Against Scholar Hasan Mahmud’s claim that “the Prophet even did not use bad words toward them (apostates)”, Muhammad had, clearly, ordered the killing of every apostate, who came within his power. And he desperately wanted that those apostates were successfully executed.
[Read the first part of this article: What the Quran Says about the Apostates of Islam? "Just Kill Them"]
Muhammad’s dealing with apostates in the hadith
Scholar Hasan Mahmud claims: Not a single hadith gives evidence of killing apostates
Scholar of Islam Hasan Mahmud, who rejects opinions on Islam of the greatest Islamic scholars in history, claims that he had thorough read all of the 23,000 Sunni hadiths and another 16,000 Shia hadiths, and none of them give specific evidence of killing apostates (see the video). He makes similar claim about the Sira (see below).
Bizarre claim! This can only happen if one reads the collections of hadiths with her/his eyes closed and mind disabled. Many authors have listed the hadiths that commands the killing of apostates and incidents of killing them. So, I will not spend too much time on the hadiths in this article. I will spend more time on the evidence of Muhammad’s order to kill his apostatized disciples and the incidents of killing them under his supervision as described in the Prophet’s biography (Sira).
Below are two hadiths that gives clear evidence that Muhammad commanded the killing apostates:
Bukhari 52:260: "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"
Bukhari 83:37: "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas), (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse, and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle, and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
When Ibn Warraq quoted the first hadith (Bukhari 52:260) in the debate – "Kill those who change their religion" – Scholar Mahmud retorted: "whoever changes his religion from Judaism and Christianity to Islam, kill them too?"
What a senile way of doing a debate! Muhammad founded a new religion and was inviting everybody from other religions to join Islam. In this context, when Muhammad said, "Kill those who change their religion", even the stupidest person in the whole world would know that Muhammad was talking about a Muslim’s changing of her/his religion from Islam to another. Is scholar Mahmud suggesting that Muhammad was inviting Christians and Jews to embrace Islam for killing them after they embrace Islam? Either Scholar Mahmud is senile, or his beloved prophet was senile.
Here is one hadith, which describes Muhammad’s disciple Mu’adh bin Jabal’s killing of one Muslim for reverting to Judaism based on the "judgment of Allah and His Apostle":
Bukhari 9:84:58: Narrated Abu Burda: “…The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed..."
There are numerous more hadiths, referring to the prophet’s command of killing the apostates of Islam, and the incidents of killing them as per the command of Muhammad and Allah, which can be read in this article: Punishment of Apostates in Islam is Death by Beheading.
Muhammad’s dealing apostates in the Sira
Scholar Hasan Mahmud claims: Prophet Muhammad Let Apostates Go Scot-free
In the debate with Ibn Warraq, scholar Hasan Mahmud, referring to Ibn Ishaq’s Sira of the Prophet, says:
We have four cases of apostasy in front of Prophet in his life-time... Abdullah bin Sa’d, Al-Harith, and Ubaidullah. These three persons left Islam in prophet’s time, and prophet did not put them to death, did not punish them in anyway, even prophet did not use bad words toward them.
These are probably the biggest lies ever told, because Prophet Muhammad had ordered the killing each of his apostatized disciples that came within his power, including these apostates cited by Scholar Mahmud.
It should be mentioned beforehand that there were hardly any typical apostate amongst Muhammad’s disciple, who chose to leave it, because they didn’t like it. A few cases of apostasy amongst Muhammad’s disciples that we know were actually forced by circumstances, namely they made a grievous mistake for which Muhammad would have killed them. So, they ran away in trying to save their life; they didn’t leave Islam because of their dislike of it.
Here are five cases of apostasy cited in Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, and three of them has been mentioned by Scholar Mahmud:
1) Abdullah b. Sa'd: Abdullah b. Sa’d is the most well-known amongst the few of Muhammad’s apostatized disciples. He had emigrated with Muhammad to Medina, and acted his secretary for writing down the revelations. According to Ali Dasti, Dashti (Twenty Three Years, p. 98):
[Abdullah] had been one of the scribes employed at Medina to write down the 'revelations'. On a number of occasions, with Muhammad's consent, he changed the closing words of verses. For example, when Muhammad said "And God is mighty and wise", Abdullah Sarh suggested 'knowing and wise', and the prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Abdullah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelations, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy, he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.
So, Abdullah’s was a classic case of apostasy under Muhammad, because he understood the falsity of Muhammad’s revelations, and left Islam. And immediately, he fled to Mecca to be safe from Muhammad’s punishment. And how did Muhammad deal with him when he fell into his power on the day of the conquest of Mecca? Let us here it from Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, which Mr. Mahmud has used as his sources:
The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka'ba. Among them was 'Abdullah b. Sa'd, brother of the B. 'Amir b. Lu'ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh… (The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 550).
