on these issues.
Whatever difference(s) we have in understanding the verses of the Qur’an is no license for division–the judgment thereof is with Allah, He will make clear to us wherein we differed (Qur’an 42:10; 16:92). And Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that difference of opinion among his followers is a blessing. But Muslims have denigrated this blessing into a curse (by dividing ourselves). Our common factors as Muslims are Faith in Allah and the Messengership of Mohammad; Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Hajj.
“The believers are brethren,
so make peace between your brethren”
“Never should a Believer kill a Believer”
“If a man kills a Believer intentionally,
his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever):
and the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him,
and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him”
“…and say not to any one who offers you
salutation, thou art not a believer…”
(Qur’an 49:10; 4: 92, 93, 94).
Every person who accepts the Kalima–There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah– is a Muslim. Only his/her renouncing this formula of belief can remove him/ her from Islam.
Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam, that as explained by Ibn Kathir in his dictionary of tradition, the Nihaya, that: “Kufr (unbelief) is of two kinds: one is denial of the faith itself, and that is the opposite of faith; and the other is a denial of a far‘ (branch) of the furu‘ (branches) of Islam, and on account of it a man does not get out of the faith itself.” (p. 123).
Regardless of the depth of his error, a Muslim who advances his arguments from the Qur’an cannot be a called a kafir (disbeliever).
Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said, “Three things are the basis of faith: to withhold from one who confesses faith in la ilaha ill-Allah, you should not call him kafir for any sin, nor expel him from Islam for any deed…” (Abu Dawud 15:33)”. And ‘Umar is reported to have said, “Whoever calls the people of la ilaha ill-Allah unbeliever (kafir) is himself nearer to unbelief (kufr).”72
Further, Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that, Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah’s and His Apostle’s protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection. And that: If somebody accuses another of Fusuq (by calling him Fasiq, i.e. a wicked person) or accuses him of Kufr, such an accusation will revert to him (i.e. the accuser) if his companion (the accused) is innocent. Also, “cursing a believer is like murdering him; and whoever accuses a believer of disbelief, then it is as if he had killed him”–(Bokhari Vol. 1 # 386. Vol. 8 # 71 –See also chapter 73. And #’s 125 (A), 125 (B), 126).
It is clear that a person who believes in the ‘Kalimah‘ cannot be properly called a kafir; he remains a Believer/Muslim even though he may be guilty of an act of unbelief. Believers are those who believe in Allah and His Messenger, and who doubts not and struggle in the way of Allah–(Qur’an 49:15).
“Husain Ahmad Madani, This well-known Deobandi theologian of this century (20th) has written in his autobiography Naqsh-i Hayat: “All great scholars are unanimous in holding that if, out of hundred ingredients of the belief of some Muslim, ninety-nine are those of unbelief, and merely one of true Islamic faith, it is not allowed to call him kafir, .…In fact, Hazrat Gangohi [a founder of Deoband religious school] clearly states in his Anwar al-Qulub that the saying of the jurists about ninety-nine grounds does not set a limit, and that if 999 out of a thousand points in the belief of a Muslim are unbelief (kufr) and only one is true belief, even then he cannot be called kafir.” (Naqsh-i-Hayat, vol. i. p. 126).” 73 (Muslims, who are hasty to call other Muslims kafir, must take keen note of this).
Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi, says: “In these hadith, the Holy Prophet has explained the constitutional law of Islam. And that is that when a person professes the unity of God and the apostleship of the Holy Prophet, he enters the fold of Islam and becomes a citizen of the Islamic state. As to whether he is a true believer or not, only God can judge that. We are not permitted to judge it because of the [Holy Prophet’s] words: ‘I have not been commanded to cut open people’s hearts and search their inner selves.’ Security of life and property is established by the mere confession of unity and apostleship.”(Tafhimat, Pathankot, India, 1942, p. 164).”74
There are varying degrees in being a Muslim; acceptance of the Kalimah is the first degree.
Maudoodi also said, “You become Muslims by reciting a few words called the Kalimah: La ilaha illa ‘llah Muhammadu’r-rasulu ‘llaah: There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” And that “there should be as much caution in calling a Muslim kafir as there is in pronouncing a death sentence against someone. …Should there even be an iota of Islamic belief in that man’s heart, the slander of kufr shall reflect back upon the accuser.” 75
Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that differences of opinion among his followers are a blessing. Muslims should not denigrate this blessing into a curse (by dividing ourselves). Difference in opinion and in interpretation of the Qur’an does not remove one from Islam, nor does it constitute disbelief. The judgment thereof is with Allah, He will make clear to us wherein we differed–(Qur’an 16:92; 39:46; 42:10).
Muhammad Ali has rightly said, “It is the duty of every Muslim to maintain the unity of Islam. An attitude of indifference towards fatwas of kufr, directed against their own brethren by ignorant Mullas, has dealt a fatal blow to the union of Muslim brotherhood, and, if the Muslims do not raise their voice against these fatwas, they must never hope to make any progress towards real union.” And, “The solidarity of Islam is being shattered today by narrow-minded Mullas who, on one pretext or another, issue fatwas of kufr, against this or that party of Muslims”–(Qur’anic comm. 2329, 2332).
The finality of prophethood with Prophet Mohammad does not close the door to Allah communicating with His righteous servants –(Bokhari. Vol. 9, #’s 119, 116, 112, 123).
Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that knowledge and wisdom were given to Muslims. Clearly, our actions and conditions are not reflective of knowledge and wisdom. The four Caliphs were not divided and antagonistic towards one another.
Fourteen hundred years ago Prophet Mohammad brought us from darkness into light; he took us from ignorance into knowledge; he brought us from tribalism into unity –he demolished the barriers from among Muslims.
Today, in Europe and elsewhere borders are falling! But among Muslims the walls are formidable–we are battling for nationalism; slaughtering our brothers; and forming ourselves into nuclei and building walls against each other. We are plunging back into Jahiliyah! We have taken the gilded scepter of Islam and forged it around our necks into a yoke of defeat, division and dependency.
We seem to have forgotten our heritage that piety is the best provision for the next world, and the best protection against sin; that virtuous Muslims should be treated kindly, and bad ones should be forgiven; that discord and disunity is the certain ruin of a society; that Muslims are of one body–when one limb is injured the entire body is in pain. The noble Messenger of Allah says: ‘After my death, do not become disbelievers by cutting the necks of one another’ (Bokhari Vol. 9, # 7).
Dr. Ezzoddin Ibrahim in his Sunni vs. Shi’ah: A Pitiful Outcry, quotes from Dr. Mustafa al-Shaka’s book Islam Without Sects, who says: Shiites and Sunnis are connected “by ties of forgiveness and by striving to bring together the schools of thought, because the heart of religion is one and its core is original and does not allow separation.” (See note # 72 for the following five quotes).
Dr. Ibrahim also quoted the writings of Anwar al-Jandi, from the book Islam and the Movement of History, that “The history of Islam has been filled with disagreement, ideological conflicts and political differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites”. But, “The truth is that the difference between the Sunnis and Shi’ites is not more than what exists between the four sects of the Sunnis.”
From his book The Muslims–Who are They?, Samih Atif al-Zain, says in the preface: ““That which induced me to write this book is the blind division between Shi’ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, a division that should have vaporized with the eradication of illiteracy, but unfortunately still has some roots in ill-minded people because its roots were very firmly planted by groups of people who ruled the Islamic world on the basis of dividing brothers while stimulating love for the enemies of this religion and those who refuse to live unless as parasites on the blood of others. I will tell you my brother Shi’ite Muslim and brother Sunni Muslim, the most important basis of differences lies in understanding the Holy Book and the Sunnis and Shi’ites have never disagreed on the Holy Book and the Traditions; differences are in understanding them.”
“At the end of his book, Samih Atif al-Zain adds, “…it is our duty as Muslims, especially in the present age, to stop and push back the ill-intentioned ones who use the Islamic schools of thought as a route for misleading the people and playing with the minds of the masses as well as increasing suspicions. We must eradicate the sectarian spirit, full of hatred and bar the road of those who spread rumors and quarrels in religion, until Muslims return to how they were before: One society, cooperative and friendly rather than divided, separated and hating each other. Moreover they must resemble the cooperative attitude of the Orthodox Caliphs.”
Dr. Ibrahim also notes that “Ustad al-Ghannushi in his book al-ha-rakat al-islamiyah wal-tahdith quotes these words of Imam Khomeini, “We want to be judged and governed by Islam as it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him and his descendants, and in which there is no such distinction between a Sunni and a Shi’ite since the various schools of thought did not exist at the time of the Prophet.” 76
The Qur’an is our constitution!
“Has not the time yet come for the believers
that their hearts should be humble for the
remembrance of Allah and
the Truth that is revealed.”
(Qur’an 57:16)
There is no occasion in the Qur’an for Muslims to kill one another over their differences in interpretation of the Qur’an–Allah will show us the truth of the matter wherein we differ–(Qur’an 16:92; 39:46; 42:10). (To those who persist in sectism, what part of ‘Allah will show us the truth of the matter wherein we differ’ do you not understand?)
Has not the time yet come for Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Kuwait, Sudan, Turkey, and all other Muslim nations, to abandon their differences and to unite under our commonalities in Islam in all matters –from economic to military? Has not the time yet come for North Yemen and South Yemen to reunite? And for East and West Pakistan? (Perhaps we can set a unification date –appropriately, to coincide with the Hijra’s in the year 2015– and work towards it).
We are Muslims! First, last, and foremost!
That the Prophet said Islam will have some seventy sects, is no license to divide ourselves when Allah, the Highest, says,
(be not) “Of those who split up their religion
and become parties; every sect
rejoicing in that which is with it”
“He (Allah) has made plain to you the religion
which He enjoined upon Noah and which
We have revealed to thee, and which
We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus
-to establish religion
and not to be divided therein. …”
(Qur’an 30:[30-31] 32; 42:13).
We are not to align ourselves behind foolish ‘sectist’ leaders! Such divisive leaders must be removed from office! (We must be the biggest maroons in creation if we believe we can defy Allah and “sectify” ourselves and yet expect that Allah will give us Jannah).
-Every Masjid must be renamed “Ummah of Mohammad–Islamic Center” and designated by its street address, i.e. “Ummah of Mohammad–Islamic Center” 123 “X” street.
-All the various Muslim publications must merge into one versatile and vibrant publishing house, serving the entire Muslim community.
-Every Muslim publication and correspondence must bear “The Divine Vision” logo (shown at the beginning of this presentation).
-All zakaat must be contributed to/collected in a central unit.
-Every affordable household must contribute (for about one year, or more if affordable) an amount equal to our television cable subscription, which must be managed to establish businesses, which would in turn issue scholarships to qualified Muslim students. (Based on 30,000 Muslim household times an average of twenty-dollars per month would yield a total of 7.2 million dollars per year).
-All the various charitable organizations must coordinate into one unit. This would reduce administrative/ rental costs, and be more effective.
-Every child must be named “Mohammad”/“Mohamed” as his or her first name, identifying him/her with Islam.
-Every child must be taught on a daily basis, at home or in class: that there is no god but Allah–He alone is to be worshipped, He has no son or partner– and Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah; that God could not have a son because He has no wife or mate; that God could not have a mother (or father) because He was not born, and because He is the Creator of all.
-Every Muslim (child and adult) must declare daily that we Muslims is the best nation, we enjoin good and forbid evil and we believe in Allāh–(Qur’an 3:109; 2:143).
-Muslims must govern by policy not by personality–by the Qur’an not by the dictates of leadership. This will make the community less susceptible to foreign influence and manipulation.
Islam is the Uniting force!
Islam is the Liberating force!
Islam is the Triumphant force!
Islam is the Transcendental force!
When we segregate ourselves into camps of hyphenated-Muslims we not only lose our unifying factor, but also become easy victims of manipulation and aggression. It would be our monumental and eternal shame and disgrace, being the best nation with nothing to divide us and everything–the five pillars– to cohere us, that we cannot be united.
Over a thousand years ago al-Ma’mun, the Abbasid Caliph, is said to have failed in his efforts to unite Sunni and Shi’a. Today, it behooves us not to fail. That which divides us is ephemeral –our fallibility! That which unites us is eternal–it permeates the soul:
La ilaha ill-Allah, Mohammadur-Rasul-Allah!
Allaho Akbar!
The choice is ours! We can go through life divided and with bowed heads muttering meekly, Allaho Akbar. Or we can go through life united and with hands triumphantly thrusted into the air proclaiming vociferously ALLAHO AKBAR!!!
66. Islam and democracy: “Is Islam the uber-oppressor of creativity, dynamism, and democracy? It would be too easy to just say no. (And she cites Pakistan as an example of Islam’s failure: confusing Islam with Muslims, once again). Islam’s potential for meaningful democracy shines through in the fact that the Koran doesn’t prescribe any specific form of government. (Which Qur’an have you been reading?) …..Could it be that Islam, even of the passive sort is more a faith in the ways of the desert than in the wisdom of the divine, and that Muslims are taught to imitate the power dynamics of an Arabian tribe, where sheikhs rule the roost and everyone else chafes under their rule?” (pp. 144-145). (There is no passivity in Islam. Islam is the way and wisdom of the Divine).
Response: Islam is Democracy, socialism, and dictatorship, all delicately balanced together. While Islam has forbidden usury, it does not prohibit the pursuit of wealth through lawful avenues, and encourages its use in charity. Islam is:
–democracy: in that it allows one 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]–(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).
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).
(It is to be noted that Islamic democracy is unlike secular democracy. In secular democracy there are opposition parties, the laws are man-made; and laws usually are determined by the will of the majority –e.g. capital punishment; abortion. In Islam, since the laws are Divine injunctions, and are not based on the will of the majority, there is no need for an opposition. In the cases where secondary laws are required, owing to the progress of society, the legislation of such laws are not governed by the dictates of the majority, but are based on the principles of the Qur’an, and are formulated through consultation. Thus under Islamic democracy there is no marginalization of any sector of society: one cannot prove his judgment/belief superior to the teaching of the Qur’an).
–socialism: in that it is the duty of the State to utilize its income from the people (their Zakat/compulsory charity)–(Qur’an 9:60) to generate wealth for the welfare of its population and to care for the poor as well as the orphans.
–dictatorship: whereas in secular dictatorship all power is held by a single person or a small party. In Islam, leadership is chosen by the people and the people are governed, not by the dictates of the leadership, but by the Qur’an and Sunnah. Islam is dictatorship in that the Leader (Caliph) rules for life, so long as he does so within the framework of Islam. No one (except crooks, maybe) would want to replace a just ruler.
As Shari’ah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah–sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammad–and as the Sunnah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an, and as there is no discrimination in the Qur’an whatever in Shari’ah that is the opinion of the Jurist(s) that discriminates is to be removed. (See Islam-Shari’ah). (See also items #6 and 36).
Since Allāh has created man in the best of make–(Qur’an 23:14; 95:4); it would the highest act of arrogance (or ignorance) to indict Allāh as being “the uber-oppressor” of women, when not only she is the feminine portion of His best creation, but also when she has no say in her form and physiology.
Since Allāh has informed us that He created everything for our use (which could only be utilized through knowledge of them) and has enjoined on us the acquisition of knowledge, and for us to govern according to consultation and to exercise justice (which was practiced by the Prophet and the four Caliphs), it would the highest act of arrogance (or ignorance) to indict Islam as being “the uber-oppressor of creativity, dynamism, and democracy.”
A common charge by the West is that ‘they (Muslims) hate our democracy.’ From a theological standpoint this is claptrap. It is either a reflection of the West’s ignorance of Islam or its self-flattery. Muslims can not hate democracy. Islam is democracy. In fact, at the time Islam established democracy the West was still trampling on the dignity of woman, both religiously and secularly. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes in his Open Letters To The Bishops Of Salisbury & London:
“Just a quarter of a century after the time when the council of Christian Fathers at Nicaea were discussing whether any female could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and with great difficulty they had come to the conclusion that she might enter into Paradise, but that she would have to be sexless, the Qur-an brought the gospel to her in the following words: “Enter into Paradise, ye and your wives delighted;” “But whoso doeth the things that are right, whether the male or female, and is a believer, whether male or female, they shall enter into Paradise;” “Whoso doth that which is right, whether male or female, him or her will we quicken to happy life”–(43:70; 4:124; 16:97). When the world was doubtful whether any spiritual advancement was open to Woman at all, the Quran taught the following: “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 Allah much and the women who remember–Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward”–(Qur’an 33:35)” (pp. 71-77).
It was only in the 1900’s that Canada regarded woman as a person; and 1960’s American women were burning their brassieres for equality with their “male chauvinist pigs”. Compare to the rights Islam has conferred onto woman 1400 years ago, as appended to in these pages.
What Muslims hate is the West’s injustice, arrogance and hypocrisy against Muslims –mainly its injustice against the Palestinians; its arrogance in perpetuating this injustice instead of redressing it; and its hypocrisy in advocating democracy, yet when Muslims are the victors in this “democratic” machinations, as in the case of Algeria and in Hamas’ victory in Palestine, they are spurned.
