[KW: No compulsion, verse 2:256, Koran, Quran, Tafsir, Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, Nakhla, Badr, Muhajirons, ansars, Suicide attack in Islam, Abu Sufian, Ka'ba, Dhimmi, Jiziyah, Jiziya, poll-tax, Christian, Banu Nadir, Qainuqa, Jew, love thy neighbors]

---

 

In a September 12 (2006) lecture to academicians at the Regensburg University in Germany,  Pope Benedict made reference to a 14th Byzantine emperor’s comment which suggests Islam is a religion of violence. This reference by the Pope caused angry uproar, demonstrations, and waves of condemnations and violence in the Muslim world. A few Christians in Iraq and a Nun in Somalia were killed by Islamist fanatics; Churches were vandalized and set on fire in Palestine and the Pope was threatened with death. In the backdrop of this controversy, thirty‑eight greatest Islamic experts and grand Muftis from all across the world, which even included Professors from University of Cambridge (UK) and George Washington University (USA), wrote an Open Letter to the Pope on October 12, 2006. This letter was meant mainly to point out errors and misconception contained in the Pope’s September 12 Lecture in Germany:  

“we must point out some errors in the way you mentioned Islam as a counterpoint to the proper use of reason, as well as some mistakes in the assertions you put forward in support of your argument.”, wrote the scholars. 

This article will analyze in detail the salient points contained in this letter, which I found are filled with lies, deceptions and idiocy from the beginning to the end.

There is no compulsion in Religion

The first key point the scholars address is the Pope’s misconception and erroneous idea about the Koranic verse “There is no compulsion in Religion” [Q 2:256]. They wrote:

You mention that "according to the experts" the verse which begins, ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ (al-Baqarah 2:256) is from the early period when the Prophet "was still powerless and under threat," but this is incorrect. In fact this verse is acknowledged to belong to the period of Quranic revelation corresponding to the political and military ascendance of the young Muslim community. ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their oppressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another's heart to believe. There is no compulsion in religion addresses those in a position of strength, not weakness. The earliest commentaries on the Qur'an (such as that of Al-Tabari) make it clear that some Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse was precisely an answer to them not to try to force their children to convert to Islam.

The scholars assert that this verse was revealed at a time ‘corresponding to the political and military ascendance of the young Muslim community’. The first thing one must take note here that world’s greatest Islamic scholars of the 21st century agree that Islam’s birth was rooted as a political and military entity. One must wonder how an entity that sought to assert political and military power of the material world at the budding stage of its formation could be identified as a religion, which should be a spiritual enlightening concerning the immaterial world and connecting to the supposed creator of the Universe.

The critical point one must take note that the scholars assert that this verse was revealed in a period of political ascension. This means the verse was revealed when Islam was not yet a strong political and military force but was in ascension towards such a force. In other words, Muslims were still in a budding stage but rising in political power. This claim of the learned scholars, itself, affirms the claim of the Pope that these verses were revealed when Muslim were still a weaker community.

But the story does not stop there. A thorough analysis of the greatest Islamic scholars and historians reveals a much uglier face of Islam even at this stage, which the scholars call ‘corresponding to the political and military ascendance of the young Muslim community’. According to Ibn Kathir, the unquestioned authority of Islam and the greatest commentator of the Koran write the following on the interpretation (Tafsir) of this verse:

Allah said:   ﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ﴾ (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.'' It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that before Islam "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed, ﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾ (There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)'' Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man, «أَسْلِم» قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ: «وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا» ("Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'') First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet. However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, ’for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

 

Let us delve a little further into the background of Islam in order to grasp the circumstances better. Starting in 609 CE, the prophet tried to propagate his new creed amongst the people of his ancestral city of Mecca. It did not make much headway there, and even after 12 years of intense proselytizing, he mustered only about 100 converts. Finding no hope of further progress of his creed there, he tried, without success, to relocate to At-Taif in 619 CE. Next year, during the pilgrimage season in Mecca, the prophet was able to make a few converts from amongst the pilgrims of Medina. These converts went back and were able to draw further converts in Medina to the creed of Islam. Expecting some good prospect there, the prophet sent a few experts knowledgeable in his creed and in a couple of years around 70‑80 people had joined his religion even in the absence of the Prophet. Hopeful of a greener pasture for success there, the prophet migrated to Medina in June 622 with all the Muslims he had so far been able to convert in Mecca. Those Muslims, who came with him from Mecca, were called the Muhajirons (emigrants) and the native converts of Medina were called the Ansars (helpers).

Before we I delve into the real meaning of this verse, let us first have a look at what the scholars have to say. The 38 Scholars also agree to this issue by saying that ‘some Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse was precisely an answer to them not to try to force their children to convert to Islam.’ This assertion of the Scholars relates to following part of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: “When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed this verse.” Let us now consider the circumstances which lead to the evacuation of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir.