However, Muhammad desperate wanted to have him killed, but could not due to intervention of his son-in-law Uthman, the third caliph of Islam, who was Abdullah’s foster brother. Ibn Ishaq’s following account makes Muhammad’s desperate intention crystal clear (p. 550):
…[Abdullah] fled to Uthman b. Affan whose foster-brother he was: The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes. When Uthman had left, he [Muhammad] said to his companions who were sitting around him, 'I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!' One of the Ansar said, ‘Then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God’. He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.
2) Abdullah b. Khatal: Abdullah b. Khatal (not mentioned by Mr. Mahmud) was another disciple of Muhammad, who had apostatized. Once, Muhammad had sent him, along with an ansar and a slave to collect "poor tax" (zakaat). On the way, they halted, and "he ordered the slave to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep." When he woke up, he found that the slave had not prepared any food, and out of anger, hungry Abdullah bin Khatal killed the slave. And knowing how Muhammad will deal with him for killing the slave, who was Muslim, he fled to Meccan and thus he became an apostatized.
So, Abdullah bin Khatal was not a classic case of apostasy, i.e. he didn’t leave Islam because of his dislike for it. He made a grievous mistake, and in fear that Muhammad would kill him, he left Muhammad’s camp. And Abdullah bin Khatal was among those Muhammad had ordered to be killed on the day of capturing Mecca. His two singing-girls, Fartana and her friend, were also ordered to be killed, because they used to sing satirical songs about the apostle. Abdullah b. Khatal was killed by Sa'id b. Hurayth al-Makhzumi and Abu Barza al-Aslami acting together. One of his singing-girls was also killed; the other girl could escape and was later pardoned. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 551)
3) Miqyas b. Hubaba: Miqyas was another of Muhammad’s disciples (not mentioned by Mr. Mahmud), who had turned apostate, but not out of his own choice. He killed an Ansari as revenge, because that Ansari had killed his brother. And he too had to flee to the Quraysh, fearing that Muhammad would kill him. So, Miqyas also did not leave Islam, because he disliked it. And his name was in the list of those Muhammad had ordered to be killed upon capturing Mecca. Muhammad disciple Numayla b. Abdullah killed Miqyas, and his sister wrote (Ibn Ishaq, p. 551):
By my life, Numayla shamed his people
And distressed the winter guests when he slew Miqyas.
Whoever has seen a man like Miqyas
Who provided food for young mothers in hard times.
So, Miqyas was a kind and generous person, who made a mistake, which had some justification, but Muhammad did not forgive him. He was killed as per Muhammad's order.
4) Al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit: Al-Harith was a disciple of Muhammad (i.e. an ansar), who, joining Muhammad's party in the Battle of Uhud, killed two Muslims, named al-Mujadhdhar b. Dhiyad al-Balawi and Qays b. Zayd. He did this as revenge, because al-Mujadhdhar had earlier killed his father (it seems Qays was targeted, but got killed by mistake). And knowing that Muhammad will kill him for killing another Muslim, although he had some justification for committing the crime, he immediately fled to Mecca. Let’s hear from Ibn Ishaq about how Muhammad dealt with him? (p. 384):
Now the apostle, as they say, had ordered Umar to kill him [Al-Harith], if he got the better of him, but he escaped him and was in Mecca.
Scholar Hasan Mahmud says, concerning the case of Al-Harith’s apostasy, verse 3:86 was revealed, which says:
"How can God guide a people who have disbelieved after their belief, and after that they have testified that the apostle is true and proofs have been given to them. God will not guide an evil people.”
Mr. Mahmud claims that Allah only expressed His frustration in this verse, but didn't command his killing.
Scholar Mahmud is wrong again. We have to understand that Muhammad had already ordered Al-Harith's killing before this verse was revealed. After this order to kill him, Ibn Ishaq, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, says that Al-Harith sent his brother al-Julas to the Prophet informing of his repentance and seeking his forgiveness, so that he might return to Muhammad's community (So, Al-Harith never really left Islam in effect). And, to his, God sent down verse 3:86. If one reads Allah’s words in verse 3:86, bearing in mind that Muhammad had already order Al-Harith’s killing, Allah clearly did not forgive him. Instead, Allah only justified Muhammad’s order of killing him by refusing to guide him back to Islam in saying "How can God guide a people who have disbelieved after their belief” and that "God will not guide an evil people.” The verse clearly says that Allah refused to forgive him and accept him back as a Muslim. That means, Allah held Muhammad’s order to killing him valid in verse 3:86.