67. Is Islam the straight path?: “In my question and answer session, I lobbed a query to my audience. If Islam is the “straight path,” then why are there detours in practice? (There are no detours in Islam only detours in Muslims practice of Islam). Why can my friend from the Middle East call Islam a progressive force, citing the opportunity to design her own hijab, while another friend mails me a postcard from Pakistan showing women who are body-bagged with barely a slit for seeing or breathing? ….My intent was to suggest that Islam isn’t as explicit on all matters as Muslims tend to be told. (Where are your examples?)
That point got lost in the ensuing uproar. “Why the difference in practice?” shouted a member of the Muslim Students Association from the back of the room. “Because Pakistanis are not real Muslims. They’re converts. Islam was revealed to the Arabs,”” (the individual added). (p.147-148).
Response:
Is Islam explicit on all matters?: While verses of the Qur’an are literal in meaning or allegorical, those relating to the practice of Islam –Tauheed (Unity of God), Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Hajj; and social, moral, spiritual, and intellectual relations –are all “explicit.” Islam does not require women to cover the face.
Converts to Islam: People are not “convert(s)” to Islam; they are “reverts.” Every person is born a Muslim; and will die a Muslim. A Muslim is one who submits to the Law or Will of Allah. There are two orders of Muslims: (1) Muslims by Compulsion (2) Muslims by Choice. As explained below:
The sun and the moon and the planets all follow prescribed paths in their own orbit, and traverse within a given time. When two parts hydrogen combine with one part oxygen water is formed–they cannot form any other compound. Thus they are submitting to, or are being obedient to the law accorded them. The seed of a plant must go through various stages between its germination and fruition. Each part must manifest in its’ proper sequence –i.e. it must develop root and stems before it can sprout leaves; and must blossom and flower before it can bear fruit– it cannot bear fruit before growing flowers; nor grow leaves before sprouting limbs. Thus, they are following or are being obedient to the laws accorded them. In fact all things in nature exist on laws. From the microscopic atom to the gigantic orb, everything in creation is under the governance of some principle: “Glorify the name of thy Lord, the Most High! Who creates, then makes com-plete, And Who measures, then guides”–(Qur’an 87:1-3; Also 25:2; 54:49).
Similarly, we ourselves are subjected to laws to which we have no choice but to submit to, for example:
when the male reproductive cell is united with the females’ conception results; if we eat anything sugary we have no choice but to taste sweetness, and if we eat anything acid we have no choice but to taste sourness (unless we have a defect in taste); when something is detonated we have no choice but to hear an explosion (unless we have a defect in hearing); if we look at the sky, unless we have a defect of the eye, we have no choice but to see blue –we cannot force our eyes to show us a different color than is present. In short we cannot dictate to our senses; when the time of our death arrives we have no choice but to die.
In these regards we are compelled to obey the Laws of Allah. As such we are all Muslims by compulsion–submitting to Allah without choice. We are Muslims by choice in that we are given a free will to choose between right and wrong, to live a life of good or evil; to believe in Allah or not. It is because of this freedom to choose that we will be called on to account for our deeds. Under compulsion every person is born a Muslim, and, likewise would die a Muslim.
Who is a real Muslim: Islam was not revealed to the Arabs. It was revealed to all mankind. Only the medium of the Revelation was Arab (and as the Arab was the only people remaining to whom no messenger was sent). A Pakistani is a “real Muslim” just as an Arab is a “real Muslim.”
It is distressing that a believer in Allah from one corner of the world would charge another believer of Allah from another corner to be not a “real” Muslim. Islam teaches that an Arab and a non-Arab is better than the other only through his/her belief in Allah and their good deeds. Islam does not merit an individual because of ones race, color, status or sex.
Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) the first Caliph of Islam says in his augural address that Muslims are to obey him so long as he obeys Allah and His Prophet and that if he does not obey Allah and His Prophet then no obedience is due to him. The question is: How would we know if our leader is following Allah and His Prophet if we do not have knowledge of Islam?
Muslims are to educate ourselves if only to guard against those who take up the mantle of Islam, without knowledge, to knowingly (or unknowingly) lead people astray. Even from the inception of Islam, such deception was in vogue, as M.H. Haykal has exposed in his book The Life of Muhammad. Muslims are not to depend on our Imam’s Friday sermons to know about Islam. Considering one’s work load, reading may seem a monumental task for many Muslims (including students). But all we need do is read two pages a day. And eventually they will all be read. Surely, everyone can squeeze seven minutes a day into reading. It is suggested that you acquaint yourself with Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an and his comprehensive work The Religion Of Islam: www.muslim.org).
68. Islam and culture: “Can the norms of the desert be dislodged from Islam? If not, we have no hope in hell of reform.” (p. 151).
Response: What inhuman “norm” of the desert did Islam incorporate? Please send us your details/examples.
69. Tribal Islam: “I challenge you to answer this: Why would Islam be so hard to extricate from local customs–tribal customs– if there wasn’t something profoundly tribal about the religion to begin with?…What must be unshrouded about Islam is its desert strain of tribalism, which takes the act of closing ranks to a crushing level.” “My complaint has to do with essential steps not being taken to chip away at tribal Islam.” (pp. 151-152; 209).
Response: What are these “desert strain of tribalism” that “must be unshrouded” from Islam? What is this “something” that is “profoundly tribal about the religion (of Islam) to begin with?” The Arabs may have been a tribal people at the advent of Islam but there is nothing tribal about Islam. The Qur’an unites, and the Prophet Mohammad is a guide to all mankind. Islam could not be rationalized as being “profoundly tribal.” The laws of Islam encompasses tribal, national and international relations.
70. Why pray in Arabic?: “Taslima Nasrin, a feminist writer and doctor exiled from Bangladesh, gave me a concrete example of what she experienced well before the Saudis got rich. “As a child,” she said, “I was told that Allah knows everything. Everything means everything. So Allah should know Bengali, shouldn’t He?” She asked her mother, “How come I have to pray in Arabic? When I want to talk to Allah, why do I have to use somebody else’s language?” Her mother didn’t offer reasons only routines. (Perhaps her mother was not learned)…The Koran insists that “to God belongs the east and the west. Whichever way you turn there is the face of God.” Why, then, must Muslims bow to Mecca five times a day? Isn’t that a sign of being desert-whipped?” (pp. 152-153).
Response: Though Muslims may communicate with Allāh, God, in his native tongue at times other than in our salah–formatted prayer, Muslims communicate with Allah in their salah in the Arabic language precisely because Allah knows everything and all languages, even Bengali–so we can reap the full wealth of the meanings of the Qur’an/Arabic.
Muslims who are of the view that the Qur’anic portions of salah should be offered in a person’s own language, which he understands, as opposed to these portions being recited in the Qur’anic Arabic, must know that in reciting the equivalent to the Qur’anic verses is to compromise one’s prayer.
There are certain terms, such as Rabb, that cannot adequately be compensated for in any other language. In fact, there are some Muslim scholars who are of the view that the Qur’an should not be translated into any language, as these languages are deficient in expressing the Qur’an.
When we pray subhan Allah, we are not merely offering the English equivalent, thanksgiving; but are also declaring Allah to be free of all imperfections and defects.
When we pray “Allah” instead of the generic, God, we are honoring God as the One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute; on Whom all depend; Who begets not nor is begotten; there is none like unto Him; He incarnates not; He has no “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Immanent; the belief in all His Angels, Revelations, Prophets, in the Resurrection and Judgment, and in Hell and Heaven /Paradise.
When we pray al-Rahman and al-Raheem instead of the common Beneficent and Merciful, as Muhammad Ali explained, we are expressing that Allah, as the Prophet is reported to have said: “Al-Rahman is the Beneficent God Whose love and mercy are manifested in the creation of this world (and Who forgives sins without the need for some satisfaction, as vicarious atonement); and al-Raheem is the Merciful God Whose love and mercy are manifested in the state that comes after.” However, as Muhammad Ali added, “the English language lacks an equivalent of al-Rahman”–(Qur’anic comm. # 3).
When we pray “Rabb” instead of the common, Lord, we are acknowledging Allah to be the Fosterer, Nourisher, Regulator, Completer and Accomplisher –or “Nourisher to perfection”– of all things. “Hence, Rabb is the Author of all existence, Who has not only given to the whole creation its means of nourishment but has also beforehand ordained for each a sphere of capacity and within that sphere provided the means by which it continues to attain gradually to its goal of perfection.” (M. Ali. Qur’anic comm. # 5).
Sura Fatihah (the opening Chapter of the Qur’an) is the “quintessence” of the Qur’an. Offering the Fatihah in a language other than Arabic, one is depriving him/herself of an expanse of irreplaceable blessings. Multiply this loss by five (for the five daily prayers). Calculate the rewards lost in reciting the remainder of the prayer in an equivalent language. Now calculate the loss over one’s lifetime. Even if one does not understand Arabic (though he/she can learn it or can consult the translation) it is the meaning expressed in its Arabic recitation that is paramount. And as the Qur’an is the Word of Allāh and as there is no evil in the Qur’an, whether we understand it or not we are assured that we are uttering the Divine words of righteousness.
Moreover, Islam is the universal religion and the Qur’anic expression is a universal language. A person of one language can offer congregational salah in any part of the world and would be conversant with the Qur’anic recitation, as opposed to salah being offered in a language (which the traveler may not understand). Islam is the universal religion. There is no universality in each person offering his salah in his own tongue. And most of all, Allah requires that the Qur’an be recited in salah: “Thy Lord knows indeed that thou (Mohammad) passest in prayer nearly two-thirds of the night….so read of the Qur’an that which is easy for you”–(Qur’an 73:20). And the noble Messenger instructed us likewise: “When you stand for Prayer (salah) say Takbir and then recite from the Holy Qur’an”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #724).
While Muslims are to offer the salah in Arabic, Muslims are not to “parrot” the Qur’an; knowledge of its contents is mandatory seeing that the Qur’an is a Guidance –not knowing what the Qur’an teaches is like someone receiving a prescription/ medication for an ailment but does not take the medication–; this knowledge can be acquired by learning the Arabic language or by obtaining a translation of the Qur’an. As the Qur’an is not a story-book, a translation with commentaries is essential to understand the background of verses. (With respect to notes and commentaries, I have found Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an to be superior. His translation can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
(I recall hearing it said that on the Day of Judgment Arabic will be the language that will be spoken. It may be advanced that how can this be when everyone does not speak or know Arabic? Firstly, as Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out, “no one of the languages of the world, excepting that of the Hedjaz, is spoken now in the form in which it existed at the time of the Holy Prophet.” Thus, Arabic seems to be the only language in its pristine purity. That everyone will be speaking Arabic in the Hereafter is not fantastic. According to the Bible “the whole earth was of ONE language, and of ONE speech,” but to confuse the builders of the Tower of Babel from reaching Him God “confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech”–Genesis 11:1-8). Since God gave one language and can “confound” people into various languages then clearly He can also bring all people of all languages into speaking/understanding one language –Arabic).
Why bow to Makkah?: Muslims do not “bow” to Makkah. We bow to Allah. We only face Makkah. We face Makkah because, even though Allah’s face is everywhere, He enjoins on us to face the Ka’ba in Makkah, when we offer our salah–(Qur’an 2:144, 149). This is part of the universality of Islam: Muslims all around the globe facing one direction. The other three factors of the universality of Islam are: (1) Offering salah in Arabic; (2) circumambulating the Ka’bah, which symbolizes unity with Muslims from every point of the world; (3) the hajj –gathering of Muslims from all over the world. The hajj is the only Divinely instituted pilgrimage.
Why pray (offer salah)? Salah is the second foundation of Islam. Allāh says to establish regular salah and He gave their five daily timings. Allāh says those who bow down (make ruku) and prostrate (make sujood) will receive a mighty reward–(Qur’an 9:111-112); and for us to “keep up salāh for My remembrance” –(Qur’an 20:14). Apart from salāh being the greatest force and that it is a prescription to help us avoid shameful deeds (in that we are to put in practice what we pray)–(Qur’an 29:45), salah is the demonstration of the Holy Kalimah –there is no God but Allāh, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh. It reminds and refines us in practical shape five times a day that Allāh is the only Presence worthy of worship –that He is One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute, on Whom all depend; He begets not; nor is He begotten; and there is none like Him; that He is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent; and that He is the Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer and the Vanquisher of all– and that Mohammad is only the Messenger of Allāh –that Mohammad is not God or son of God or partner of God or Incarnate of God. And in this salah we are rehearsing the Message from Allāh, which is the Supreme Divine Message. Salah is of such consequence that the Prophet Mohammad prayed on his horse; and even during battle. And reciting Sura Fatihah is of such significance that it is placed at the very opening of the Qur’an and the Prophet admonished that whoever does not pray Sura Fatihah did not pray: “Whoever does not recite Al-Fatiha in his prayer, his prayer is invalid”–(Bokhari Vol. 1 #723. Also Muslim Vol. 1, #’s 775-782).
Muslims, desert whipped: Allah instructs us to obey Him and to obey the Prophet Mohammad: “O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and make not your deeds in vain”–(Qur’an 47:33); and that “Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah”–(Qur’an 4:80). Thus obedience to the Prophet Mohammad is obedience to Allah, and whatever instructions the Prophet gives us it is as if they were given to us by Allah Himself. The Prophet Mohammad tells us to pray as we see him pray. He demonstrated the format of the five daily prayers to Muslims and explained their timings of the day: (this practice was relayed to us by our ascendants, as we demonstrate to our descendants). A Muslim who disregards or condemns this format of prayer and their timings could not be deemed a “practicing Muslim.” Those who consider themselves Muslims and view prayers in their established format and prescribed times as “mindless” and “submissiveness” have not grasped the benefits of prayers. The entire practice of Islam is “submissiveness,” to Allah. Allah informs us in His Qur’an 29:45: “Surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil; and certainly the remembrance of Allāh is the greatest (force). And Allah knows what you do.”
Muslims are thus conditioned by these regimented prayers to demonstrate (by prostrating ourselves) –the highest form of “submissiveness”– that Allah is the only Being worthy of worship: the only Being greater than ourselves; and at the same time, by virtue of this physical act, are more cognizant of the fact that Allah is ever Seeing us; which in turn impels (or should) impel us to avoid indecency and evil. One who prays five times a day is like a person who takes a bath five times a day –washing away the impurities from his body, as the Prophet explained.
Islam “requires communion with the Divine Being to be observed throughout the entire week, five times daily.” “The Islamic division of prayers is much more suited to elevate a man spiritually, affording true spiritual food to the soul than is to be discovered in any other form of worship.” (M. Ali, Qur’anic comm; 2505).
Allah does not “desert-whipped” His servants: His servants have a free choice. Islam abolished slavery. Following the laws of Allāh –Unity of God, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and Hajj– are to our benefit. Being “robotic” to the laws of Allah is hardly any effort to benefit in His Everlasting Grandeur. Muslims pray five times a day because prayer distinguishes us from other religionists; it also keeps one from evil and shameful deeds, and is the greatest force–(Qur’an 29:45). If following the injunctions of Allāh –which elevates us socially, morally, spiritually and intellectually– is “a sign of being desert-whipped,” it is the most rewarding, most beneficial whipping one could ever receive. Or hope to receive.
(That Allāh is watching and seeing us does not mean His vision follows us at work, shopping and in the bathroom etc; it means that our actions and speech are being recorded and by our limbs–(Qur’an 82:10-12); which would give evidence on the Day of Judgment: “On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet bear witness against them as to what they did”–(Qur’an 24: 24. Also 36:65; 41:19-23. See Genesis 31:48-52; Joshua 24:26-27 where a “stone” shall bear witness). Man has satellites hundreds of miles away in surveillance of the earth, can transmit words and pictures through space from one corner of the Globe to the other, can store mountains of data on the head of a pin and in computer chips, can record sounds and images on plastics and replay them, can be in one place and operate through remote control distant objects, can transmit audio and video signals through the air and have his television (even in the off mode) receive and convert these signals into sound and image and record them, how much more advanced and sophisticated the recording system of Allāh the Fashioner of the universe must be. Allāh calls on us to reflect: “Does man think that we shall not gather his bones? Yea, We are Powerful to make complete his whole make”–Qur’an 75:3-4).
71. The Veil: “Millions of Muslim women outside of Arabia, including the West, veil themselves. They accept that its an act of spiritual submission. It’s closer to cultural capitulation.… While the Koran requires the Prophet’s wives to veil, it never decrees such a practice for all women.” (The wives of the Prophet are honored as ‘mothers of the believers’; Muslim women are to follow the examples of the wives of the Prophet).
“No other country in the world requires women by law to cover their faces. No other country in the world has the hubris to treat its female citizens as clones of Prophet Muhammad’s wives –the only women obliged by the Koran to wear veils.” (pp. 154, 167). (The Qur’an does not require the wives of the Prophet to “wear veils”).