Soon after settling down in Medina, the Prophet sought to start raiding life-sustaining trade-caravans from Mecca passing through nearby routes to Syria. But his Medina converts (Ansars), who had only promised to protect the prophet, were unwilling to support his violent venture. However, Allah, quickly revealed a verse commanding them to fight even if they did not like it:

"Fighting (Jihad) is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" [Quran 2.216].

With this command from God, the Prophet sent a band of Muslims to attack a Mecca caravan in February 623 for the first time, barely seven months after his arrival in Medina. The first success came only in Nov-Dec of that year in Nakhla. Eight Muslim raiders under the command of Abdullah Ibn Jahsh, attacked a caravan lead by four Mecca citizens in which one merchant was killed, two were taken prisoner and a fourth escaped with life. The caravan was brought back to Medina as war booty to be distributed amongst the raiders with the prophet taking a fifth of the share [Ibn Ishaq, p 287].

However, it was the last day of Rajab – a sacred period in the Arabian custom during which fighting and violence were prohibited. This breach of centuries-old sacred custom, devoutly respected by the Arabs, created great dissatisfaction amongst the citizens of Medina including the Muslim converts.

It put the Prophet into big trouble and he initially tried to distance himself from the blood bath. Abdullah and other co-raiders were heartbroken at this. However, Allah quickly revealed a verse to justify this bloodshed during the prohibited month:

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein [Quran 2:217].

This verse not only justified the sacred month blood-bath but those, who were unhappy with it, were also threatened against desertion of Islam: ‘And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.’

Muslim historians have made ‘mount of a molehill’ regarding the Mecca citizen’s oppression of the Muslims before their migration to Medina. In reality, the Mecca Quraysh allowed their fellow pagans to convert to his creed freely. Despite the fact that Muhammad’s alleged revelations were uncouth and uncivilized in language and insulting to the religion and culture of the Mecca citizens and to their ancestors whom the prophet consigned to the fire of hell. In today’s modern civilized world any Muslim who dares to leave Islam to join another religion is almost invariably killed by the Muslims in Islamic countries. Not a single free citizen of Mecca is known to have faced any life-threatening assault. However, a few slaves of the pagan masters who had converted to Islam faced beating and confinements. When the slaves convert to a religion, which was so insulting and hostile of the religion, culture, and ancestors of their masters, such persecution was quite natural. It should be noted that in Islamic laws, if a slave converts to another religion, he must be killed after three days notice to revert to Islam [Hedaya, Charles Hamilton (Trs), Vol. 2, p225-26,228].

In truth, the general response of the Quraysh was the rejection of Muhammad’s new religion and they advised others not to accept it. When the exasperation and insults to the local religion and cultures of centuries became unbearable, the Quraysh imposed social exclusion on the troublesome Muslims in 617 CE before withdrawing it two years later [More Detail here]. Even today, such sanction is considered a civilized measure for dealing with such a situation. It should be noted that Allah has cited exactly the behavior and attitude of the Mecca idolaters in verse 2:217: "but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." In the battlefield of Bad’r, as the dead bodies of the enemies were being cast into a mass grave, an indignant prophet yelled over them: "Have ye now found true that which your Lord did promise to you. What my Lord promised to me, that have I verily found to be true. Woe unto these people! Ye have rejected me, your Prophet! Ye cast me forth, and others gave me refuge; ye fought against me, and others came to my help!" [Ibn Ishaq, p 306]. The Prophet too affirmed exactly the same harmless treatment of his community by the Mecca Quraysh. Yet, after such rather civilized treatment, what the Quran calls ‘tumult and oppression’, became worse than slaughter in the judgment of Allah and his prophet [Q 2:217].

With this command [Q 2:217], fighting, killing and the capture of booty during the traditionally forbidden month were made lawful for the Muslims. The Prophet also ordained Abdullah with the title, 'Amir-ul-Muminin' (Commander of the Faithful). This bloodbath was also very meaningful for the Islamic faith in that this was the first raid, which brought them booty (wealth of plunder) of which, the prophet kept a fifth as his share and the remainder was distributed amongst the raiders. The two prisoners were exchanged for ransoms.

Next battle came two month’s later, during the first fasting month of Ramadan in Islam, when the Prophet sought to attack another very rich caravan being lead by the Meccan chief Abu Sufian. Muhammad’s first biographer Ibn Ishaq writes, “When the apostle heard about Abu Sufian coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it; perhaps God will give it as a pray’” [Ibn Ishaq, p 289]. The confrontation resulted in the famous battle Badr, in which the Mecca army, despite having three times as strong an army, lost heavily to the Muslims. This incredible win was the most significant military event for Islam’s future and has been duly glorified in the annals of Islam as the greatest holy war [Ibn Ishaq, p 289f]. 

In preparation for the battle of Bad’r, the prophet had invited all citizens of Medina, including those not yet Muslims, to join this expedition in the hope of winning booty. At least two major pagan tribes, including one under the leadership of great hypocrite Abdullah Ibn Obayyi had joined, although Abdullah later backtracked fearing defeat. Muhammad finally could muster only 329 fighters against 1000 fighters in the opposition camp. Under such feeble military strength, let us analyze a couple of instances in the battlefield of Badr to understand the prophet’s intention to resort to violence and military force. 