5) Ubaydullah b. Jahsh: Ubaydullah, husband of Abu Sufian's daughter Umm Habiba, was the fifth apostate among Muhammad’s disciples. He, along with Umm Habiba, went to exile in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 615. It is there in Abyssinia that he was impressed by the Christian faith, embraced it, and died there as a Christian. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 527)
Ubaydullah was the only apostate, whom Muhammad did not order to be killed. And expecting the same is also stupidity for a number of reasons: 1) Ubaydullah was living in a far-away country, and he died there even before Muhammad's military power had been firmly established; 2) Muhammad needed a safe haven for his emigrated disciples there, many of whom stayed there until 628, and Ubaydullah had died before that; 3) Abyssinia was also a very powerful kingdom, which Muslim could never conquer, despite its close proximity to the Arab Peninsula.
Nonetheless, Ubaydullah's conversion to Christianity seemed to have angered Muhammad, and he tried to relieve it somewhat by adding his wife Umm Habiba into his harem, who returned after Ubaydullah's conversion to Christianity turned their marriage null and void. Muhammad also added Ubaydullah sister Zanab bte Jahsh to his harem, for which he even had to break Allah's earlier command of four wives per Muslim, as his harem already had four.
Conclusion
Let me sum up Muhammad's dealing with his apostatized disciples. Against Scholar Hasan Mahmud's claim that “the Prophet even did not use bad words toward them (apostates)”, Muhammad had, clearly, ordered the killing of every apostate, who came within his power. And he desperately wanted that those apostates were successfully executed. It is beyond my comprehension: How decent people, such as scholar Hasan Mahmud, could engage in lying and deceiving so nakedly and so shamelessly, when it comes to defending Islam.
In the first part of this article, What the Quran Says about the Apostates of Islam? "Just Kill Them", I shown conclusively that when Islam became powerful, Allah commanded clearly and unequivocally to kill the apostates of Islam. In this part, we see that Muhammad made desperate efforts to kill each of his disciples, who had apostatized. So, Allah commanded killing the apostates, Muhammad executed the command with utmost sincerity.
---
M A Khan is the author of Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Salladin , April 12, 2012
written by Malem , April 12, 2012
written by Salladin , April 12, 2012
You see, we can agree on things. My pseudonym is Salladin, not salad. I call you Malem all the time as you call yourself. Now who is at fault Malem?
Maybe from now on we could have a civilized conversation i.s.o calling eachother names and playing the person i.s.o. the ball. Thanx in advance.
written by anders , April 12, 2012
written by someone , April 13, 2012
written by lw1 , April 13, 2012
written by Taru Dutt , April 13, 2012
written by Salladin , April 13, 2012
Don't take conclusions because of one debate. Maybe Ibn Warraq should stick to his accadamical approach. Maybe he was afraid of a fatwa :-)
written by The Fog Horn , April 13, 2012
http://ohmyvolcano.blogspot.com
written by anders , April 13, 2012
written by The Fog Horn , April 13, 2012
Get rid of the OT and denouce it because in there lies your problem.
written by Archpagan , April 13, 2012
written by Archpagan , April 13, 2012
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 14, 2012
1) I have insider knowledge about how this debate was set-up. It was not a debate per se, as you see there are no audience. According to people familiar with the debate, Mr. Mahmud came to New York to join a rally in support of NYPD's surveillance of Muslim radicals, where he met Ibn Warraq, a New Yorker. After the rally, Mr Mahmud, who had come prepared, invited Ibn Warraq to the debate. He was obviously not prepared for it. And you see, Mr. Mahmud had memorised every point he wanted make. Ibn Warraq had to look through pages of a book he had with him for everything he said.
2) I have met Ibn Warraq. He is too much of a gentleman, speaks too softly; he is not a demagogue. He is not debater personality which is so obvious, so suggest your comment, "He mumbled "Yes," and "Right," and "OK," all through".
You noticed how Mr. Mahmud debated. Anything went against him, he talked like senile person -- like about the hadith in which Muhammad said "Kill those, who leave religion." A debater would charge Mahmud "senile" for his comment regarding that hadith.
When he mentioned about the views of the revered stalwart Islamic scholars, Mr. Mahmud said: just ignore them. A debater would score big time by asking back on what ground Mr. Mahmud -- a small-time scholar he is -- claims to be a higher authority than those great scholars.
And you also noticed how Mr. Mahmud engaged in lying or disinformation, which has been made crystal clear in this article. Since, Ibn Warraq didn't come prepared and he could not cross-check those references on the spot, he had to accept Mr. Mahmud's d lies or disinformation. Ibn Warraq is such a gentleman that had he even known that Mr. Mahmud was lying, he wouldn't probably point it out, in order not to embarrass his opponent, especially when the latter is a personal friend.