Response: It is stupefying how some people are terrified by the Muslim woman’s head scarf: you would think she was carrying the atomic bomb under this piece of cloth on her head. The Bible also requires that women cover their heads–Num. 5:18; 1Cor. 11:5-6). Even the Christian’s mother of God, Mary, as Christians depict, wore the head-cover.
The Qur’an does not require women to veil their faces. It is not only the wives of the Prophet that were instructed to wear the head-cover. The wives of the Prophet are examples for Muslim women. Only those unaware of the significance of the hijab would oppose, revile, or militate against it. These garments–overcoat (jalaba) and headcover (hijab)–are to distinguish her from other women, and a mark of devotion–(Qur’an 33:59; 24:31), and of distinction: of being the exalted nation–(2: 143; 3:110).
That these garments were not meant for temporary usage is evident from the Prophet’s saying to Asma, who was wearing thin clothes at the time: “O Asma, when woman attains her puberty it is not proper that any part of her body should be seen except this, and he pointed to his face and hands.” Abu Dawud 31:30”–(M. Ali, Qur’anic comm. 1751). This Islamic uniform does not diminish the Muslim woman’s worth.
The head-cover of the Muslim woman is not a symbol of “servitude.” Allah has conferred upon the Woman of Islam the loftiest position. Islam has ennobled woman. It has adorned her with a crown of excellence. This scarf is to help mould the Woman of Islam into a fortress of modesty and virtue. (Men are to be covered from the navel to the knees, and one part of the chest). The scarf is more than a piece of cloth on the head. It is embroidery for the soul. Islam intends the scarf to be a symbol of piety and humility. A symbol of beauty and excellence: a beauty and excellence manifesting from within –manifesting through love and obedience to serve our Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer. A beauty that never ages nor tarnish. A beauty that becomes increasingly resplendent with time. There is no beauty more lustrous, more alluring and more enduring than beauty of the soul; and no woman more beautiful than she who vests her self for the love of Allah.
Islam does not forbid women from wearing fine garments and jewelry. But it does not allow such appareling for the purpose of display. A person cannot attain piety until and unless he has achieved humility. To achieve humility one must exercise simplicity and modesty. The act of covering one’s self helps to build modesty.
(While women and men are to be physically fit, and groomed). It may be argued that the khimar and jalaba liberates woman from slavery to form and looks; to focus on function. It frees her from the folly and exploitation of fashion to focus on the exercise of self-control, economy, and dignity. A person’s worth lies not in looks but in character. There is no “desert tribalism” in the Muslim woman wearing an over-garment and covering her hair. This dress code was given by Allah.
(To women who are of the view that it is discrimination against them, in that men are not required to cover their heads: men have to shave their heads at the hajj, women do not; men are required to be circumcised, women are not; men are required to give women dowry, even though she may possess greater wealth than him; men are required to maintain women, whereas women are free to do whatever with their finances. And men also have a dress code–to cover the area from, and including, the navel to the knees and half of the chest. Even without comprehending the excellence of the hijab, covering the head when required is no price to pay for Allah’s everlasting beauty.
Women who are wearing jeans under their over-garment in revolt against Islam must know that they are dressing themselves for the Fire. And Muslim girls/women who pose nude on Facebook, rather than learn Islam and demand their Allah-given rights from their leaders, are undressing themselves for the Fire. There is nothing in Islam to protest against –Islam regards womanhood as the symbol of purity; and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise.
Whereas choosing to not wear the hijab is one matter, why would the Muslim woman desirous of Allāh’s everlasting grandeur revile the hijab? Revolt against the hijab is revolt against Islam; revolt against Islam is revolt against Allāh; revolt against Allāh is the Sureway to Hell-fire).
According to one view, women who wear the veil and burqa run the risk of suffering from a deficiency of vitamin D. That vitamin D supplement is necessary to maintain health.
That the Islamic head-cover and over-garment result in a deficiency of vitamin D seems to imply that Allah requires Muslim women to dress in manner that is injurious to her health. Incidentally, Catholic nuns are similarly dressed as Muslim women, and are secluded in convents (and monks are confined in monasteries)’ has any test been done on them to determine if they suffer from any vitamin D deficiency? Muslim women or not, the woman who are mostly indoors would suffer from a deficiency of vitamin D. This would also be true of men.
Islam does not require women to cover their faces: the face, hands and feet (though feet are usually in shoes), as taught by the Prophet, are to remain uncovered. If this precept is followed, women should not suffer from vitamin D deficiency (unless one is in a wintry country, in which even non-Muslim women would then require supplement). For we have men in the middle Eastern countries who dressed similarly as women–with head wear and long robe with only their faces and hands and feet being exposed–and there is no report of them suffering from vitamin D deficiency. In fact, people in warm climates are mostly covered–wearing full shirts and pants and shoes, and even suits and ties. Enough sunlight on the face and hands should be enough for health. And many food products and health tonic are fortified with vitamin D. Though periodic checkup at your doctor would be a good consideration.
Seemingly, pre-Islamic usage of the headscarf is also being used to dissuade Muslims from wearing it. So what if the headscarf was worn 5000 years ago in Sumerian era by certain women “initiating” young males into “sex”? The Ka’ba once housed hundreds of idols and was circuited by naked men. Are the many non-Muslim women of today who wear headscarves do so for the purpose of “initiating” young males into “sex”? Allāh, God, has made the Muslim’s headscarf a mark of identification and a symbol of purity and honor.
72. Jahiliyah–Moral darkness: “To me, the most galling of these myths is jahiliyah, the moral darkness that’s said to have existed before Islam’s arrival. …But the Koran speaks of moral backwardness only in the context of Arab history. The charade is, Arabs have assumed that the various peoples they’ve conquered were also morally ignorant.….V.S. Naipaul, like Fareed Zakaria, has seen the consequences on a wider scale. Several years ago, Naipaul….“was soon to discover that no colonization had been so thorough as the colonization that had come with the Arab faith….It was an article of the Arab faith that everything before [it] was wrong, misguided, heretical; there was no room in the heart or mind of these believers for their pre-Mohammedan past.” …at my madressa, I never heard about the Jewish and Christian sources of many Islamic traditions. To recognize these influences would imply that the world didn’t suffer from total foolishness before Islam, that Arab Muslims have borrowed from their predecessors, that they’re hybrids with a debt to others rather than pure revolutionaries. But to say so is to defy the tribe. We can’t have that, can we?”(pp. 154-55)
Response: Islam is not an “Arab faith.” Islam is the faith of Muslims (and is the natural faith of all men) irrespective of his race or color. The Prophet Mohammad was sent by Allāh, God, to the Arabs and to the world.
Jahiliyah means pre-Islamic. Bondage of the intellect is the worst form of slavery. Whether moral or spiritual, do you not consider human sacrifice, female infanticide, idolatry –worship of things that can confer no benefit or effect any harm; things fashioned by your own hands– worship of humans and elements –things created like yourself– to be “darkness,” to be “wrong, misguided, heretical”? As preceding materials testify, Islam is not “colonization” but illumination –social, moral, spiritual and intellectual.
Jewish and Christian influences in Islam: “Islamic myths and legends are chiefly embellishments of the Qur’anic revelations and are often expressions of popular traditions reflecting pre-Islamic influences,” so notes the Encyclopaedia Britannica.77
The Encyclopaedia Britannica also notes:
“Islam has not developed a proper mythology. Its strict monotheism does not allow for much mythological decoration, and only reluctantly were the Qur’anic (Islamic scriptural) revelations embellished and enlarged by commentators and popular preachers.” (And that commentators) “wove into their explanations various strands of Persian and ancient oriental lore and relied heavily on Jewish tradition. For example, the Jewish convert, Ka’b al-Ahbar brought much of the Isra’iliyat (things Jewish) into Islamic tradition. Later on, the mystics’ commentaries expressed some gnostic (a dualistic viewpoint in which spirit is viewed as good and matter as evil) and Hellenistic concepts, of which the Hellenistic idea of the Perfect Man –personified in Muhammad– was to gain greatest prominence.”
“Mythology proper has only a very small place in official Islam and is mostly an expression of popular traditions through which pre-Islamic influences seeped into Islam. Reformers tried to purge Islam of all non-Qur’anic ideas and picturesque elaborations of the texts, whereas the mystics tried to spiritualize them as far as possible.” (15th Edn., Vol. 9, pp. 949, 951).
In his farewell message the noble Prophet of Allah advised Muslims that he was leaving us two things–the Qur’an and his Sunnah (way of life)–for us to follow. It was these two fountains of life and knowledge that drew masses to its drink and lead Muslims to pioneer the world. It was these two sources of guidance that early Muslims followed. And which all Muslims of all times are to follow.
There are no myths and legends in the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Whether for preservation or propagation, Islam needs no “embellishments” to appeal to the minds of men. It does not need a helping hand from the fantastic imageries of the human mind to support or explain its doctrines. Islam is enriched with the intrinsic allure of reason. Reason is the life-blood of truth. The appeal to reason is the greatest embellishment a doctrine can possess, for man is endowed with reason. So long as man governs himself according to reason the doctrine will live. Islam stands on the impregnable and indestructible firmament of truth, knowledge, wisdom, and reason.
To follow Jewish and Christian influences therefore would be “total foolishness.” Muslims have not “borrowed from their predecessors,” neither are they “hybrids with a debt to others.” These Jewish and Christian influences may be some of the “innovations” that the Prophet Mohammad admonished us against.
73. Compilation of the Qur’an: “In a groundbreaking investigative essay entitled “What is the Koran?” The Atlantic Monthly told the story of an army general returning from Azerbaijan. The general warned Prophet Muhammad’s third successor, Uthman, that converts were starting to bicker about what the Koran says. He pleaded with the caliph to “overtake this people” before they succumbed to dissension, just as the Jews and Christians had. Uthman ordered a fast turnaround on the Holy Book.….Question: Having been hastily approved, what if the “perfect” version was less than perfect?….Might some verses of the Koran have been manipulated to meet political timetables and goals? Isn’t it also plausible that Arab warriors, more familiar with their sturdy customs than their novel faith, grafted many of these customs onto the Islam they exported?” (p. 156).
Response:
(Muhammad Ali in his preliminary notes to his translation of the Qur’an has refuted all the objections against the authenticity of the Qur’an; including the “great discovery” of “Dr. Mingana’s Leaves.” His Translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org. Not only has Muhammad Ali proved the authenticity of the Qur’an, but also the collecting of it; and that the arrangement and sequence of the chapters as they appeared in the Qur’an was established by the noble Messenger. The material on this matter is voluminous. I enter a few excerpts sufficient to establish the purity and Divineness of the Qur’an):
“The Qur’an was revealed piece-meal (25:32) during a period of 23 years. …The practice was, as will be shown later on, that when a chapter was revealed in parts, the Holy Prophet specified, under Divine guidance, the place of the verse revealed, and thus the arrangement of verses in each chapter was entirely his work. Similarly, later on when a considerable portion had been revealed, the arrangement of the chapters was also the work of the Holy Prophet himself. It is in one of the earliest revelations that the Holy Qur’an speaks of its collection as well as its revelation as being a part of the Divine scheme: “On us rests the collecting of it and the recitation of it” (75:17). The collection of the Holy Qur’an–which means the arrangement of its verses and chapters– was, therefore, a work which was performed by the Holy Prophet himself under Divine guidance, and it is a mistake to think that either Abu Bakr or ‘Uthman was the collector of the Qur’an, though both of them did important work in connection with the dissemination of the written copies of the sacred text. Abu Bakr made the first complete written copy, by arranging the manuscripts written in the time of the Holy Prophet, in the order of the oral recitation of the Prophet’s time. ‘Uthman’s work, on the other hand, was only the ordering of copies to be made from the written manuscript of Abu Bakr’s time and the placing of these copies in the various centres of Islamic learning, so that those who wrote the Holy Qur’an might be able to follow the standard copy. The text of the Holy Qur’an has thus been safeguarded from all alterations or corruptions in accordance with the Divine promise contained in one of the earliest revelations: “Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We are surely its Guardian” (15:9). The subject of the purity of the text of the Holy Qur’an has been fully discussed further on.” (p. ii)
“There are numerous anecdotes showing that when the Holy Prophet received a revelation, it was immediately reduced to writing. The general practice is thus described, by no less a personage than ‘Uthman, the third Caliph…..“It was customary with the Messenger of Allah that when portions of different chapters were revealed to him, and when any verse was revealed, he called one of those persons who used to write the Holy Qur’an and said to him, Write these verses in the chapter where such and such verses occur” (AD. 2:123). This report mentions, not what the Holy Prophet did on one occasion, but what he always used to do whenever any verse of the Holy Qur’an was revealed to him. Thus we have the clearest testimony that every verse of the Divine revelation was put into writing by the order and in the presence of the Holy Prophet, while additional care was taken by him to point out the place and chapter of a verse, when there were two or more unfinished chapters, so that the scribes might not confuse the verses of one chapter with those of another.” (p. xxvi-xxvii).
“Other reports of the highest authority support the evidence of ‘Uthman. Thus Bukhari narrates under the heading The Amanuenses of the Prophet: “When the verse…..(4:95) was revealed, the Prophet (peace and the blessing of Allah be upon him!) said, ‘Bring Zaid to me, and let him bring the tablet and the inkstand’. Then he said to him (Zaid), ‘Write…(the verse revealed)” (B. 66:4).” (Muhammad Ali gave several more examples, then notes) “In fact as many as forty-two of the Companions are related to have acted as scribes for the Holy Prophet. The importance given to the writing down of the revelation as they came down to the Prophet was so great that in the historic Flight of the Prophet from Makkah to Madinah, pen, inkstand and writing material were among the essential necessities of the journey. ….Not only could men read and write, but even women were taught the art. Among the wives of the Holy Prophet, at least ‘Aishah and Hafsah could read and write, as many reliable reports show.”
“Every portion of the Qur’an was committed to memory as soon as it was revealed. With the Arabs memory was the safest of repositories. ….We learn from numerous reports that whenever a passage was revealed, it was recited by the Holy Prophet to those who happened to be present at the time and many of his followers committed it to memory at once, others again learning it from those who heard it from the mouth of the Prophet. (p. xxix).
“Eagerness to commit the Holy Qur’an to memory and recite it frequently was in fact so great that the Prophet had to place a limit as to the number of days in which the whole Qur’an should be recited.….the minimum limit allowed was seven days. (Muhammad Ali notes several sayings of the Prophet) ….It is also clear from these reports that the whole of the Qur’an was committed to memory by many of the Companions, otherwise it could not be spoken of as being finished in a stated interval of time.” (p. xxxi).
“In fact, many persons are mentioned as being able to recite the whole of the Qur’an from memory in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, among these being the four Caliphs, viz., Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali, and such renowned Companions as Talhah, Sa’d, Ibn Mas’ud, Salim, Abu Hurairah, etc., while three women, viz., ‘Aishah, Hafsah and Umm Salamah are also named in the same category.” (p. xxxii).
“The entire Qur’an was revealed in the long period of twenty-three years, and if Muslim boys of the age of ten or twelve years can even now commit the whole Qur’an to memory within one or two years, the Arab possessors of wonderfully retentive memories, to whom the importance of the Qur’an was far greater than to any Muslim of a later age, would not find it difficult to memorize it within the long period of twenty three years, especially when it was given to them gradually.” (p. xxxiii).
“The assertion that no arrangement was followed in the case of single verses revealed at different times is so absurd on the very face of it that it hardly requires a refutation. How was it possible for anybody to commit the Holy Qur’an to memory, if there was no settled order in which the verses were read? (p. xxxvi.)
Regarding the Shia’s and the Qur’an:
“It is sometimes asserted that the Shi’ahs regard the Qur’an as incomplete. The following remarks from Muir’s Life of Muhammad, which has raised and answered this question, will be a sufficient answer: “Assuming, then, that we possessed unchanged the text of ‘Uthman’s recension, it remains to inquire whether the text was an honest reproduction of Zaid’s, with the simple reconcilement of unimportant variations. There is the fullest ground for believing that it was so. No early or trust-worthy tradition throws suspicions upon ‘Uthman of tam-pering with the Qur’an in order to support his own claims. The Shiahs, indeed, of later times pretend that ‘Uthman left out certain surahs or passages which favoured ‘Ali. But this is incredible. When ‘Uthman’s edition was prepared, no open breach had taken place between the Omeyyads and the Alyites. The unity of Islam was still unthreatened. ‘Ali’s pretensions were as yet undeveloped. No sufficient object can, therefore, be assigned for the perpetration by ‘Uthman of an offence which Muslims would have regarded as one of the blackest dye. Again, at the time of the recension, there were still multitudes alive who had learnt the Qur’an by heart as they had heard it originally delivered; and copies of any passages favouring ‘Ali, if any such passages ever existed, must have been in the hands of his numerous adherents, both of which sources would have proved an effectual check upon any attempt at suppression. Further, the party of ‘Ali, immediately on ‘Uthman’s death, assumed an independent attitude, and raised him to the Caliphate. Is it conceivable that, when thus arrived at power, they would have tolerated a mutilated Qur’an, mutilated expressly to destroy their leader’s claim? Yet we find that they continued to use the same Qur’an as their opponents and raised no shadow of an objection against it.”