In the midst of the battle of Badr, the Prophet was loudly encouraging his soldiers saying, "Allah had promised paradise to those who die fighting in His cause." At this time, Omeir Ibn al-Humam, a lad of only 16 years, was eating dates on the side of the battle. Hearing this exhortation from the Prophet's mouth, he threw away the handful of dates. "Is it these dates," he cried, "that hold me back from paradise? Verily, I will taste no more of them until I meet my Lord (in paradise)!" Whereupon, he picked up his sword and rushed on to the enemies only to be slain. In another instance, Auf Ibn Harith asked the Prophet, ‘O apostle of Allah, what makes the lord laugh with joy at His servant?’ The Apostle answered, ‘When he plunges into the midst of the enemy with a mail.’ Whereupon, ‘Auf drew off the mail-coat he was wearing and threw it away: then he seized his sword and fought the enemy till he was slain’ [Ibn Ishaq, p 300]. 

Banu Qainuqa Evacuation: Following the return from Badr, the prophet went on his raiding spree after a seven days’ rest before resuming raids. Over the next 3-4 months, he raided Banu Sulaym in al-Kudr, Banu Qainuqa, al-Sawiq, Dhu Amarr and al-Furu of Bahran [Ibn Ishaq, p 360‑362]. 

Soon after the battle of Badr, the prophet assembled the members of the Banu Qainuqa at the marketplace and addressed them as follows:

“O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon the Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent – you will find that in your scriptures and God’s covenants with you.”

In reply, they spurned his threat and warned him of fighting back if he attacked them. Following this, Allah revealed this verse [Ibn Ishaq p362]:

“Say to those who reject Faith: "Soon will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, -an evil bed indeed (to lie on)!   There has already been for you a Sign in the two armies that met (in combat): One was fighting in the cause of Allah, the other resisting Allah; these saw with their own eyes Twice their number. But Allah doth support with His aid whom He pleaseth. In this is a warning for such as have eyes to see.” [Q 3:12-13]

A few days after this warning, a youngster from the Qainuqa tribe teased a Muslimah at the marketplace. Over such harmless pranksterism, a Muslim man attacked and killed him. In retaliation, other men from the Qainuqa tribe killed the Muslim killer. Although the Muslims were at fault for giving this harmless incident a violent turn by killing the Jewish prankster, the compassionate prophet of Allah went further to attack the entire Qainuqa tribe who had no complicity or knowledge of this individuals’ rather harmless act. When the Jewish tribe surrendered unconditionally, Muhammad started preparation for slaughtering the community. However, the great Islamic hypocrite Abdullah Ibn Ubayy pleaded with Muhammad to deal kindly with them, because this tribe had been a traditional ally of his tribe. When the Prophet turned away from his plea, an angry Abdullah caught the prophet by the collar of his robes to which the prophet’s face became pale. When the Prophet asked to let go of him, Abdullah answered, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change.” Abdullah was still a powerful leader of his tribe whose his ominous threat relented the Prophet from the intended bloodbath and instead, commanded them to go to exile within three days [Ibn Ishaq, p363].

It should be noted that Abdullah had converted to Islam but never acceded to the excessive cruelty of the prophet. And Allah did not miss this opportunity to warn Abdullah and other Muslims of such disobedience in the future [Ibn Ishaq, p363-364]:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. But you will see those (Abdullah and his likes) in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punishment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls (Q 5:51-52).

After expulsion of the Qainuqa tribe, the Prophet ordered Muslims to kill “any Jew that falls within your power”. Following this, a Jewish convert, named Muhayyisa, killed a Jewish merchant named, Ibn Sunayyna, of his own tribe, who happened to be on his way. When Muhayyisa’s elder brother confronted him over the horrendous act, “You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat in belly comes from his wealth”. Muhayyisa answered, “Had the one, who ordered to kill him, ordered me to kill you – I would have cut you head off”. To this rage, the elder brother exclaimed, “By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim [[Ibn Ishaq, p369]. 

About this time, the prophet also ordered the assassination of a poetess Asma Bte Marwan (mother of five children), Ka’b Ibn Ashraf and Abu Afaq (120 years old) who had composed poetry criticizing his creed and acts of violence. 

Evacuation of Banu Nadir:  Just over a year after the expulsion of Banu Qainuqa, the prophet with a number of his men went to the house of the Banu Nadir chief for the settlement of a dispute. Surprising everyone, the prophet suddenly rushed off the meeting leaving his Muslim attendees behind. After a wait, when the Prophet did not return, the other Muslims also left. The Prophet later accused the Banu Nadir of conspiring to kill him by throwing stones from the roof of the house – a message delivered to him by the angel; so he left the meeting. On this unsubstantiated accusation, the prophet ordered the evacuation of the Banu Nadir settlement for face death. Abdullah Ibn Obayyi once again sought to stand by the Banu Nadir against this unjustified cruelty and in the ensuing seize of the community, the Jews were defeated and were expelled like the Banu Qainuqa tribe [Ibn Ishaq, p437].

These are the stories which the 38 great scholars of Islam call ‘simple evacuation’ of Jewish tribes. For the harmless pranksterism of an individual or the unsubstantiated accusation of the plot to kill the Prophet, attacking the whole community and evicting them empty handed from their homes and properties are acts of extreme cruelty. The prophet’s initial intention to slaughter the surrendered Banu Qainuqa tribesmen would have been an act of cruel barbarity of the highest degree. Here are the modern world’s finest scholars of Islam, who seek to pass on these incidences of cruel barbarity as the ‘simple evacuation’ of these tribes. 

Real meaning of verse 2:256: These violent incidences must be taken in the context that Muhammad started plundering raids just seven month after his relocation to Medina which resulted in the murder in Nakhla during holy month, the bloodbath of Badr and the expulsion of Qainuqa tribe within twenty months of his residence in Medina, when he could muster only a paltry, yet deadly, 300-400 Muslim fighters on his side. The prophet’s violent intent and heartless blood-letting actions against the Mecca Quraysh over minor issues and Allah’s coming down every time with divine verses to justify such horrendous acts in no way represent the Islamic religion’s agreement to the mantra of ‘No compulsion in religion’ [Q 2:256].

In reality, when we consider the proper context of this (2:256) verse as explicated by ibn Kathir, it actually means completely opposite of what the thirty‑eight scholars of Islam have tried to invent. What this verse had intended to mean was that when the Ansar women wished to raise their Muslim children, if they remain alive, as Jews,  they are warned against forcing their children into Judaism. Since they are born Muslims, let them remain in Islam, as Islam is the only true religion, distinctly clear from the falsehood of Judaism. The last part of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, "Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'', also affirms this. When the Prophet insist that the man must embrace Islam even if he dislike like, there remains little doubt that this verse only meant the Ansar women must not raise their children as Jews. Therefore, the world's greatest scholars of Islam have truly resorted to absolute deception to hoodwink those who are unaware of the details of Islam.

After explaining the ‘no compulsion’ verse, the scholars then extracted another verse from the Koran to fortify their case in favor of Islamic tolerance:

Moreover, Muslims are also guided by such verses as Say: The truth is from your Lord; so whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. (al-Kahf 18:29); and Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion (al-Kafirun: 109:1-6). 

Now, these are the verses revealed in Mecca during very early period of Islam. They only represent a grudging acceptance of the existence of other religions on earth at a precarious stage of Islam. The truth is: these verses were abrogated by later verses.

Let us have a look at the other famous verse, ‘Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion’ which is most often used by the moderate Muslims to demonstrate the greatness of Islamic religion. In reality, there is little essence in this verse that is worthwhile for a modern civilized society. This verse is not at all meant for social cohesion between communities that is required in a modern secular society for peaceful coexistence. Instead, the injunction of this verse completely cut the Muslim community from the rest of the mankind. It marks clear division between Muslims and the non-Muslims.  Option for social cohesion and religious intercourse of Muslims with other religious and ideological communities is completely shut forever with the stroke of this verse.
 

God's Transcendence

Then the scholars wander into the meaningless vagary of discussing Islamic “God's Transcendence” (whatsoever that may mean) and make comparison with the Christian God. I will leave most of it out of this discussion except the following section:

As this concerns His Will, to conclude that Muslims believe in a capricious God who might or might not command us to evil is to forget that God says in the Quran, Lo! God enjoins justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbids lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorts you in order that ye may take heed (al-Nahl, 16:90). Equally, it is to forget that God says in the Qur'an that He has prescribed for Himself mercy (al-An'am, 6:12; see also 6:54), and that God says in the Qur'an, My Mercy encompasses everything (al-A'raf 7:156).

Here is Allah, Who claims Himself to be just, kind and merciful and his mercy extends to all creatures. Let me go back to the verse 2:217, which justified attacking and killing the Mecca citizens:

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein [Quran 2:217].

Once again, the fault of the Mecca citizens was their rejection of Muhammad’s messages as true religion, advised other fellow community members not to accept it, and did not allow Muslims access to their sacred temple of Ka’ba. These events finally lead Muhammad to relocate in Medina (driven out). Allah also outlines the same: “but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.” These reactions of the Mecca citizens to Muhammad’s messages would be considered the highly civilized even in today’s standard, especially in the context that Muhammad’s messages were uncouth and insulting to the centuries-old religion and culture of the Quraysh and to their ancestors. Even today, we do not expect an orphan of a Mecca citizen of low social status to be alive for a single day if he claims to have received a new revelation and start preaching his religion in the same style of Muhammad and make a claim on the Ka’ba to be belonging to his new God.