To this I would add a few words from a Shi’ah commentator of the Holy Qur’an, Mullah Muhsin, who says in his Tafsir Safi: “Certain men from among us and the Hashwiyah masses have reported that the Qur’an has suffered loss and alteration. But the true belief of our friends is against this, and such is the belief of the vast majority. For the Qur’an is a miracle of the Holy Prophet and the source of all knowledge relating to law and all religious injunctions, and the learned Muslims have taken the utmost pains for its protection, so that there is nothing relating to its vowel-points, its recital, its letters and its verses, which they do not know. With such strong measures of protection and such faithful preservation of the Holy Book (by the Muslims) it cannot be supposed that any alteration or loss could take place” (p. 14).
The learned author goes on to say: “Surely the Qur’an was collected and arranged in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet exactly as it is in our hands. This is inferred from the fact that the Qur’an was even then recited and committed to memory as a whole, and there was a body of the Companions whose duty it was to commit it to memory. It was also recited and read out as a whole to the Holy Prophet (by the angel).”” (pp. xlviii, xlix).
Not only the Qur’an was written and memorized in the lifetime of the Prophet but also some of his sayings. Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam that Abu Hurairah says:
“None of the Companions preserved more traditions than myself, but ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr is an exception, for he used to write and I did not” (Bukhari 3:39). Also, “Abu Hurairah is reported to have said: “The Prophet of God came to us while we were writing traditions and said: What is this that you are writing? We said: Sayings which we hear from thee. He said: What! a book other than the Book of God?” Now the disapproval in this case clearly shows fear lest his sayings be mixed up with the revealed word of the Qur’an, though there was nothing essentially wrong in writing these down nor did the Prophet ever forbid this being done.”(p. 64)
“That there have been differences in interpretation of the Holy Qur’an among the greatest commentators, among even the Companions of the Holy Prophet and the great Imams, cannot be denied. But these differences do not relate to the essentials of the faith of Islam on which all Muslims are agreed: they relate to minor or secondary points.” (M. Ali, Preface, p. ix).
Allah says that He will guard the Qur’an from corruption– Qur’an 15:9; 56:77-80; 85:21-22). There is a legion of Muslims who know the Qur’an from memory. The Qur’an was not only written and memorized in the lifetime of the Prophet; it was rehearsed annually with the Angel Gabriel; and twice in the last year of the Prophet’s life–(Bokhari Vol; 4, # 819).
74. Islam and innovation: “Among the Prophet’s sayings that they (Muslim clerics) made vogue: “Beware of new things, for every new thing is an innovation and every innovation a mistake.” Great way to build a future, don’t you think? The muzzle on innovation should have been limited to Arabia, if it had to be introduced at all.” (p. 159).
Response: To interpret this saying of the Prophet to mean to be against the acquisition of knowledge and embarking on progress would be in direct contradiction of the Qur’an and the urgings of the Prophet for Muslims to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave, and to go even to China in search of knowledge.
“…My Lord, increase me in knowledge”
(Qur’an 20:114)
The innovation the Prophet is here speaking of is clearly innovation that contradicts with the teachings of Islam. For instance, the insertion of vowel points into the Qur’anic text for the benefit of others to learn the language; and organizing the Taraweh prayers into congregation (which was instituted by ‘Umar) to effect unison, were not teachings of the Prophet, yet they were new/innovation. But not only did they not contradict with Islam they are beneficial.
Women being caged-in against their choice (some women may welcome this privacy), and shut out of the Masjid (mosque) are “innovations” against the practice of the Prophet. (It is to be noted, there is no such division as “secular knowledge” and “religious knowledge” in Islam. All knowledge is from Allāh, God. There is no separation of State and Mosque in Islam. All things were created for man’s utility; and which utility can only be effected through knowledge. There is material knowledge and spiritual knowledge).
75. Ismailis and Faylasufs: “As Karen Armstrong stresses. “The Ismaili’s–a branch of the Shia–were urged to seek the truth wherever it could be found; Sufis had a great devotion to the Prophet Jesus, and the Faylasufs, who were inspired by the study of Plato and Aristotle, were seeking a more universal form of faith.”” (p. 160)
Response:
Ismailis: Islam instructs us to seek the truth/knowledge on the material aspect of life wherever it could be found; go even to China if need be to acquire knowledge, exhorts the Prophet Mohammad.
Regarding moral, social, and spiritual knowledge Islam has it all: “Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters could not have been freed till clear evidence came to them–A Messenger from Allāh, reciting pure pages, Wherein are (all) right books”–(Qur’an 98:1-3). Muhammad Ali comments: “…all those right directions necessary for the guid-ance of man, whether previously revealed or not, are to be met with in the Holy Qur’an. The Qur’an thus claims to contain all the good points of other sacred books, and, in addition, to supply their deficiencies.”
Sufis: “had a great devotion to the Prophet Jesus.” Islam and Muslims have a “great devotion” not only to Jesus but to all prophets of Allāh, God.
Faylasufs: “seeking a more universal form of faith.” Allah informs us that He is the Lord of all the worlds; He created us from a pair and populated the earth, and that man and woman are twin halves (of the other); He created us into different tribes and nations that we may know one another, and has given all people rites and ceremonies, and that all religions are for Him; that all creatures live in communities as man; He sent messen-gers to all nations and with one common message–that “there is no God but Me, so serve Me;” to believe in Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Mohammad and all other prophets, and the Revelations given to them. The Faylasufs can ransack the world till Judgment Day they will not find “a more universal form of faith” than this taught by Islam: “In what message after this (the Qur’an) will they believe?”–(Qur’an 7:185; 77:50). Islam is the “universal form of faith.” Totally!
76. Mohammad and Osama bin Laden: (Irshad Manji cites several instances of the Prophet’s life and attempts to show that bin Laden’s life is an imitation of the Prophet’s. This response is only to those that are necessary).
“Muhammad defected from one of Mecca’s most prominent clans to profess his anti-establishment message. Bin Laden has estranged himself from his well-connected family. Muhammad challenged the moral basis of an entire economy by launching his mission in polyglot Mecca, a crossroads of commerce.… New York City is bin Laden’s pre-Islamic Mecca..… Mohammad’s moral revolution took place at the same time as a technological one, in which state-of-the-art camel saddles permitted faster travel, more trade, greater greed, and deeper social disparities. Camel saddles yesterday, online transactions today. Muhammad raided the caravans of his enemies to nourish his army. Bin Laden’s war chest has benefited from American consumers, who endlessly snort oil and opium.….Prophet Muhammad defined his nation as a politically engaged community whose borders would be delineated only by the reaches of faith. Bin Laden has cultivated a multinational network of operatives who transcend the maps drawn by foreign empires.” (pp. 162-164).
Response:
Mohammad and the economy: Mohammad did not defect from his “clan” to profess his anti-establishment message” and “challenged the moral basis of an entire economy.” Mohammad sought to enlighten his people against the irrationality of polytheism and the degradation of idolatry; against the detriment of intoxicants, gambling, and profligacy; against the abomination of female infanticide, servitude of women, and injustice to orphans and slaves; and against the humiliation of superstition. Mohammad did not defect from his “clan,” Mohammad was forced into exile. Muhammad’s message is not “anti-establishment;” it is betterment.
Mohammad raiding caravans: In the year 622 (After Christ), a dozen years after he began preaching the Divine Message of the Qur’an, the Prophet Mohammad, because of persecution by the Makkans, was forced to migrate with his followers to Madinah. In Madinah, Mohammad entered into covenants with various tribes along the Makkan trade route. Mohammad did not enter into these alliances so as to make war on the Makkans; and to acquire booty. If Mohammad’s intention was to acquire booty by raiding the Makkan’s caravans along the trade route, Mohammad was fully justified. The Muslims who migrated with Mohammad to Madinah were forced to leave behind their property and wealth. Why should they not recoup from the Makkans what they had been forced to abandon? If you were to meet the person who forced you out of your home in a vulnerable position wouldn’t you confront him? Why then fault Mohammad for a legal act that you would commit? The occupier/usurper is not to be left untouched to devour the fruits of his victims in peace.
However, that Mohammad’s purpose was to make war, and to acquire booty is a myth. The number of Muslims on these expeditions were far less than those of the Quraish guarding their trade caravans; and their armaments “was not such as would encourage them to make war.” The “covenant of al ‘Aqabah was a defensive one which both al Aws and al Khazraj had undertaken to protect Muhammad. These tribes of Madinah have never agreed either with Muhammad nor with anyone else to commit aggression on anyone.” Moreover, the Madinites were not bandits. They, like the Makkans, “had other sources of income” and took part in “agriculture and trade.” Whereas the Muslim emigrants were “entitled to seize” the goods of the Quraish “in retaliation” for the loss of goods they suffered from migrating, they were unable to retaliate “before the battle of Badr.” Thus, their expeditions could not have been for war and booty. These early expeditions of the Muslims were meant as a message to the Makkans, to let the Message of the Qur’an “take its course freely, without impediment or recourse to war or fighting.”78
Regarding the opinion that Mohammad wanted to attack the unarmed caravan of Abu Sufyan–(Qur’an 8:5), which was on its way from Syria to Makkah, Muhammad Ali points out:
“It is true that a caravan was returning from Syria, and an army (which one critic opined was responding to Abu Sufyan’s call for help) had marched forth from Makkah; it is also true that some of the Muslims wished that they should encounter the caravan and not face the Makkan force (which was Allah’s purpose that they should face, in order to “cut off the root of the disbelievers”–Qur’an 8:7). Had the Holy Prophet desired to plunder the caravan, he would have done so long before Abu Sufyan could obtain succour from Makkah. Madinah was situated at a distance of thirteen days journey from Makkah, so that if the Holy Prophet had actually an idea of plundering the caravan, he would have done it long before Abu Sufyan could obtain succour in less than a month, even if he had been apprised of the Holy Prophet’s intentions and had sent for aid from Makkah. And why should the Prophet have waited all this while and not plundered the caravan before help reached Abu Sufyan?
Badr, where the encounter took place, lies at a distance of three days’ journey from Madinah. Here, marching towards each other, the two armies met. This shows that the Makkan army had long been on its way to Madinah, while the Muslims were as yet quite unprepared. The enemy had marched forth for ten days and the Muslims only for three days when the two forces encountered each other, which shows clearly that the Muslims had turned out to take the defensive against an invading force. The Prophet had never any design of plundering the caravan, for if he had any such design he could have carried it out long before the Makkan force had approached Madinah, and his hands would thus have been strengthened to meet a powerful enemy. It is quite clear that the Holy Prophet only marched forth when the enemy had already travelled over threefourths of the way to Madinah, and the caravan had left Madinah far behind.
Further, it is clearly stated here (Qur’an 8:5) that a party of the believers were averse to fighting. They could not have been averse if they had to encounter only an unarmed caravan. What is said in the next verse makes it clearer still, they went forth as if they were being driven to death, because they knew that they were going to meet an enemy not only treble in numbers, but also much more powerful and efficient.” (M. Ali. Qur’anic comm. # 980).
Regarding the battle of Badr–(Qur’an 3:12, 122; 8:7-11, 42-44). Allah reveals in 3:12, “Indeed there was a sign for you in the two hosts (which) met together in encounter–one party fighting in the way of Allah and the other disbelieving, whom they saw twice as many as themselves with the sight of the eye. And Allah strengthens with His aid whom He pleases. There is a lesson in this for those who have eyes.” This Battle, as Muhammad Ali explains is a fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of the prophet Isaiah:
“The battle of Badr is here stated to be a sign of the truth of the Prophet, not only because of the prophecies of victory contained in the Qur’an, but because of the clear prophecy in Isaiah, where, after speaking of a future scene in the land of Arabia (Isaiah 21:13), the Prophet goes on to say: “The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war. For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail. And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished.” (Isaiah 21:14-17). Kedar was the son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13), and the word is used freely in the Bible for the Arab tribe that sprang from him (Psalm 120:5; Isaiah 42:11; 60:7, etc.). There is only one person in history whose flight has become a memorable fact as the beginning of an Era. It was Muhammad (on whom be peace), who, attended by one faithful companion, fled from the drawn swords of the guard that surrounded his house, and it was after one year from his Flight that the glory of Kedar departed in the battle of Badr which took place in the second year of the Flight. The battle of Badr was thus a sign for the Jews and the Christians as well because of the fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible. The second year after the Flight had not yet come to a close when the power of Kedar was broken at Badr.” (comm. 395).
If Mohammad raided the caravans of his enemies to “nourish” his army, Mohammad was fully justified. These were the very enemies who persecuted him, plotted against him, made attempt to assassinate him, drove him out of his home and confiscated his property, and were bent on annihilating him and his followers. (That “two wrongs” do not make a right. One taking from his enemies in return for what was taken from him could hardly be viewed as a “wrong.” And, for how long must the “first wrong” [by the enemies] be allowed to perpetuate?)
Borders of Islam: That “Muhammad defined his nation as a politically engaged community whose borders would be delineated only by the reaches of faith.”As Mohammad was sent to the world, Muslims are required only to teach the message of Islam: not to force acceptance of it: “thy duty is only to deliver the message”–(Qur’an 3:19; 64:12); “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).
The heavens and the earth belong to Allah. Allah has dominion over all territories. Thus Muslims do not have to secure for Allah what already belongs to Allah. Allāh has decreed Islam to prevail over all other religions–(Qur’an 9:33). But this propagation is to be done through missionizing:
“And from among you there should be a
party who invite to good and enjoin the right
and forbid the wrong”
(Qur’an 3:103)
“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom
and goodly exhortation,
and argue with them in the best manner”
(Qur’an 16:125).
“thou art not one to compel them.
So remind by means of the Qur’an”
(Qur’an 50:45).
Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason. So long as man governs himself according to reason Islam will prevail over all other religions.
77. Islam and Ataturk: (Kemal Ataturk) “the architect of modern Turkey. In 1925 he proclaimed, “I flatly refuse to believe that today, in the luminous presence of science, knowledge and civilization in all aspects, there exist….men so primitive as to seek their material and moral well-being from the guidance of one or another sheikh.” Ataturk proved himself a visionary precisely by jettisoning any association with Islam’s founding moment.…Given the chance to speak, many Muslims will say they don’t want to keep replicating the founding moment.” (pp. 170-171).
Response: It will be observed that Ataturk objected to men seeking their benefits from the “sheikh” not from Islam. As noted elsewhere, “Islam’s founding moment” includes science. That “Ataturk proved himself a visionary precisely by jettisoning any association with Islam’s founding moment,” is evidence of Ataturk’s ignorance of the beauty and force of Islam as appended to in these pages.
That “many Muslims will say they don’t want to keep replicating the founding moment,” such Muslims would be in error. All they need do is study their religion and they would learn that Islam is the religion of knowledge and progress: that Islam is “the road forward.” Islam is “the road forward” so much so that within a century after its “founding moment” it catapulted backward camel drivers into masters of learning and into thrones of Caesars. And we would yet be sitting in these thrones had we not lapse away from the path of Allāh. In the words of the venerable Caliph, ‘Umar: “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.”*(God brings man into disgrace by withholding his favor. Thus, man brings himself into disgrace). *(See Islam-Muslims’ destiny).
78. Islam and Husband and wife relations: “When moderate Indonesian Muslims put out a book called The New Face of Husband-Wife Relations, attempting to reconcile Islam with human rights, you know the road forward has a few more travelers.….to give the desert a run for its money by unleashing multiple interpretations of Islam.” (pp. 171-172).
Response: There is no Muslim “fundamentalist,” Muslim “moderate” or “liberal” Muslim. The Qur’an gives instructions on the best way of life. There are varying degrees of being a Muslim, according to the extent of one’s practice of Islam. Difference in interpreting statement(s) of Allah does not make one a “fundamentalist” or “moderate” or “liberal.” Islam is the teaching of the Qur’an, the Sunnah –practice and sayings of the Prophet Mohammad– and what are based on these two sources.
What are these human rights relations of women that are lacking in Islam? Please detail them. Had these “moderate Indonesian Muslims” investigated the Qur’an they would have learnt that 1400 years ago Allāh/Islam gave husband and wife the best relations they could ever had –from the cradle all the way to Jannah! Islam has given woman rights that leaves her nothing to strive for. And for which article of Islam do you want “multiple interpretations”: Unity of God? Prayer? Charity? Fasting? Hajj? Pursuit of knowledge? Women’s role in Islam? Islam’s relations with non-Muslims? Some other(s?). Please detail them. There is no “tribalism” in Islam. Detail this tribalism.
79. Women and pre-nuptial agreements: “In an explicit passage that Imams rarely publicize to the middle and lower classes, the Koran permits women to negotiate marriage contracts that meet their personal conditions, “If a woman fear[s] ill-treatment….on the part of her husband,” says a verse in chapter 4, “it shall be no offence for them to seek a mutual agreement, for agreement is best. People are prone to avarice.” Today, a woman’s personal conditions for marriage might include: “My husband can’t lay an unwanted finger on me or on my earnings. If he does, I’ll regard it as ‘ill treatment’ and I’ll have the right to divorce him.””(p. 181). (Islam gives woman full control over her earnings–Qur’an 4:32. She does not need a pre-nup agreement for this).
Response: The verse under discussion is Qur’an 4:128. It reads in full: “If a woman fears ill-usage from her husband or desertion no blame is on them if they effect a reconciliation between them. And reconciliation is better. And avarice is met with in (men’s) minds. And if you do good (to others) and keep your duty, surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.”
This verse does not refer to a “prenuptial agreement.” The very first statement makes this clear, as it speaks of a husband. A woman does not yet have a husband in a pre-nuptial agreement. This verse is speaking about the woman already married; it is not reasonable that a woman would marry a man from whom she fears “desertion” or “ill-treatment” (she might not survive the first bout of cruelty to benefit from any such pre-nuptial agreement). And it is doubtful that a sane man would promise to give part of his pre-nup wealth in the event of the dissolution of marriage.
Lady ‘Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, says that this verse: “It is about a man who has a woman (wife) and he does not like her and wants to divorce her but she says to him, ‘I make you free as regards myself.” So this verse was revealed in this connection”–(Bokhari Vol. 6, # 125). The words of the verse for them to “effect a reconciliation between them. And reconciliation is better,” is for them to save the marriage. For, in Islam, divorce is a hateful thing.
A pre-nuptial agreement is not entered into because of anticipated fear of a husband, but of apportioning assets in the event that the marriage should fail. In any event pre-nuptial agreement in Islam is a moot claim, seeing that to men are due what they earn and to women what they earn; and that men are the maintainers of women (and are responsible for her upkeep). The only financial agreement between potential spouses is the mahr, which is dependent upon the man’s financial status.
However, both parties may document what assets they are bringing into the marriage. Women do not need to reserve the right to divorce; this right is given to them in the Qur’an. As marriage is a sacred contract, it cannot be prejudicial against any.
(In times of women’s lib, not only can this man make a claim on the woman. But would woman consent to give the man mahr; to be the maintainer of man; agree to be circumcised; pay alimony if need be; and shave her head at the hajj?)
80. Liberalizing Islam: “As an approach to liberalizing Islam, Operation Ijtihad seems promising. But the promise could sputter and ultimately stall as long as Islamic “human rights” codes enshrine men as the providers of their families, prohibiting women from earning.” (p. 182)
Response: “And for women is the benefit of what they earn”–(Qur’an 4:32). Since the Qur’an permits women to earn, any code “prohibiting” her from doing so is not “Islamic.” In fact not only can women earn but can support their husbands, seeing that their earnings are under their exclusive control.
That men are the “providers of their families” does not prohibit women from working. As noted women can earn. Not only that women can earn, she can take part in other activities. Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam: “A study of the Tradition literature shows that, notwithstanding her rightful position in the home, as the bringer up of children and mana-ger of the household, woman took interest in all the national activities of the Muslim community.” Women took part in “congregational prayers,” “join(ed) the soldiers in the field of battle” –“carrying of provisions, taking care of the sick and 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 superintendent of the market of Madinah.” (pp. 628-629). There is no religion more “liberalizing” than Islam.
81. Desert Islam: “Still, I don’t underestimate the manipulative prowess of those who worship desert Islam.” (p. 183).
Response: Allah says He has given us Islam –one, without shoot(s). Allah gives us the perfected religion, Islam, from where then do we get this “desert” Islam?
This “desert” Islam catapulted ruthless brigands into seats of power and learning; gave the besieged woman liberty and rights all the way to Paradise; raised the faceless slave from the dust and put the scepter of regality in his grasp; rescued the daughter from the grave of hate and gave hope to the orphans; enshrined freedom of religion and justice to all. Where then is the indignity in “desert” Islam?
82. Zionist torture: (The Arab source) “Inqilab al-Soura monitors all the Zionist Hebrew speaking audio-visual media and press, thus exposing the status and hidden facts of the Zionist military warfare.” (And there is no Zionist/Jewish source that monitors Arabs). For good measure, the program is produced and hosted by a “former detainee in Israeli prisons.” Hey, at least there’s life after Zionist torture.”(pp. 183-184).
Response: Palestinians homes, lands and country have been stolen from them and when they try to liberate them they are villainised, imprisoned and “torture(d).” How’s that for “democracy” and justice. Let’s see all the hands who would like to be in the Palestinians situation. Come on now, Manji, please, do not disappoint us. Ismail Zayid accurately hones in on the Palestinian saga in his Palestine, A Stolen Heritage:
“The Palestinians finding all their country under Israeli occupation and its entire people either expelled or under alien rule, lost faith in the world community and came to realise that, even in this era of so-called civilisation, International Law and U.N. Charter, might is right and what is lost by force can be regained only force. They intensified, therefore, their resistance by guerilla attacks against Israeli military personnel and objectives. The Israelis retaliated by ruthless bombardment using Phantom jets and napalm against the defenceless men, women and children in their refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. The Palestinian resistance was vilified by Zionist propaganda and their captured members were savagely tortured in Israeli hands. The International Red Cross has at no time been given full access to these prisoners. In desperation, some Palestinian groups resorted–in retaliation for this savage torture and the massacres committed in the refugee camps–to acts of violence against civilians including hijacking of aircraft which culminated in the Munich tragedy in which the role of the Israeli and German Governments was less than innocent. Unpardonable as these acts in themselves are, it behoves all to remember the state of desperation the Palestinians reached and what caused it.” (p. 18).
What would you do if you were in the Palestinians’ situation? At the time of Partition of Palestine Jews were 34% of the population and owned less than 6% of the land. Yet the Plan allotted Jews 56% of the land including the valuable coastland, 42% for a Palestinian state and 1% as an international sector.
What would you do should your Government forcibly squeezes you and family into forty-four percent of your house and put a homeless family of fewer members into the remaining fifty-six percent; and give this homeless people title of ownership to this fifty-six percent of your property? And whereas members of your family do not have the right to come and live in your house, members of the homeless people born anywhere in the world has the right to live in your house–whereas a Jew born anywhere in the world has automatic citizenship to Palestine, a Palestinian born in Jaffa, his own country, is a refugee. This is the reality and injustice Palestinians face.
No King or Queen, or Prince or pauper, or President or Prime Minister, or doctor or lawyer, or student or peasant would accept such an ignominious scheme and not challenge it in every way open to him and her. Yet Palestinians are forced to accept the fate that no one in the world would accept.
Palestinians are forced into “terrorism” then they are villainized, imprisoned and tortured. Palestinian “terrorism” is the natural product of the injustice committed against them. To fault Palestinians for their actions would be like the creator of Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein for what Frankenstein is.
Injustice is the incubator of terrorism. It is not terrorism to fight the occupier, oppressor, transgressor, exploiter, and usurper. It is heroism! If man would extend to others the rights he exacts for himself billions will not be blown battling “terrorism.”
83. Islam–religion and state: “Why appeal to Islam at all? It‘s a question posed by Taslima Nasrin, who adamantly believes that reform will emerge only when religion retreats. As far as she’s concerned, Muslims need to replace religious laws with civil ones, completely separating mosque and state. But must Islamic countries imitate Judeo-Christian ones in order to be humane?” (p. 186)
Response: Which Judeo-Christian law is more “humane” than Islamic law? Which of the Qur’anic laws is not “humane” and not “civil”?
When people migrate to another country they have to follow the laws of this adopted country. When one joins an organization –police, military, etc.,– he and she has to conform to its dress code and regimentation. Similarly, when people accept Islam they are required to conform to its laws and dress code. So where is the problem?
There is no “civil” law that is superior to Islamic law, (laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an are not Islamic). There is no moral law that can be legislated in a “democracy” that could not be legislated under Islam. In Islam human rights belong to all. In fact, in Islam even lower animals have rights–(Qur’an 6:38). (Critics must learn to differentiate between Islam and Muslims).
84. Islam and progress: “Suppressing Islam for the sake of “progress” resembles tyranny.” (So which are you advocating, “progress” or “tyranny”). (p.187).
Response: As shown, Islam is “progress.” Thus, “Suppressing” Islam would be “suppressing” “progress.”
85. Islam’s noxious air: “I appreciate why Taslima Nasrin insists that secularization is the solitary hope. She doesn’t think you can reaffirm the value of Islam without reinforcing its noxious air of supremacy. I hear her. That’s why I’ve consulted anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, and–what the hell–atheists about how human beings can curb our tendency to pursue victory instead of coexistence.” (p. 188). (Did these experts try to fan-angle the other?)
Response: As shown, Islam is the only religion from God. As it is the only religion from God, all other religions are man-made; and man-made product(s) could not be superior to what God has made. Thus, whether we call Him Allah, Ishwar, Eli or Yahweh, Islam –peace and submission to God– which was given to all prophets of God –and which was perfected through the Prophet Mohammad, and thus, is comprehensive– could not have a “noxious” air of supremacy.
Doubtlessly, Taslima Nasrin is more educated than many in her environment; would she say then that this superiority in knowledge gives her a “noxious air of supremacy”?
The religion from Allāh, God, could hardly be classed as being akin to harm, or as being destructive or morally corrupting. Produce your proofs!
Islam, perfected through the Prophet Mohammad, and as shown, is superior to all other religions.
We do not need to consult fallible experts, the Qur’an has the infallible guidelines on how human beings can coexist. (Prove that it does not!)
Islam does not “pursue victory.” As the religion from God Islam is already triumphant. Islam sets out only to teach its universal Message: the world has the right to either accept or reject it. If man should follow Islam he would know that he can have both “victory” and “co-existence.”
86. First in Palestine–Jew or Arab?: “I floated an approach (to Yasser Arafat) to sharing land that would let Muslim Palestinians retain dignity, identity, and integrity. (Would you share house with the occupier of your property, or would you try to boot him out? Muslims were sharing land with Jews for centuries before Jews intrigued and kicked them out of their country. Palestinians HAVE “dignity, identity, and integrity” –they did not steal/occupy anyone’s land or is killing anyone to hold on to what is not theirs). I pointed out that the hijra, Prophet Muhammad’s famous move from Mecca to Medina, translates into “seeking protection by settling in a place other than one’s own.” (The Prophet did not move he was forced to leave). Jewish tribes had long lived in Medina, yet most of them shared their environs with the Prophet and his people. (Jews lived in Medina, Jews did not share their environs with Mohammad: Jews were not owners of Medina. Moreover, Jews intrigued to take the Prophet’s life and joined in war against him). Yasser, I beseeched, take a leaf from history. Wouldn’t it be tit for tat to share Palestine with the Jews, who, like the early Muslims, migrated in search of protection from murderous prejudice? I figured I had the beginning of a breakthrough. (Palestinians were sharing Palestine with Jews for centuries until Zionism reared its ugly, despicable head. How is sharing your house with the occupier/ usurper “tit for tat”? To repeat: will you share your house with a vagabond by having 50% of it forcibly taken from you by the government and given to him/her, or would do all you can to boot him out? Jews did not want “protection” they, as their intentions revealed, wanted Palestine; all of it. They still do. Why not give your “leaf from history” to the Jews and have them move to America, where most of them live anyway, or to Uganda, where the British was giving them a homeland?)
(Manji notes that one Muslim letter writer pointed out that the Prophet was invited by the Madinites. And) The day after that, a Jew responded to the Muslim. She commended my reasoning, then turned her sights to Palestine. “[F]or those Muslims who proclaim that they were in the area before the Jews, I must remind them that Abraham and Sarah were living in Hebron when Sarah died long before the Prophet Muhammad existed.” (Palestinians did not originate from Mohammad. Palestinian’s history precede not only Mohammad’s but also Abraham’s. Significantly, God’s covenant was made with Abraham not with Isaac; and Ishmael was not only of Abraham but Abraham’s firstborn, and the firstborn is the inheritor of the birthright. Moreover, Abraham and Sarah were NOT Jews [or Christians]: there were no Jews/Israelites [or Christians] then; by nationality they were Chaldeans and later Caananites; and religiously, they were Muslims). In one way or the other, we all have to be right, don’t we? I lump myself into that group. But if you’re right, must I be wrong? I asked that question of David Hartman, one of Israel’s most authoritative rabbis. He replied with another question. “Is my vibrancy, is my life, a threat to yours?” (Were the vibrancy and life of the Palestinians a threat to Jews so that they should have been forced out of Palestine?) Before I could respond, Rabbi Hartman answered for himself. “I mean, I love to hear Muslims pray. It wakes me up at four o’clock in the morning but, for the sake of pluralism, I’ll kill my sleep. On Sunday, the church bells are ringing. I say, ‘Fine. Bang away, kid.’” (pp. 188-189). (Being tolerant of the Muslims’ adhan –call to prayer– and the Christians’ bell is hardly any discomfort to occupy/usurp their country. Then again, the occupier/usurper can always take the dignified highway and leave. Go to America; you won’t have to “kill” your sleep because of the adhan or the bell).
Response:
That Abraham and Sarah were in Palestine long before Mohammad existed: Abraham and Sarah may have lived in Hebron, Palestine, where Sarah died, long before Prophet Mohammad came into the world. But, not only does Canaanite history predates Abraham in Canaan, but Abraham and Sarah were not Jews. Neither were Isaac and Jacob. Though Semites, as the Arabs are, they were Muslims. Jews or Children of Israel date back only to the twelve children of Jacob, who was renamed Israel by God. Jews originated from Judaism, which is named after Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel, which would take Jacob back only to about 2200 B.C., whereas Palestinian history dates beyond Abraham –to at least four thousand years ago. Thus, Palestinians are in Palestine before Jews. Eons before.
To emphasize. Abraham was the father of Ishmael also. And Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn. And the firstborn, as God says in the Bible, is the inheritor of his father–(Deut. 21:15-17). Significantly, Edward Said quoted from Moshe Dayan (a former Jewish Army General) who remarked that in Palestine “There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”79
Instead of blaming Yasser Arafat as the “obstacle” to peace, the critics should read Prof. Noam Chomsky Pirates And Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World. Know who the culprits are. (See item # 48).
Regarding the July 2006 Jewish aggression against Lebanon. The frantic rush by the apologists to defend the indefensible Jewish atrocities against Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon is not unexpected–keep blaming the victims long enough and hard enough and eventually the uninformed public would be parroting your every twisted syllable. William Zukerman (on the Arab refugee problem):
“To this observer, nothing demonstrates more sharply the terribly uncanny power of modern propaganda to control minds, sway emotions and brutalize people than the Zionist propaganda on the Arab refugees during the last decade. It literally succeeded in turning black into white, a big blatant lie into truth, a grave social injustice into an act of justice glorified by thousands. It has turned clever people with more than average intelligence into starry-eyed fools, believing everything they are told; and has converted kindly and gentle men and women with a strong sense of mercy into callous fanatics, insensible to the suffering of any people except their own. In no other way can this writer explain the many paradoxes which the Arab refugee problem has created in Jewish life.”80
Allāh has informed us that unless Muslims protect one another there will be persecution in the land and great mischief–(Qur’an 8:72-73). If Muslims were adhering to the dictum of Allāh there would not now be the Question of Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.
This latest assault on Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon is to be the Clarion call for us Muslims to put our culture and language and geography and sectism etc; on the flight to oblivion and converge under the dome of Islam. For too long we have abandoned the “all-empowering” Qur’an and Islam. We must now put the end to our infighting in the various places around the world –Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan….We are not Arabs and Iranians and Pakistanis…we are not Sunnis and Shias and Ahmadis…we are not Wahhabis and Deobandis…we are not black and white and brown…We are first, last, and foremost, Muslims!
The time has long since come for Muslims to re-institute the Divine vision of the Middle-east: to free Muslim lands from the American-Jewish jackboots. No Muslim allegianced to Allāh and His Prophet would acquiesce to foreign domination–(Qur’an 48:10; 2:190-191; 8:72-73; 60:9; 42:38-39. Such Muslims are to begin formulating their excuse for when they face Allāh on Judgment Day).
If Muslims are not successful in this present endeavor, this is no cause for dismay: even the Messenger of Allāh had set-backs –stoned at Ta’if, expelled from his beloved Makkah, and repelled in the first bout at the battle of Uhud. It took the Prophet twenty-three years to triumph over his enemies. Mercifully, it will not take us that long to triumph–the “all-empowering” Qur’an is already revealed and we are not idolatrous. With our re-dedication to Islam and Allāh’s Invincible help, it might not even take us half twenty-three years to be triumphant.Muslims are destined to be triumphant: “O man, We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful” and
“certainly the remembrance of Allāh is the greatest (force)”
“And trust in Allah.