Now calling these sets of civilized behavior and actions of the Mecca citizens ‘tumult and oppression’ is thoroughly illogical and unjust and judging them as worse than slaughter to justify killing of the Mecca citizens is utterly cruel, merciless and barbaric. Again, seeking to slaughter the entire Banu Qainuqa tribe of the Jews over an individual community-member’s rather harmless pranksterism and subsequent display of Allah’s frustration over Abdullah Ibn Obayyi’s forceful interference (Q 5:51-52), does not represent a merciful and just prophet as well as a just and merciful Allah either, but a cruel and barbaric one. Yet, again, over the accusation of spying by a member of the community, the prophet slaughtered 800‑900 men of the Banu Quraiza Jews and their women and children were captured as salves for sale. This time again, Allah justified and made it a universal law through codification in the Koran:

"And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden." [Koran 33:26-27]

This codified law of Allah to be applied by Muslims for eternity would again be considered as the most merciless, cruel and barbaric expression of sick mind of the Islamic deity. In civilized, human judgment these divine commands of Allah and the actions of His beloved prophet in accordance, could never be called a mission of a just, kind and merciful deity.

The use of Reason

In regard to reason in Islam, the scholars seek to show Islam as the epitome of reason and to support it, they write:

God says, “We shall show them Our signs in the horizons and in themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth (Fussilat 41:53).” Reason itself is one among the many signs within us, which God invites us to contemplate, and to contemplate with, as a way of knowing the truth.

Although this statement of Allah seems to show a glimpse of reason on which Islam is based, yet the all powerful Allah miserably failed to make his signs clear to the Kaffirs. And when the Kaffirs of Mecca, unable to grasp Allah’s clear signs as the truth, and rejected it and advised others to keep away too, Allah was enraged and made war mandatory against them:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not". [Quran 2:216]

Allah is the all-powerful and controller of all things. With little difficulty, He should be able to convince of the truth He wants to convey to His creatures. He promised to do so [Q 41:53] and yet He failed. Thus, Allah failed to stand up to reasons that he should never fail, especially after making a promise to perform a job. When He fails, reason says that He should be ashamed of Himself for His failure. But through weird reasoning, He now declares war against those whom He failed to convince. Punishing others for Allah’s own failure is utterly nonsensical and cruel , to say the least. And Allah’s lack of reasoning did not end there. When He declared war during a prohibited month, it resulted in bloodbath in Nakhla. As already mentioned, He revealed the following verse to justify this plunder as:

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.' Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein [Quran 2:217].

Here again we see loads of utter stupidity in Allah’s reasoning. He says, “Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.” ‘Tumult and oppression’ simply meant the Mecca citizens rejection of Muhammad’s messages as the true revelation from Allah and advised fellow citizens to do the same, they stopped him from entering their sacred temple of Ka’ba and when Muhammad saw no hope, he left for Medina. This is Allah’s own confession: “but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Muhammad also affirmed the same in his yelling at the dead bodies of Mecca citizens in Badr: “Ye have rejected me, your Prophet! Ye cast me forth, and others gave me refuge; ye fought against me, and others came to my help!"

How does this so-called ‘tumult and oppression’ becomes worse than slaughter? There is absolutely no trace of logic and reason in this trash statement of Allah. Instead, it represent an attitude of utter stupidity and intent of wanton cruelty against a people for their most natural reaction to prophet Muhammad’s alleged message of revelation.

In truth, Koran is littered with such statements of stupidity, absurdity and wanton intent of cruelty by the alleged supreme creator, Allah. I will cite one more example from the multitude of them.

Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them…. There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful doom. [Q 2:6-10]

And again: “Allah took away their light, and left them in utter darkness-- they do not see. Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back.”  [Q 2:16-17]

Here’s Allah who has created everything on earth and holds absolute control over them. He intentionally sets a seal over some people’s heart, ears and eyes to turn them dumb, deaf and blind. As a result, they naturally fail to comprehend Allah’s message and turn to disbelief. After leading these otherwise innocent people to disbelief, He punishes them with painful doom, that is, with burning in the fire of hell for eternity along with other earthly punishments. Such intent of the alleged Wisest of the Wise does not show any trace of reasons. It is thoroughly illogical and cruel to play such nonsensical game with one’s own creation/children. It represents a sickly mind of wanton sadism on the part of the Islamic God. Indeed, the Koran is cluttered with such stupid absurdity, contradictions, injustices and intolerance in every chapter of it. Judging by standard human standard, the Koran can probably rate as the most absurd and illogical book ever produced in the history of mankind.

What is "Holy War"?

On the issue of ‘holy war’ being fought by the Jihadists, the Scholars say:

Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a "war". Moreover, it is noteworthy that Manuel II Paleologus says that "violence" goes against God's nature, since Christ himself used violence against the money-changers in the temple, and said "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword…" (Matthew 10:34-36). When God drowned Pharaoh, was He going against His own Nature? Perhaps the emperor meant to say that cruelty, brutality, and aggression are against God's Will, in which case the classical and traditional law of jihad in Islam would bear him out completely.