And Allah is enough as having charge (of affairs).”
“Surely Allah will not fail in (His) promise”
“Allah is the Friend of the dutiful.”
“Allah is your Patron,
and He is the best of the helpers”
“And in Allah should the believers put their trust”
“Allah has promised to those of you who believe
and do good that He will surely make them
rulers in the earth.”
(Qur’an 20:1-2; 29:45; 33:3; 13:31; 45:19; 3:149, 159; 24:55).
The time has long since come for Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Kuwait, Sudan, Turkey, and all other Muslim nations to abandon our differences and to unite under our commonalities in Islam in all matters–from economic to military. The time has long since come for North and South Yemen to reunite; and for East and West Pakistan.
Muslims, including the military and the police, who are indifferent or who oppose or who militate against such unity must formulate their responses to Allah from now, if He should question on the Day of Judgment ‘Why did you dissect yourself against My command, and why did you allow your enemies to overwhelm you when you are more than one billion in number and My hand is above yours’? –(Qur’an 30:32; Cf. Qur’an 48:10).
While Muslims are to have military preparedness –which we have sorely neglected and which neglect is partly responsible for our suffering, occupation, exploitation, destruction, and humiliation– as Allah has enjoined (not for offense, but for defense) (Qur’an 3:199; 8:60), Muslims do not need superiority in numbers or armaments to be victorious over the enemy –the battles of Badr, Uhud, and the Allies, etc; are proofs of this. We need only Allah. Allah is our best Helper –we do our best and He does the rest. Allaho Akbar!!!(See item #60).
87. Judaism and evangelization: “Judaism, unlike Islam and Christianity, doesn’t set out to convert. It harbors no claim to universalism. By its own laws, it can’t evangelize. “That’s because Jews are ‘the chosen ones,’” Muslims are apt to sniff. “Chosen people don’t need to prove themselves. Come hell or high water, their salvation is in the bag.” I consider this a tragic misapprehension.” (p. 189). (Agreed. Absolutely).
Response:
Judaism can’t evangelize: Arthur Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe showed that Jews did proselytize. Islam does not set out “to convert.” It is not the duty of Muslims to “convert” anyone. Like the Prophet, as he was instructed by Allah, Muslims are only to deliver the message of the Qur’an–3:20; 5:95; 16:82; 24:54; 29:18; 46:35; 64:12. Acceptance or rejection of this message is wholly and solely personal. Significantly, Judaism is a redundant religion: as the law of Moses was Divinely decreed to be replaced with the Qur’an, “spiritually the Jewish religion has no future.”81
Salvation in the bag: No religionist “have salvation in the bag,” on account of their race or mere belief. Paradise is not a family jewel that is handed down from generation to generation. The favor of God is earned through faith and good deeds; not through arrogance, mischief, treachery, and/or injustice.
Jews are not “chosen ones.” God does not have a “chosen people” to the exclusion of others. God, Who is just, would not disfavor people on account of their nationality or race –a factor in which they have no choice. The people who are deemed by God as “stiffnecked”–(Ex. 33:3); “rebellious”–(Deut. 9:7; 31:27; Isaiah 65:2); who have lost the kingdom of God–(Matt. 21:43); on whom His curse is upon–(Qur’an 2:88); and most of whom are faithless–(Qur’an 2:100), treacherous–(Qur’an 5:13), and transgressors–(Qur’an 5:81); and who would be tormented to the day of Resurrection–(Qur’an 7:167), have the opposite of “salvation” “in the bag.” (More like perdition “in the bag”).
88. Muslims and responsibility: “Jews who aren’t marginal often exceed the call of responsibility–without acknowledgement from us Muslims. (How about Jews not exceeding but meeting their responsibility and return to the Palestinians their homes, lands, and country? Anything less hardly warrants any kiss on the cheek from Muslims). At a pro-Israel rally in April 2002, Paul Wolfowitz, the U.S. deputy defense secretary, handed a metaphorical olive branch to Palestinians. (His country helped to steal Palestinian’s country and is still supporting this abomination, and he hands the Palestinians a handful of clouds in return. Grand exchange, Ms. Manji. How would you like such a deal from Paul Wolfowitz? Wolfowitz should hand his metaphorical olive branch to his fellow Americans and hand the literal California or Texas to the Jews –let’s see the American populace swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel their government has been trying to force-feed the fearless and forbearing Palestinians for sixty torturous years now– this certainly would put an end to the “suicide” bombings). A noted hawk, Wolfowitz conceded that “innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying in great numbers as well.” The gathering jeered. But what did Edgar M. Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, do? He wrote to the New York Times with avowed humility, “Those who booed should be ashamed of themselves and should be made aware of the passage in the Haggadah [Passover story]….God chastises the angels for cheering as the Egyptians were drowning while chasing the Israelites who had crossed the Red Sea. God told them, These are my people, too. Palestinians are dying in this war in the Middle East. (What war? One party is under occupation and has crude catapults whereas the occupier is armed to his nose with sophisticated gizmos, and this is war? This is wholesale slaughter!) My sympathies are certainly for Israel and its people, but we must all be aware that Palestinians are people, too.”” (pp. 190-191)
Response: Having “sympathies” for the occupier/usurper of another people’s homes, lands, and country is “avowed humility”? Would Edgar M. Bronfman now write to the New York Times with “avowed humility” that since we Jews were so unjust against the Palestinians in displacing them from their country we must all leave and settle in America?
As noted, Edgar M. Bronfman, is quoted as writing: “My sympathies are certainly for Israel and its people, but we must all be aware that Palestinians are people, too.” Excellent platitudes. Like throwing a bone to a dog. After two thousand years, Jews can come to fight for their fanciful Biblical heritage to Palestine. But the Palestinians –with more than four thousand years of history to the land– after fifty years of striving to reclaim their country are vilified for exercising their “inalienable rights.” Given this reasoning, should the lands of a people of today be usurped by another, given this ratio of 1-40 (2000/50) as applied to the Palestinians, then after a period of less than two years this “occupied” people would also be villains for trying to reclaim their country. Tell this to the Dalai Lama (as he claimed Tibet is under Chinese occupation).
Angels cheering at the drowning Egyptians: At least the angels would have justification for “cheering” the destruction of the Pharaohites –they having bondaged the Israelites, killed their sons and humiliated their daughters– now that the Israelites were free. But what justification do the Israelites have (if they are indeed the descendants of Jacob and not descendants of the Khazar –an eighth century Turkish tribe that converted to Judaism) for their injustice against the Palestinians? What justification does Paul Wolfowitz and his associates have for their destruction of Iraq, and the deaths of the hundreds of thousand of innocents, who bondaged no one, nor killed the sons of any one nor humiliated their daughters?
It may be said that the injustices from the Pharaoh down to the “holocaust” destroyed the Jewish body, but that Jews in their injustice against the Palestinians have destroyed their soul. It may even be submitted that three thousand years ago the Children of Israel was the oppressed, today the Children of Israel is the oppressor.
With their monumental sufferings at the hands of Pharaoh, the Romans, and the “holocaust,” if there is one people who should have eschewed rather than imitate evil it should have been the Jews.
“Does man think that We cannot
assemble his bones?
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect
order the very tips of his fingers.
But man wishes to do wrong (even)
in the time in front of him.”
(Qur’an 75:3-5)
Architects of evil hoisted upon the pedestal of glory by “sycophantic” egotist.
“Keep thee far from a false matter; and
the innocent and the righteous slay them not:
for I will not justify the wicked.”
(Exodus 23:7)
One by one the arrogant butchers of the world, and of Palestine (and their aiders), are returned to Allāh, God to toast for their crimes. The magnificence of it is, in the Court of Allāh there is no diplomatic immunity, no legal technicality, no hung-jury/no mistrial; no bribery; no one to “pressure” or bring “coercion and duress” on; and no godfather to shield behind his coat –in fact, the godfather would be hustling for a skirt for himself to hide behind– you did the crime, or was involved in it, you toast the time. And considering that one Divine day is equal to a thousand human years, even if the maximum time spent in Hell is twelve months, in Divine terms that would be 365,000 human years. You’re well crisped! Allaho Akbar!
89. Dignity of difference. Unpredictable God: “The same covenant to recognize the “other” allows Britain’s chief Orthodox rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, to write about the “dignity of difference.”….In Sacks’s prose, “God creates difference; therefore it is in one-who-is-different that we meet God.” (Does Rabbi Sacks believe he is God’s Chosen One to the exclusion of others? If he does, isn’t it bigotry that this God Who created difference would hold one party to the exclusion of others, because of his race; and how could there be dignity when one views himself as superior to the other? And how could one meet God in the “other” when this “other” is excluded from the Chosen ones?) ……Why am I banging away at the humanity that Judaism enables? (How could there be humanity in the religion whose people view themselves as the Chosen One to the exclusion of others; and whose teachings require enslaving “heathen” neighbors –Leviticus 25:44-46? More like bigotry). Because while I expect that Operation Ijtihad will spur conversations among the three Peoples of the Book, these “trialogues” will amount to something only if they’re driven by Talmudic open-endedness. I don’t mean the Talmud itself; I mean the attitude, so elegantly voiced by Rabbi Hartman, that Abraham’s God is equally the “God of surprise and novelty.” A God, that is, whose will you can’t predict.” (p. 191).
Response: Since God is the “God of surprise and novelty” –a God “whose will you can’t predict”– would Rabbi Hartman and Jews now accept that this un“predict”able God sent Jesus to them and accept him? Let them disprove Jesus’ claim to be prophet of God.
Since God is the “God of surprise and novelty” –a God “whose will you can’t predict”– would Rabbi Hartman and Jews now accept that this un“predict”able God created Jesus through “virgin” birth? Let them disprove that Jesus was not of “virgin” birth–(Jewish Biblical landscape is colored with miracles, so much so that even Balaam’s ass spoke to Balaam–Numbers 22:28, 30; and one days supply of oil lasted for eight days (as is claimed in Hanukkah).
Since God is the “God of surprise and novelty” –a God “whose will you can’t predict”– would Rabbi Hartman and Jews now accept that this un“predict”able God sent Mohammad as Messenger to the world and accept him? Let them disprove Mohammad’s claim to Divine Prophethood. In fact, of all the claimants to Divine Dispensation, including Moses and Jesus, Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim: the Qur’an–its inimitability, prophecies that have already been fulfilled and its scientific ideas–being the proof of his Divine Messengership.
And the “Talmudic open-endedness” (or those who “voiced” it), in the face that God is the “God of surprise and novelty” “whose will you can’t predict” and in the face of all the miracles in the Bible, and even that which is not in the Bible –one day’s supply of oil lasting for eight days– yet views Mary, the mother of Jesus as an “adulteress” and Jesus as being of illegitimate birth (a “bastard).”
90. Kazakhstan: “…Kazakhstan, a Muslim-majority country carved out of the former Soviet Union…” (p. 192).
Response: Kazakhstan was not “carved out of the former Soviet Union.” The Kazakhs were “bludgeoned” into submission by Russia in the nineteenth century. After the truncation of the wretched Soviet Goliath at the hands of the intrepid Afghan Mujahideen Davids, the Kazakhs rightly reaffirmed their sovereignty. (Now Muslims have to help not only Palestinians but also our brothers and sisters of Chechnya, Dagestan, and East Turkistan -UIGHURISTAN- regain their lands).
91. Abrahamic hajj (Why non-Muslims are not allowed worship in Arabia): “For the hardier souls among Christian, Jewish, and Muslim university students, interfaith direct action could mean organizing an “Abrahamic hajj” to Mecca….Only Muslims may pray at the Kaaba, you say? Then what’s a Muslim?…If Mecca is too special to be pollinated by the presence of non-Muslims, I have only one question: Why?” (pp. 195-196). (If you had studied Islam –and you project yourself as an authority on Islam– you would have known why, and would not have made such a preposterous suggestion).
Response: There could never be an “Abrahamic” hajj because Jews and Christians do not believe in Ishmael –they believe Ishmael is of illegitimate birth; and the sacrifice of the animals at Minna is commemorative of Abraham’s intended sacrifice of this “only son,” Ishmael, whereas Jews and Christians believe Isaac was the intended sacrifice.*
There could never be an “Abrahamic” hajj because Jews and Christians do not accept Lady Hajra (Hagar) as the wife, but as a “bondswoman,” of Abraham; and the traversing between the hills of Safa and Marwa is in memory of Lady Hajra’s seeking aid for herself and son, Ishmael.
Allah instructs Abraham: “Associate nothing with me”–(Qur’an 22:26); but Christians associate Jesus with God –as son of God, and even as one in a Trinity with God–and some even associate Mary with God –as the mother of God. All blasphemous. To assert that Allāh, God, has a son is such an abomination that “The heavens may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountain fall down in pieces”–(Qur’an 19:88-91). And to say God put Adam’s sin onto everyone (and then everyone’s sins onto Jesus) is to ascribe injustice to God; and to say that God sent Jesus to be killed is to make God complicit in murder. All of which are blasphemies. And as Jesus said blasphemers against God end up in Hell: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation” (unless they repent and follow Mohammad as God requires them and Jews)–(Mark 3:29) (See Jesus-inherited sin to ascension; Judaism; Palestine).
And Jews not only have yet to fulfill their covenant with God –to accept Mohammad– but ascribe injustice to God; claiming that they are God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others. And to pride one’s self as racially superior –and one of the functions of Hajj, is to demolish all ranks of race, color, status and economics– when there is no such Divine teaching is blatant arrogance against Allāh, God.
Allah says that Hajj is a duty men owe to Him–(Qur’an 3:96); and that “Only those are believers who believe in Allah and His Messenger”–(Qur’an 24:62). Belief in Allah means: belief in His Unity–He has no son or partner or relation or equal; is the First and Last; the Evident and the Immanent–in all His Angels, all His Revelations, all His Prophets, the Resurrection and Judgment and Heaven and Hell. But Jews do not accept Jesus and Mohammad, and Christians do not believe in Mohammad.
Thus, it is clear that there could never be an “Abrahamic” hajj.
For Jews and Christians to mechanic this sacred “duty” of hajj that men owe to Allah, for them to outwardly observe the rites of hajj when they are internally insincere, they would be guilty of the severest instance of hypocrisy–hypocrisy against God. And instead of cultivating paradise with plowshares of peace they would be impaling their souls on swords of fire.
The hajj instituted by Allah is an Islamic hajj, it is not an “Abrahamic” hajj.
*(Regarding the belief of Jews and Christians that Isaac was the intended sacrifice. That Jews altered the Bible, effacing Ishmael’s name and inserting Isaac’s is noted in item # 51, Arabs “initiated” war against Jews.
Those who view Ishmael to be of sullied birth must consider: Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was also his sister, from his father’s side–(Gen. 20:11-12). And Biblically, such a union is unacceptable: “if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter….and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people”–(Lev. 20:17): Isaac came from such a union–from Abraham and Sarah.
Bilhah and Zilpah who bore Jacob sons were handmaids of his wives Rachel and Leah, respectively–(Gen. 30:1-13). Thus, these four sons, Dan and Naphtali, and, Gad and Asher, borne by the handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah, respectively, could all said to be of illegitimate birth if Ishmael is said to be of illegitimate birth because he was born of a handmaid. And three of these four sons of Jacob –Naphtali, Gad, and Asher– each became a founder of a tribe (of the twelve tribes of Israel–Rev. 7:5-8. And Judah, who was also a founder of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is said to have committed adultery with his daughter-in-law, Tamarr, thinking she was “an harlot”–(Gen. 38:11-18). And Judah was the grandfather of Jesus, the Christian’s son of God and even God to some.
That Ishmael, and not Isaac, was the son Abraham offered in his intended sacrifice is also borne out by Allāh, God, in His Qur’an: Abraham prayed for an heir and is given a son; then he had a vision about him sacrificing this son–(Qur’an 37:100-111), and AFTERWARDS Abraham was promised Isaac as stated in verses 112-113: “And We gave him the good news of ISAAC, a prophet, a righteous one. And We blessed him (Abraham) and Isaac.” Allāh blessing Abraham as Muhammad Ali explains: “Abraham and Isaac are spoken of distinctly to show that by blessing Abraham is here meant blessing his descendants through Ishmael.
Muslims who say that the Qur’an is not clear about which son was the intended sacrifice are to study the Qur’an carefully).
What is a Muslim? A Muslim is one who submits himself to the commands of Allah. There are varying degrees of being a Muslim, according to one’s practice of Islam. Accepting that There is no God but Allāh, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh–which brings one into the abode of Islam–is the first stage in being a Muslim.
While the followers of prophets before the Prophet Mohammad who followed the message brought by their respective prophets were Muslims, the followers of Judaism who believe they are God’s Chosen people to the exclusion of others are not Muslims, as Moses did not teach such a doctrine. And Christians who believe in inherited sin, vicarious atonement, that Jesus is God and/or son of God are not Muslims, as Jesus did not teach such doctrines–these doctrines of Christianity have no Divine foundation; no prophetic foundation; no logical foundation; and are repugnant to reason.