The learned scholars of Islam want to tell us that Jihad does not necessarily involve violence or war, yet they do not give any example, say from the life of prophet, which would have constituted a peaceful Jihad and holy in nature. Yet, they quickly justify violence by referring to God’s drowning Pharaoh as a legitimacy of use of violence in God’s justice. Sure, the mythical story of God’s drowning Pharaoh is not justified in itself, in that God need to create a Pharaoh whom He has to kill by drowning. A simple wish of the almighty Allah could rectify all the faults of Pharaoh. However, the crooked scholars of Islam, on one side want to tell us that Jihad does not involve violence, and on the other justifies violent Jihad by drawing the example of Pharaoh. Further, they assert that ‘classical and traditional laws of Jihad’ would bear him (emperor Paleologus) out completely. But would the scholars enumerate those ‘classical and traditional laws of Jihad’?

One of the earliest verses on fighting Jihad was revealed when the Medina citizens did not wish to join the Prophet’s venture of violent attack of Mecca caravans as already explained above.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not". [Quran 2:216]

The only fault of the Mecca citizens was their thoroughly civilized treatment of the prophet and his community in Mecca before their migration to Medina. The resulting Jihad action at Nakhla and Badr leading to the capture of Mecca and the Ka’ba did not quite involve a nonviolent Jihad but death, blood, capture and looting of Kafir properties and caravans. The unquestioned Islamic expert, Ibn Kathir has the following to say regarding this verse and Jihad in Islam:

In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, "Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.'' It is reported in the Sahih: «مَنْ مَاتَ وَلَمْ يَغْزُ وَلَمْ يُحَدِّثْ نَفْسَهُ بِالْغَزْوِ، مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّــة» (Whoever dies but neither fought (i.e., in Allah's cause), nor sincerely considered fighting, will die a death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance).) On the day of Al-Fath (when he conquered Makkah), the Prophet said: «لَا هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ وَلكِنْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّةٌ، وَإِذَا اسْتُنْفِرْتُمْ فَانْفِرُوا» (There is no Hijrah (migration from Makkah to Al-Madinah) after the victory, but only Jihad and good intention. If you were required to march forth, then march forth.) Allah's statement: ﴿وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ﴾ (...though you dislike it) means, ‘Fighting is difficult and heavy on your hearts.' Indeed, fighting is as the Ayah describes it, as it includes being killed, wounded, striving against the enemies and enduring the hardship of travel. Allah then said: ﴿وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ﴾ (. ..and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you) meaning, fighting is followed by victory, dominance over the enemy, taking over their lands, money and offspring. Allah continues: ﴿وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ﴾ (...and that you like a thing which is bad for you.) This Ayah is general in meaning. Hence, one might covet something, yet in reality it is not good or beneficial for him, such as refraining from joining the Jihad, for it might lead to the enemy taking over the land and the government. Then, Allah said: ﴿وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ﴾ (Allah knows, but you do not know.) meaning, He has better knowledge than you of how things will turn out to be in the end, and of what benefits you in this earthly life and the Hereafter. Hence, obey Him and adhere to His commands, so that you may acquire the true guidance. ﴿يَسْـَلُونَكَ عَنِ الشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ قِتَالٍ فِيهِ قُلْ قِتَالٌ فِيهِ كَبِيرٌ وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَكُفْرٌ بِهِ وَالْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَإِخْرَاجُ أَهْلِهِ مِنْهُ أَكْبَرُ عِندَ اللَّهِ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ يَزَالُونَ يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ حَتَّى يَرُدُّوكُمْ عَن دِينِكُمْ إِنِ اسْتَطَاعُواْ وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلـئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَـلُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالاٌّخِرَةِ وَأُوْلـئِكَ أَصْحَـبُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَـلِدُونَ - إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَاجَرُواْ وَجَـهَدُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أُوْلـئِكَ يَرْجُونَ رَحْمَةَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ﴾ (217. They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months. Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.'' And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever.) (218. Verily, those who have believed, and those who have emigrated (for Allah's religion) and have striven hard in the way of Allah, all these hope for Allah's mercy. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful.)

 

“Allah's statement: (...though you dislike it) means, ‘Fighting is difficult and heavy on your hearts.' Indeed, fighting is as the Ayah describes it, as it includes being killed, wounded, striving against the enemies and enduring the hardship of travel. Allah then said: (and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you) meaning, fighting is followed by victory, dominance over the enemy, taking over their lands, money and offspring. Allah continues….”

According to this greatest Islamic authority in the Koran, ‘Jihad (fighting) is followed by victory, dominance, over the enemy, taking over the lands, money and offspring’ does not talk about a Jihad that does not involve violence and war. Neither does the learned Ibn Kathir talk about another kind of Jihad that does not involve violence. In reality, the Koran is very explicit about fighting the Jihad to the end such that victory is achieved over the kafirs. Other verses that talks about the Jihad are:

Let those fight in the cause of Allah, Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).  [Q 4:74]

Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? [Quran 9:111]

Here’s is a Jihad that involves killing and being killed and is binding command of Allah [9:111] and when the Jihadi is killed, he is rewarded greatly by Allah. I hope the scholars of Islam do not want to tell us that these are commands of peaceful Jihad in Islam.

In truth, the Koran is very explicit about fighting the Jihad to the end such that victory is achieved over the kafirs and Islam rules supreme on earth. For the idolaters, Jihad is ordained to kill them until they convert and establish Islamic rituals:

Quran 9:5:  Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Clearly, the Islamic command in regards to Christian and Jews are to fight them until they are subjugated and agree to pay Jizya in humiliation. Here is a verse on this:

[Quran 9:29] Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture (Christian & Jews) as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Thus, according to the injunction of Allah in the Koran, the idolaters have only the choice between death and conversion to Islam. The Jews and Christians, being the people of the book, are allowed to retain their religion, only after acceding to a subjugated status to Islam and willing to pay the Jizya (poll-tax). In reality, all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence prescribe the same injunction of Jihad, except the 10^th century Hanafi School, which spared the idolaters of death by accepting them as the Dhimmi alongside the Jews and Christians.

The great historian and Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun says in ‘The Muqaddimah’: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the Universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everyone to Islam either by persuasion or by force” [Lambton, p202]. I hope the 21^st century great scholars of Islam do not want to tell us that Allah and the Koran are not the right authority in Islam. Neither should they deny the authority of unquestioned thinker of Islam, Ibn Khaldun. The scholars effort to hide numerous other injunctions by one ‘No compulsion’ verse does not simple hold any water.

In regard to Jihad, the scholars continue:

The authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war can be summarized in the following principles: (1) Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.

(2) Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.

About the second principle of Islam, the scholars claim that ‘religious belief alone does not make any the object of attack’ goes against the principle of the Koran which ordained the killing of the idolaters wherever they are found, if they do not accept Islam, while the Jews and Christians must be fought until they agree to pay Jizya as a mark of their lowly status in Islam. About the first principle, if targeting the noncombatants is prohibited, then the prophet himself broke this principle of Islam when he captured the women and children of Banu Quraiza after slaughtering their males and sold them to Nedj for horse and weapons. This principle was broken by Allah too, when He legitimized the prophet’s capture of the women and children of Banu Quraiza in the following verse:

"And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some (adult males) ye slew, and ye made captive some (women and children)… [Koran 33:26-27]

In regard to Jihad, the scholars write further:

3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God (al-Anfal 8:61). However, this does not exclude legitimate self-defense and maintenance of sovereignty.

If the scholars have any faith in the Koran, then I believe by ‘living peacefully with neighbors’ – the scholars mean giving options of conversion or death to idolaters and payment of Jizya in humiliation or death to the Christians and Jews. Now this verse (8:61) quoted by the scholars themselves demand conversion of infidels to Islam to buy peace:

[Q 8:61-62]: And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

In this verse, ‘trust in Allah’ is obligatory for the infidels to make peace with the Muslims. I hope, the scholars do not want to convince us that after ‘trusting in Allah’ – idolaters and the Jews and Christians should still remain in their own religions. It should be noted how the greatest scholars of Islam truncate and doctor such an intolerant verse and use it to give a peaceful face of Islam. Such is the level of deception, dishonesty and lies world’s greatest scholars have used in this historical letter to the Pope.

Forced Conversion

On the issue of forced conversion into Islam, the scholars write:

The notion that Muslims are commanded to spread their faith "by the sword" or that Islam in fact was largely spread "by the sword" does not hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, as a political entity Islam spread partly as a result of conquest, but the greater part of its expansion came as a result of preaching and missionary activity. Islamic teaching did not prescribe that the conquered populations be forced or coerced into converting. Indeed, many of the first areas conquered by the Muslims remained predominantly non-Muslim for centuries. Had Muslims desired to convert all others by force, there would not be a single church or synagogue left anywhere in the Islamic world. The command ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ means now what it meant then. The mere fact of a person being non-Muslim has never been a legitimate casus belli in Islamic law or belief. As with the rules of war, history shows that some Muslims have violated Islamic tenets concerning forced conversion and the treatment of other religious communities, but history also shows that these are by far the exception which proves the rule. We emphatically agree that forcing others to believe — if such a thing be truly possible at all — is not pleasing to God and that God is not pleased by blood. Indeed, we believe, and Muslims have always believed, that Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether (al-Ma'idah 5:32).

The scholars deny that Islam was not spread by force. They claim that Islam was largely spread by the missionary activities. But they do not tell us about which Islamic missionary made how many converts.

The Scholars would agree that if the missionary activity is the prescribed means of preaching Islam, it must have been prescribed in the Koran and the prophet must have applied it at its best. But the prophet’s actions vis-à-vis attacking the Mecca caravans, the murder at Nakhla, the battle of Badr and the expulsions of the Banu Qainuqa and Nadir tribes and Allah’s justification and even incitement to those horrendous and barbarous acts by revealing verses as recorded in the Koran, do not at all represent prescription and actions of missionary activity but mindless violence. Now here is what is posted on the Oman Government website:

After God empowered Muslims to enter Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear… The prophet then saw it preferable to contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means. History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he wrote: ‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.