Even if these followers of Judaism and Christianity were following the original doctrines of Moses and Jesus, they would not be Muslims in the full sense of the word, unless they followed the Prophet Mohammad (except those who died before the advent of Mohammad). Once these followers of Moses and Jesus come to know of Mohammad it becomes necessary on them to investigate his claim as Prophet of God. Either they disprove Mohammad’s claim or accept him. And, for certain, they cannot disprove Mohammad’s claim. In fact, of all the claimants to Divine Dispensation Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim–the inimitable Qur’an being his proof! Why non-Muslims are not allowed worship in Arabia: see Arabia -Non-Muslims and Worship).
92. Islam–stupid religion: (Michel Houellebecq) “told a literary magazine that Islam is “the most stupid” religion. “When you read the Koran, you give up. The Bible, at least, is beautiful because the Jews have a sublime literary talent.”” (p. 200). (So, another writer has admitted that the Bible was written by man).
Response: The Qur’an is not a story-book. “The Qur’an does not relate stories for the sake of giving information of the past, but for the lessons which they afford for the future guidance of man.” (M. Ali Qur’anic comm.1259).
For two thousand years after the revelation of the Bible –from Moses in 14-13 BC to six hundred years after Christ, when the Qur’an was revealed to Mohammad in 610 AC: after Christ–mankind was yet running around with flint tools and torches. A hundred years after the revelation of the Qur’an, backward, ruthless brigands became masters of the world. Most impressive results from“the most stupid” religion. (See also item #32).
93. Islamic terror: (p. 212). (This is dealt with in item #105, Islam and terrorism).
94. Islam and human rights: (p. 217). Preceding materials show that Islam gave man rights fourteen hundred years ago. Islam also gave rights to animals and birds–(Qur’an 6:38)
95. Islam and Law of blasphemy: “In 1999, the self-appointed “Sharia Court of the U.K.” issued a death warrant against playwright Terence McNally. His show, Corpus Christi, portrayed Jesus as a gay man.” (p.p. 218-219).
Response: There is no law against blasphemy in Islam. But there is a law against slander. Jesus who taught and, as prophet of God, practiced the Law which criminalized homosexuality, and who taught that one who even lusted at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart–(Matt. 5:28), to portray Jesus as a “gay” man, without proof, is slander. The playwright should have been made to substantiate his portrayal of Jesus or be made to face the Judiciary.
Muslims are required to defend the dignity of all prophets of Allāh, God. Though there is no authority to issue “death warrant” against revilers, they are to be educated. Islam, the religion of wisdom, argument and examples does not seek to silence voices: Islam seeks to enhance mentality.
Blasphemy in Islam: There is no Qur’anic order to kill blasphemers. Allah reveals in the Qur’an that: “when you hear the Signs of God being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other talk”–(4:140. Also 6:68). And, “Revile not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance”–(6:109). Clearly, there is no order to kill the deniers/mockers/ revilers of Allah.
Allah says: “They do blaspheme who say: “God is Christ the son of Mary.” “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity…”–(Qur’an 5:75, 76). If there was a law against blasphemy in Islam, according to the above two verses there probably would have been no Christians in the dominion of the Prophet Mohammad during his reign; neither would there have been any Christians in the countries ruled by Muslims: they would either have had to revert to Islam, flee, or face imprisonment or death.
Allah says that Muslims will face “much abuse” from the People of the Book and the idolaters; but they must be “patient and keep your duty” (there is no order to kill)–(Qur’an 3:185). Allah says: “And those who molest the Messenger of Allah, for them is a painful chastisement”(this is a Madinan chapter revealed “in the ninth year” of the Hijrah, near the end of the Prophet’s mission. And there is no order to kill–(Qur’an 9:61). Even in the early Madinan chapter, there is no order to kill those who “annoy” the Prophet: they are “cursed” and would receive “an abasing chastisement”–(Qur’an 33:57). If there was an order to kill denigrators, the Prophet would not have forgiven such a one. There is a law against blasphemy in Judaism and in Christianity: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death–(Lev. 24:11-16, 23).
Self-appointed Sharia Court of the U.K.:In society, courts are “self-appointed” by man in order to dispense justice. Unlike secular courts, Shari’ah courts are not “self-appointed”: they are God-instituted. Man follow the Divine prescriptions.
As stated in item #39. The Prophet taught according to the Qur’an–(Qur’an 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4). As Shari’ah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah–sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammad–and as the Sunnah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an, and as the Qur’an does not discriminate, whatever in Shari’ah that is the opinion of the Jurist(s) that discriminates is to be removed. (Shari’ah dealt with in item # 39).
96. Reforming Islam: “I owe the West my willingness to help reform Islam. In all honesty, my fellow Muslims, you do too.” (p. 222). (You do need to talk/write less and use your head more).
Response: Allah says: “This day have I perfected for you your religion”–Qur’an 5:3). Can man/woman “reform” what Allah has perfected? Can man/woman improve upon (make better) what Allah has perfected? Subhan Allah!!! How can the following teachings be reformed (made better):
–the fulfilling of covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (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), encourages the feeding of 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); 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)
–forbiddance against helping one another in sin, and to 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 and 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)
–that 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 angels ask forgiveness for all mankind (42:5), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), not to let hatred of a people incite you to transgress, and to help one another in righteousness and help not each other in sin and aggression (5:2), 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 carnal relations (17:32)
–to establish regular prayer, because prayer keeps one from indecency and evil (29:45); to give in charity, which is for relatives and orphans, the poor, needy, the wayfarer, and the freeing of slaves (2:177; 9:60)
–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)
–that 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)
–that women can earn, and can inherit and own property (4:32, 7, 177). and have the exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases (4:4, 32); and that she is to be honored (4:1) liberates and exalts her (2:187; 4:19-22; 4:1; 9:71-72); that both Man and Woman are inheritors of Paradise (43:70; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35)
–that condemns compulsion (2:256); aggression (32:20); oppression, persecution (2:193; 42:42); exploitation (6:153; 26:181-184; 83:1-4)
–that 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)
–that advocates that all, regardless of race, nationality or color are equal, and that one is better than the other only through righteousness –(49:13); and encourages the pursuit of knowledge to both male and female for the purpose of good uses (20:114)
–to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); and for religious freedom, for all (8:39; 22:40).
The “perfected” Divine system
and the best Divine Message
could not be in need of reform.
A woman without knowledge is going to “reform” what Allah the All-Knowing has “perfected.” Subhan Allah!
There is no trouble with Islam. There is “trouble” with Manji. It is not Islam that needs to be reformed. It is woman (and man) that needs to be reformed. To say that the Qur’an/Islam needs to be reformed is to say that Allah needs to conform to the dictates of man, which may very well be blasphemy!
While something may “ail” Muslims, there is nothing that can ail Islam. Islam, the religion/system “perfected” by Allah cannot suffer from any ailment or defect or deficiency. To attribute ailment or defect or deficiency to the system which Allah has “perfected” is to deny His Omniscience. Woe to the woman who says she can “reform” what Allāh has “perfected”!
97. Religion against humanity: (Manji quotes Taslima Nasrin): ““I want to abolish religion only because religion is against humanity. If religion is not against humanity, I have no problem with it.” Well, that’s reasonable enough.” (Instead of ranting mindlessly, it would benefit you and Taslima a mountain-load to invest some of your time in the study of Islam. Which part(s) of Islam is against humanity?) (p. 231).
Response: It cannot be proven that Islam is “against humanity.” In fact, it cannot be proven that any Divinely inspired religion is against humanity. On the contrary, it has been proven that Islam is for the benefit of humanity. Allāh, God, who created man and perfected his way of life could not be against humanity. Muslims of medieval times and even of present day may be guilty of “misdeeds,” but such misdeeds have no foundations in the teachings of Islam. Islam is not here to cleanse people of their misdeeds; Islam only supplies the ingredients for their cleansing. People have to cleanse themselves of their misdeeds.
98. Sadat and Muslim values: “According to Jimmy Carter, Israel’s Menachim Begin and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat clasped hands thanks in no small measure to their respective Jewish and Muslim values.” (p. 231).
Response: Sadat did not “clasped hands” in peace with Begin because of “Muslim values.” Sadat “clasped hands” because he knew that when he warred he was fighting not only Jews but also America.
If Sadat had “Muslim values” he would not have abandoned the Palestinians in his “clasped hands” deal with Begin. He would have endeavored to unite with all the other states in the Middle-East and even with other Muslim nations, as Muslims are required to be –as well as in economic and military ascendancy– and strive until every grain of Arab sand is rightly returned under Muslim sovereignty.
Significantly, Jews made “peace” with Egypt because the U.S wanted to neutralize Egypt as a force against the Zionist state. (See Professor Noam Chomsky, Pirates & Emperors–International Terrorism in the Real World, (1987), pp. 166-167).
Palestinians are not to despair. Every grain of sand will be returned to us. And at that time not even a legion of Americas would be able to prevent it. In fact, then, America herself would be in dire need of help. The future shall witness it.
99. Non-violence: “A Hindu militant snuffed out the life of Mahatma Gandhi, yet Gandhi fashioned his earthshaking concept of non-violent resistance, or satyagraha, from Hinduism and Jainism.” (p. 231).
Response: With no disrespect to Gandhi, or King.
There is nothing “earthshaking” about “non-violence,” be it Gandhi’s or Martin Luther King Jnr’s or any one else’s. Contrary to popular belief, India did not achieve independence because of non-violence. But because of two intermingling factors: India was dealing with a civilized nation and the world’s attention was focused on the struggle. The British respects world opinion. If Gandhi was dealing with a third world dictator, it could hardly be doubted that his non-violence would have been made into “stew.” That world attention was a major factor in India’s achieving independence can be gleaned from the fact that Britain was also in Kenya; but there was no public eye on Kenya’s struggle for independence. But for the Mau Mau uprising Britain may still be in Kenya. V. M. Tarkunde reveals another reason for India’s success at achieving independence:
“India’s national independence was the result, not so much of Gandhi’s civil disobedience, as of the economic and political changes which occurred in the world and in Great Britain itself during the anti-fascist World War. The ineffectiveness of civil disobedience against a ruthless and unprincipled authoritarian rule was demonstrated during the Emergency which was enforced in India in 1975 by Indira Gandhi.”82
Clearly, as Islam teaches, there are times to turn the other cheek and times when to take an eye in retaliation.
100. If God wills: “Muslims have to be extra cautious about passivity. Because of our outsized reliance on God, we too often minimize personal agency. “Inshallah,” we instinctively sigh. “If God wills.” No. We must will.” (p. 233).
Response: As only Allāh knows the future and we do not know if we will be alive at that time, then when we say that we will do something in the future we are only assuming that we will be able to do it. Thus, Insha Allah signifies ‘if God gives us life and well-being at that point in time’ then we will do that thing (and if there is no other matter of greater importance to prevent us from fulfilling our promise). It does not mean that God will dictate for us. Also it does not mean that if we did not do that thing that God did not permit us –that we can sit idly not caring to do it and lay the blame on God, that God did not allow us to do it.
101. Islam and Sufis: (Manji wrote about an “Israeli journalist,” his visit to the Holy Land): “Of all the Muslims he approached, only the Sufis welcomed him to bow beside them. It’s everybody’s loss that the Sufis are, by Yossi’s own description, “absurdly peripheral” within Islam.” (p. 234).
Response: Whether he/she is a Hindu, Jew, Christian, or… no one needs the permission of Muslims to bow down to Allah. Neither does one need permission to enter the mosque to pray. So long as he or she meets the physical requirement –Islamically attired, clean limbs and sober.
While there is no prohibition in Islam to one meditating, there is no ascetism in Islam. Whereas some Sufis practice within the boundary of Islam others cross into the realm of disbelief. In the book Ibn Taymiyya, A Muslim Theologian’s Response to Christianity, Edited and translated by Thomas F. Michel, is noted:
“The Qur’an and the sunna, the statements of the Companions (of the Prophet) and their followers, and the unanimous consensus of the early imams have all affirmed the dissimilarity of God to the universe, that nothing of the essence of God is found in His creatures, nor is anything created found in the essence of God. This crucial distinction, however, is blurred and often denied by the statements of Sufi masters, particularly in their shatahat. The principal danger of Sufism lay in that its imprecision could lead believers by imperceptible degrees into a monist view of existence of the type taught by Ibn ‘Arabi. This process in fact occurred in the lives of many Sufis.” (p. 29).
Sufis engage in practices opposed to Godhead: “For example, people often make circumambulation of a tomb in imitation of the great circumambulation of the Ka’ba. They seek intercession from dead person, although the Qur’an declares that there is no intercessor between God and the believer except Muhammad, whose exercise of that function will be restricted to Judgment Day. They make vows to others than God.” (Ibid; p. 36).
Whereas prophets are the closest humans to God and only these are infallible, “Many Sufis believe that their shaykhs have had experiences which equal or transcend those of the prophet and that their teachings are based on a quasi-prophetic experience which they in turn can teach to others.”(Ibid; p. 38). (Allāh would not require us to follow “quasi-prophetic” teachings when He has given us teachings through his “full” prophets –teachings that have been perfected and are unsurpassable).
The teaching of the Qur’an is sufficient to bring a Muslim close to Allāh, and is the passport to Paradise. Teachings and practices of Sufis that are opposed to Islam are dangerous to Muslims unaware of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Whereas a Muslim may be forgiven for any sin, the sin of impugning Godhead is not forgiven. It is not an absurdity that Sufis are “peripheral within Islam;” it is a blessing.
102. Jews and Islamic rule: “Yossi himself tells the story of meeting a Palestinian who would gladly co-exist with Jews as long as they’re subject to Islamic rule –such rule is the natural order, this Boston-educated Arab believes. It’s a prejudice, I believe, that saturates the mainstream Muslim psyche.” (p. 235). (At least this Arab is prepared to live with a Jew, even though his requirement is flawed; compared to Jews who are not willing to live next to an Arab; even though they are occupying the Arab’s lands. See items # 53 and 89).
Response: Barring exceptions that are not covered in other Scriptures, Islam does not require non-Muslims to be subjected to Islamic laws. They are to be governed by the laws of Allah as are revealed in their respective Scriptures. However, as Islam –peace and submission to Allah– is the natural state of man–(Qur’an 30:30; and that the Qur’an replaces all other Scriptures; and that no Scripture can be shown to be superior to the Qur’an; and as All People Are Muslims by compulsion) it stands to reason that Islamic law is “the natural order.”
103. Islam and small unhappy lives: “Yossi signs off with the advice of an older, mellower brother: “Your narrative needs more love. Not for the mullahs, but for the billions of souls over the centuries who prostrated on little embroidered prayer rugs and offered their small unhappy lives to God’s glory.” Excuse me for ruining the moment, but why should so many lives be “small” and “unhappy,” especially under a merciful God?” (p. 235).
Response: Those Muslims lives may have been “small” but what makes you and Yossi believe they were unhappy? What is happiness? Are wealth and status the measure of happiness? Jesus did not have even a prayer rug. In fact, as the Gospels tell us, whereas the foxes had holes and birds had nests he didn’t even have a place to put his head–(Matt. 8:20); was his life “small” and “unhappy”? Even though he was king of Arabia, Mohammad had a bed made of palm leaves and when he died his shield was in the possession of a Jewish pawn-broker, and the Caliph ‘Umar wore patched clothes and took turns sharing his camel with his slave –were their lives “small” and “unhappy”?
God is not to be blamed for man’s unhappiness. It was not God that bombed and ravaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, Bosnia and Palestine and the legion of other places. God was not responsible for World Wars I and II. It was not God that made all these lives “unhappy.” God, gave man knowledge and guidance. Whether man put them to good use or evil lies in his heads and hearts and hands.
Some lives may be “small” –having not much– as compared to “big’ lives –having affluence– but this does not mean that these “small” lives are “unhappy.” There are perhaps many “big” lives that are “unhappy.” True worth lies not in the value of worldly possessions, true worth lies in the expanse of one’s morality, humanity and spirituality. It is not how long one lives or how well one lives, but how beneficial one lives.
104. Questioning the Qur’an: “Will we move past the superstition that we can’t question the Koran? (Islam abolished superstition). By openly asking where its verses come from, why they’re contradictory, and how they can be differently interpreted, we’re not violating anything more than tribal totalitarianism.” (p. 236). (Which verses of the Qur’an are contradictory? Please detail them).
Response: Contradictions, origins of verses, and totalitarianism have been dealt with elsewhere. (See also Qur’an).
105. Islam and terrorism: “If my analysis is wrong, can you explain why no other religion is producing as many terrorist travesties and human rights transgressions in the name of God? And can you explain this without pointing fingers at everyone but Muslims?”(p.236). (Perhaps because their terrorist travesties are not publicized as those of Muslims. Or because their terrorist travesties are wrapped in the cloak of “democracy.” Read Noam Chomsky Pirates And Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World).