Indeed, between the treaty of Hudaibiyya and until Prophet’s death, he sent numerous such letters for submission to Islam. I hope the world’s greatest Muslim scholars are not telling us that the prophet’s missionary acts require ‘embracing Islam to be safe’ as alluded in his letter to the Oman king. If you don’t, “my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy”. Is this the way, the Islamic missionary act works?

Something New?

In regard to Emperor Manuel II Paleologus’ challenge that Islam did not bring any thing new to the world, the scholars have the following to say:

You mention the emperor's assertion that "anything new" brought by the Prophet was "evil and inhuman, such as his alleged command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." What the emperor failed to realize — aside from the fact (as mentioned above) that no such command has ever existed in Islam — is that the Prophet never claimed to be bringing anything fundamentally new. God says in the Holy Qur'an, Naught is said to thee (Muhammad) but what already was said to the Messengers before thee (Fussilat 41:43), and, Say (Muhammad): I am no new thing among the messengers (of God), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that what is Revealed to me, and I am but a plain Warner (al-Ahqaf, 46:09). Thus faith in the One God is not the property of any one religious community.

According to Islamic belief, all the true prophets preached the same truth to different peoples at different times. The laws may be different, but the truth is unchanging.

I have never expected such a stupid and idiotic passage in this historical letter from such star scholars of Islam to the Pope. Under such impressive subtitle, ‘Something new (in Islam)?’, they present absolutely nothing new in Islam. They just emphasize everything is Islam has already been revealed and that Muhammad was just like another prophet who came before him. It is an act of utter stupidity on the part of the almighty Islamic God of supreme wisdom to send a Prophet to bring nothing new to the mankind. It is an absolutely meaningless exercise. There could be the argument of messages being corrupted and forgotten. But this represents an impotent God’s inability to preserve what he has revealed before. The same things He has to redo tens of thousands of times. I remind the readers that Allah had sent 124,000 prophets according to Islamic belief with Prophet Muhammad being the last.

The Experts

Regarding the experts mentioned by the Pope, the Muslim scholars write the following:

You refer at one point non-specifically to "the experts" (on Islam) and also actually cite two Catholic scholars by name, Professor (Adel) Theodore Khoury and (Associate Professor) Roger Arnaldez. It suffices here to say that whilst many Muslims consider that there are sympathetic non-Muslims and Catholics who could truly be considered "experts" on Islam, Muslims have not to our knowledge endorsed the "experts" you referred to, or recognized them as representing Muslims or their views.

In this section again the scholars wander in useless vagary. They complain about Pope’s referral to two non-Muslim experts and at the same time, they claim that there are other ‘experts’ from non-Muslim background who could be endorsed. But they do not clarify anything. Why these two experts cannot be endorsed while other can be? If they do not make anything specific and clear about the issue, what is the point of including such a passage in a letter of such importance? Utter stupidity is in display again.

In the final point (Christianity and Islam), the scholars take a comparative look at Islam and Christianity. As an atheist, I would not go into this section as I do not endorse any of the two faiths. I will, however, delve into one issue. The scholars say:

Upon this sincere and frank dialogue we hope to continue to build peaceful and friendly relationships based upon mutual respect, justice, and what is common in essence in our shared Abrahamic tradition, particularly 'the two greatest commandments' in Mark 12:29-31 (and, in varying form, in Matthew 22:37-40), that, the Lord our God is One Lord; / And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy understanding, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second commandment is like, namely this, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’. There is none other commandment greater than these.

About the first commandment, it is stupid on part of the supreme creator of all things in the universe that he will require to send tens of thousands of prophets one after another just to beg or remind that His creation must love Him with passionate and fanatical zeal and dedication. About the second commandment, how are the Muslims going to love their non-Muslim neighbors when the supreme Allah has commanded the Muslims not to take the Christians as friends:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. [Q 5:51]

O Ye who believe! Choose not for guardians such of those who received the Scripture before you, and of the disbelievers, as make a jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true believers. [Q 5:57]

It does not end there. Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight the Christians until they are reduced into submission and pay Jiziya in humiliation as already explained [Quran 9:29].  I believe that these greatest scholars of Islam are not so stupid that they will fail to understand when the supreme Islamic God commands his followers not to take Christians as friends but instead incite them to fight the Christians until the latter are subdued to a humiliating status of Dhimmi, ‘loving thy neighbors’ does not just work in Islam as far as Christians and Jews are concerned. The idolaters face even a worse fate, which is conversion or death.

In a nutshell, this open letter to the Pope by the world’s thirty‑eight greatest scholars of Islam, already dubbed as the ‘Fatwa 38’ will be deemed to a piece of document of historical importance. It will also be historical in lies, dishonesty, deception and stupidity for its content; given the fact that modern world’s greatest brains of Islam have been the architects of this letter.

---------

References

* Hedaya, Charles Hamilton (Trs), Vol. 2, p225-26,228.

* Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Sirat Rasul Allah by A Guillaume, p287. Oxford University Press, Karachi.

* Lambton, Ann KS (1981) State and Government in Medieval Islam; Oxford University Press, New York, p201.