Response: Preceding pages have proven that Islam, the religion of peace, justice and non-aggression could not be “producing” “terrorist travesties” and “human rights” violation in God’s name.
(Leaving aside the handful of Muslims who erroneously believe they have the right to bomb other nations into Islam). While Muslims are not justified to blame their intellectual “stagnation” on non-Muslims, trying to explain Muslim “terrorism” without involving non-Muslims is like trying to remove a worm from a can-full without disturbing other worms.
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.” Briefly, 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; the British held Egypt, Sudan, Aden, Iraq and Nigeria; the French, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan; and the Italians, Libya; British instigation and American machination 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; Bosnians are still trying to recover from Serbia’s onslaught and Iraq is yet to rise from the rubble of American aggression (for oil and/or hegemony?).
All the followers of a religion are not to be blamed for the excesses committed by some of its members.
(Muslims are required to teach the Qur’anic message to the world, but are not required to enforce acceptance of it: “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. Also 13:40; 64:12).
(Terrorist/terrorism in this discussion is restricted to those who are deemed so for rising against transgression). Allah informs us in the Qur’an 60:8:
“Allah forbids you not respecting those
who fight you not for religion,
nor drive you forth from your homes,
that you show them kindness and deal
with them justly.
Surely Allah loves the doers of justice”
Muslims are permitted to fight a defensive war:
“And fight in the way of Allah against those
who fight against you but be not aggressive.
Surely Allah loves not the aggressors”
“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”
“Permission (to fight) is given to those on
whom war is made, because they are oppressed. …”
(Qur’an 2:190, 193; 22:39).
As for the evictors (occupiers/usurpers), Muslims are required to “drive them out from where they drove you out”–(Qur’an 2:191).
The occupier/aggressor/oppressor/usurper accosted by his victim cannot, in his effort to triumph, claim sanctuary under the umbrella of retaliation/self-defense, he being the perpetrator to begin with–a mugger does not have the right to break his victim’s arm when his victim retaliates. The right of retaliation/ self-defense is for the victims only. Muslims are transgressed upon –in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Dagestan, Bosnia, East Turkistan (Uighuristan)– and when they retaliate they are villainized.
Islam comes from the root salm, which means peace. The religion that is rooted in peace, and which teaches justice without distinction, cannot be a religion of terror. In fact, Islam is such a peaceful religion that Muslims are required to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the other side–(Qur’an 8:61-62). Those who submit to this peace –Islam– could not be “terrorists.”
Fighting against occupation/usurpation is not terrorism.
It is heroism!
When people’s homes, lands, and country are occupied/usurped, and are herded into tragic refugee camps and slaughtered, they have the right to retaliate. Unlike the warriors on the battle-field who are free and with equity of arms, the bondaged that are deprived of this equality have the right to fight in any manner and with whatever means, to obliterate the yokes of subjugation and to retake their properties. Man has no right to edict judgment against their methods of fighting. This judgment is only for Allah. Persecution is worse than slaughter–(Qur’an 2:217). Allah tells us:
“So let those fight in the way of Allah
who sells this world’s life for the Hereafter.
And whoever fights in the way of Allah,
be he slain or be he victorious,
We shall grant him a mighty reward.”
“And what reason have you not to fight in the
way of Allah, and of the weak among the men
and the women and the children, who say:
Our Lord, take us out of this town
whose people are oppressors, and grant us from
Thee a friend, and grant us from Thee a helper”
(Qur’an 4:74-75).
Truth should not offend us, truth should elevate us.
Whoever is offended by truth cannot render justice.
“There is no blame on those who defend themselves
after they have been wronged.
The blame is only on those who wrong men
and transgress in the earth without justification.
Such will have a grievous punishment.”
(Qur’an 42:41-42).
Striving against occupation is not terrorism. It is a Divine blessing and one form of Jihad–striving against evil.
Through Islam, Mohammad forgave his enemies and left them on their thrones. And within a hundred years of his death, his followers rose from the slavery of ignorance to become the masters of science and the inhabitants of thrones, and had opened the doors of learning to all, with free boarding and lodging.
If Muslims of today are once again in the slavery of ignorance, it is not because of Islam: but because of their negligence to follow Islam. As stated elsewhere, this throne of power is ever available to Muslims to ascend: “O man We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful–(Qur’an 20:1-2).
“Who is then more unjust than he who
forges a lie against Allah
to lead men astray without knowledge?”
(Qur’an 6:145)
“And who is more unjust than
he who forges a lie against Allah
or gives the lie to His messages?
Surely the wrongdoers will not be successful.”
(Qur’an 6:21)
“And when it is said to them,
What is it that your Lord has revealed?
they say, Stories of the ancients!
That they may bear their burdens in full
on the day of Resurrection, and also
of the burdens of those whom they lead
astray without knowledge.
Ah! evil is what they bear.”
(Qur’an 16:24-25)
To repeat, Irshad Manji stated: “If my analysis is wrong, can you explain why no other religion is producing as many terrorist travesties and human rights transgressions in the name of God?” And I commented, “(Perhaps because their terrorist travesties are not publicized 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).
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.
Again. 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. Why not? Is the media controlled, and by whom–the government, an interest group? Or is it anti-Muslim/anti-Arab? Or is it anti-justice? (Toronto Star, Monday, June 26, 2006; Tuesday, June, 27, 2006; respectively).
It may be said that, generally, when a Muslim commit an act of aggression it is broadcasted across the sky, but when Muslims are the victims, especially in the Palestinian/Jewish frame-work, all the vociferous proponents of truth and justice and freedom of speech dives south–hibernating in their hypocrisy.
Incidentally, the Toronto Star, Saturday, May 20, 2006, noted a report by the National Post that Iran passed a law “requiring Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges” as identification of their “non-Islamic” beliefs. Though it became clear later that the National Post’s story “was wrong.” However, initial response, as noted by the Star, “drew worldwide reaction;” Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, criticized Iran as being “very capable of this kind of action;” the head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles is reported as having written to the United Nations for an “immediate investigation;” and a U.N. Secretary spokesperson is noted as assuring that they are “looking into it.”83
While vigilance against injustice is commendable and required, where were Prime Minister Harper, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the U.N. all these decades as Palestinians have been tagged by the Jewish state as “Class B’ citizens, a fact which is recorded on their identity cards”?84 It is difficult to believe that the vociferous proponents of Jewish and Christian human rights were ignorant of the Palestinian’s deplorable status.
There can never be peace without justice.
There will never be justice so long as there are
those dedicated to living off the blood of others.
*
In replanting the gardens of the world to suit their parasitic designs the Emperors sow the venomous seeds of hatred that grow into towering trees of conflict whose bitter fruits are tasted long after the sordid wretches are gone.
*
As stated at the beginning, Muslim students, especially “Muslim university students,” you must not allow yourselves to be dazzled and seduced by glib speeches. Nor follow any Tom, Mary or Kuniji –you may well be following them into Hell-Fire. Know yourself. Be informed about Islam and even about other religions. Apply reason not only to academics and science but also to theology. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an and his The Religion of Islam are invaluable sources on Islam. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with notes and commentaries can be viewed online: www.muslim.org
*
NOTES
1. Faruqui, Ismail, and Lois Lamya, The Cultural Atlas of Islam; pp. 197-198.
2. Arnold, Thomas, The Preaching Of Islam, pp. 71-72.
3. Haykal, Muhammad Husayn, The Life of Muhammad, p. 511.
4. Deedat, Ahmed, Al-Qur’an, The Miracle of Miracles, pp. 24-25.
5. Ali, Hazrat, Nahjul Balagha, sermon # 191.
6. Ibid; sermon # 238.
7. Haykal, Muhammad Husayn, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 191, 206-207. Italics/emphasis added.
8. Ali, Muhammad, Qur’anic comm. #’’s 126, 1983, see also # 2475.
9. Ibid. Qur’anic comm. #’s 126a, 1983. See also comm. # 1971.
11. Ali, Muhammad, The Early Caliphate, p. 52.
12. Ibid; p. 143.
13. Ali, Muhammad, The Religion of Islam, pp. 113, 115. Muhammad Ali has dealt extensively with this subject in his book The Religion of Islam.
14. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, pp. 91-92.
15. Ali, Muhammad, Qur’anic comm. 2739.
16. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 3.
17. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, pp. 31-32.
18. (1) New Testament, (2) “LXX” meaning seventy, is the J W’s (Jehovah’s Witnesses) alternative title of the Old Testament –A. Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word, p. 24.
19. Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible The Qur’an And Science, pp. 7, 9, 77, 249.
20. Ency. Britannica, 15th Edition, Vol. 8, p. 911.
21. Chandola, Anoop, The Way To True Worship. p. 8. (Italics/emphasis added).
22. Haykal, M. H., The Life of Muhammad, p. 73.
23. Armstrong, Karen, Jerusalem One City, Three Faiths. p. 298.
24. Ali, Muhammad, Qur’anic comm; # 1252.
25. Ibid; Qur’anic comm. # 152.
26. Mawdudi, Abul A’la, An Introduction to the Qur’an. pp. 1, 2, 11-12.
27. Kamal-ud-Din, K., Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an, pp. 109, 110.
28. Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible The Qur’an And Science, pp. 196, 197.
29. Ibid. pp. 143-144.
30. Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible, The Qur’an, And Science, p. 166.
31. Mahmood, S. Bashir-Ud-Din, Doomsday and Life after Death, p. 154.
32. Davies, Paul, God and the New Physics; pp. 200, 201.
33. Trefil, James, The Dark Side of the Universe; p. 190.
34. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 201.
35. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an, pp. 20-21; 44-45.
36. Ali, Muhammad, The Early Caliphate, p. 41.
37. Ali, Muhammad, The Religion of Islam, p. 559.
38. Ali, Muhammad, Qur’anic comm. # 1030.
39. Ibid; Qur’anic comm. # 1036.
40. Zayid, Ishmael, Palestine-A Stolen Heritage, o/s back cover.
41. Toronto Star, Thursday, March 30, 2006. p. A21.
42. Toronto Star, Friday, March 31, 2006. Art. In the desert, the name of peace is hitkansut, p. A17.
43. Ency. Brit. 15th Edn, Vol 1, Balfour, Vol 17, p. 937e.
44. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage. pp. 10, 11.
44A.
Popular history lists Abraham’s advent around 2000 BC but Muslim scholars believe it was around 2500 BC. Muslim’s view seems to the correct one. Allāh tells us about the city of Iram–(Qur’an 89:7) which seems unheard of in history. But the December 1978 edition of National Geographic carried an article on the excavation of a city named “Ebla” whereby this city of Iram is mentioned. This National Geographic article is titled EBLA Splendor Of An Unknown Empire, written by Howard La Fay. The article states:
“…in 1975”, “Dr. Paolo Matthiae of the University of Rome” discovered “the ruins of a palace appa-rently destroyed in the 23rd century B.C.”
“The names of cities thought to have been founded much later, such as Beirut and Byblos, leap from the tablets…Also included is Iram, an obscure city referred to in Sura 89 of the Koran.
Most intriguing of all are the personal names found on the Ebla tablets. They include Ab-ra-mu (Abraham), E-sa-um (Esau), and Sa-u-lum (Saul).”
“The Book of Genesis introduces him (Abraham) as a native of Ur of the Chaldees, in southern Mesopotamia. Scholars have always taken this at face value.”
“But we now encounter a Syrian capital, dating from five hundred years before the widely accepted date for Abraham…..Muslim scholars have long held that Abraham’s epic journey occurred about 2300 B.C.” (pp. 731, 735, 736). (See also Ency. Britannica, Vol. 1. Art. Abraham.)
45. Said, Edward W, The Question Of Palestine; p. 58.
46. Deedat, Ahmad, Arabs and Israel–Conflict or Conciliation, pp. 24, 26.
47. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an, p. 67.
47A.
Ahmed Deedat notes in his booklet Arabs and Israel–Conflict or Conciliation, pp. 73-74. That when Truman was asked by one reporter about his haste in recognizing the Jewish state, as to “What was all the hurry for? Do you not know that there are more than a hundred million Arabs there, who would be offended by us?” Truman replied “There are no Arabs in my constituency.”
Clearly, No devotee of God would entertain that God would replace one people with another to satisfy man’s political agenda.
48. Said, Edward W, The Question Of Palestine, p. 13.
49. Ibid; p. 100.
50. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 11.
51. Said, Edward W, The Question Of Palestine, p. 9.
52. Toronto Star, Thursday, March 30, 2006. p. A21.
53. Chomsky, Noam, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World, p. 11.
54. God making covenant with Jews is noted in various places in the Bible and the Qur’an as noted by Muhammad Ali: in the Bible, Exodus 19:17; Numbers 25:8-9; Deut. 28:64-65; Ezek. 22:8-15; and in the Qur’an 2:63-66, 83-84, 93, 100; 4:154-155; 5:13-14; 7:169; 20:86. See Muhammad Ali’s commentary on Qur’an chapter 2 verses 61, 63, 65 and 66. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org.
55. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life Of Muhammad, p. 207.
M.H. recounting the Jewish relation with the Prophet notes: “We have already seen how upon Muhammad’s arrival at Madinah, the Jews hoped to bring him into alliance with them and how, after befriending him and pledging to honor his freedom to practice and preach the new religion, they had begun to oppose and plot against him. In fact, no sooner had Muhammad settled down and the prospects of Islam had begun to improve, than the Jews, for their part, began their undeclared war against him. Their opposition and hostility were never open. (Perhaps this is true even today). Above all, they feared lest any harm might befall their trade; and, although they had fanned and fueled the fires of civil war in the past, they adeptly avoided every possible involvement. (Jews also “fanned” the civil war in 1980 Lebanon, as Noam Chomsky notes in his Pirates And Emperors). Henceforth, their covenant with Muhammad prevented them from any such open involvement; and they recoursed to every hidden way to instigate enmity and hostility between the Muhajirun (the Prophet’s followers from Makkah) and the Ansar (the Madinites) so as to revive the old hatred between al Aws and al Khazraj by reminding them of the day of Bu’ath in reciting the war poetry which had been composed on that occasion.” (pp. 206-207. Italics/emphasis added).
56. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 14.
57. Chomsky, Noam, Pirates And Emperors, New And Old, International Terrorism in the Real World, p. 66.
58. Ibid; pp. 46-47.
59. Ibid; p. 9.
60. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 12.
61. Toronto Star, Friday, February 6, 2009; Linda Diebel, Canada urged to better its human rights record, First peer review by UN body raises concern about Tasers and aboriginal issues, p. A 7.
62. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 33; (From a letter written by a student) Published in “Haolam Haze,” an Israeli newspaper, (issue 1594) and quoted in “Israeli Imperial News,” October, 1968. Italics/emphasis added.
The entire material states: “I am a pupil in a college in Be’er Sheva. I don’t want trouble. The director of the office of education will not like my letter; therefore I am not signing my full name.
The problem: KHUZARI BOOK, which is approved by the office of education. In the introduction to the book Dr. Tzifroni writes:
“The nation of Israel is a chosen nation because of its race, its education and the climate of the land in which it was brought up. The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races”. I think that these sentences require no explanation.
Mira, Be’er Sheva.”
63. From a Friday sermon. According to the Imam this saying is listed in Bokhari Adab al-mufraad.
64. Toronto Star, Thursday, March 30, 2006, Art. Israeli unilateralism won’t produce peace, p. A21. Italics/emphasis added.
65. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 15.
66. Ibid; p. 19.
67. The Review of Religions, Vol. LXXX, No 4, April 1985. Pub; Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Inc; p. 5.
68. Ency. Brit. 15th Edn; Vol; 5, Art, Messianic symbol, p. 519.
69. Ibid. Vol; 11, Art; Judaism, p. 1018.
70. Ibid;
71. Dawud, ‘Abdul Ahad, Muhammad In The Bible, p. 55.
72. Ali, Muhammad, The Religion of Islam, p. 125.
73. Aziz, Zahid, The Ahmadiyya Case, p. 85.
74. Ibid. p. 75.
75. Ibid. pp. 315, 85.
76. Ibrahim, Dr. Ezzoddin, Sunni vs. Shi’ah: A Pitiful Outcry, Five quotes, pp. 26-49. (Italics/Emphasis added).
77. Ency. Brit. 15th. Ed., art. Islamic myth and legend. Vol. V; p. 450.
78. Haykal, Muhammad Husayn, The Life Of Muhammad, pp. 203-208.
79. Said, Edward W, The Question of Palestine, p. 14.
80. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine–A Stolen Heritage, pp. 6-7.
81. Ali, Muhammad, Qur’anic comm; 1415.
82. Tarkunde, V.M. RadicalHumanism, p. 33.
83. Goddard, John, Toronto Star, Saturday, May 20, 2006. Art; Tehran denounces ‘baseless’ report, p. A8.
84. Tozer, Derek, American Mercury Magazine, August 1957. Cited in Ismail Zayid, Palestine–A Stolen Heritag