Having said that Ibn Warraq's scholarship should not be judged by this debate, which is demagogy, not scholarship. His scholarship lies in his writings and books, and the judgement should be made based on those works.
written by VRM , April 14, 2012
A good debater may not necessarily be a good scholar and same is true the other way round.
Take the case of Zakir Naik. He always appears to be victorious in any debate,but careful examination of his claims clearly show that he has very limited knowledge of Islam and he mixes all kinds of lies with some facts.
I request Mr. khan to please refer to opinion of some leading muhaddith on the authenticity of a hadith while quoting it, so that some of our friends here can't claim that chain of narrators is weak or so and so scholar has declared it a weak hadith.
written by Salladin , April 14, 2012
written by Taru Dutt , April 14, 2012
I can understand that a good scholar may not be a good debater, but a good scholar must not then agree to a form of debate for which he is not equipped. Mr. Warraq chose to agree to Mr. Mahmud's request. In that case, he, Mr. Warraq, must be considered not only a poor or totally incompetent debater, but a man of poor judgement as well.
Another point: the quotations from the Koran about there being no direct injunction to kill apostates, but to leave them their punishment in the afterlife, is the FIRST baseline of defence used by ANY apologist for Islam. It would be astonishing if Mr. Warraq were not aware of this commonest of opening gambits by an apologist. There is really no great "preparation" for debate required to answer this objection; it is an objection that, as a thinker and polemicist on Islam, Mr. Warraq ought already to have asked himself many times.
The only way possible, it seems, for Mr. Warraq to redeem himself from the devastatingly poor showing (I have watched the "debate" and can safely say that "devastatingly poor showing" is no exaggeration) is to publish Mr. Mahmud's questions and objections and answer them, one by one, if he is able. Otherwise, we who look for answers to Islamist apologetics will have to seek them elsewhere and can no longer look to Mr. Warraq for effective refutation of said apologetics.
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 14, 2012
He also does not invite people to look for answers from him.
It's clear how Hasan Mahmud set up the so-called debate, to which Ibn Warraq repeated said I have nothing to debate.
Ibn Warraq and Hasan Mahmud are buddies of sorts -- however opposed their stands are. But he certainly had a lesson as to how someone -- a good buddy and excellent gentleman -- can lie and deceive -- when he/she is on the Islamic side.
Hasan Mahmud was invited to a written debate -- a rematch, but he declined, claiming written debate is not useful.
written by Taru Dutt , April 14, 2012
Actually, Ibn Warraq's entire work is a refutation of Islam - including his "How to Debate Muslims." Therein he specifically sets out how to debate Muslims, but did not take his own advice in the "debate" with Hasan Mahmud, it would seem.
You certainly seem not familiar with his works.
Ad hominem and baseless assumption.
It's clear how Hasan Mahmud set up the so-called debate, to which Ibn Warraq repeated said I have nothing to debate.
No, he didn't say "I have nothing to debate," at all. He said that he has "no stake in this." Not the same thing. He was affirming his lack of personal stake, of personal bias. At no point did he refuse the debate.
But he certainly had a lesson as to how someone -- a good buddy and excellent gentleman -- can lie and deceive -- when he/she is on the Islamic side.
Totally agree. Let us hope that Mr. Warraq will profit by that lesson.
Hasan Mahmud was invited to a written debate -- a rematch, but he declined, claiming written debate is not useful.
In that case, he is a dishonest person who is taking advantage of Mr. Warraq's shyness and retiring nature in their "debate." He is afraid, it seems, to face Mr. Warraq and others in a written exchange of ideas. Thank you very much for this information. It truly shows how very cunning many apologists for Islam can be, when they take unfair advantage of their opponent's personality traits to push their regressive ideology. By the way, I should add that I wholly support the work Ibn Warraq and many other courageous apostates have done, and continue to do, to expose, with unflinching dedication, the unsavoury side of Islam. And in spite of the debate, I remain totally unconvinced by Mr. Mahmud's views - to put it mildly. What kind of a loving God would punish people with hellfire for not believing in him? It's ludicrous.
Also greatly appreciate your allowing me to comment on this forum. It has been a pleasure. Please accept my sincere admiration for the work you are doing to expose the regressive aspects of Islam, which are many, starting with its insistence that one believe that a book, ANY book, can be the Word of God. Islam is an ideology and therefore should never, in any way, shape or form, be exempt from the most searching criticism.
written by Salladin , April 14, 2012
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 15, 2012
Actually, Ibn Warraq's entire work is a refutation of Islam - including his "How to Debate Muslims."Ibn Warraq's major work are:
1) "Why I Am Not A Muslim?"
2) "Which Koran: Variants, Manuscripts, Linguistics"
3) "What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text and Commentary"
4) Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
5) The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book
6) The Quest for the Historical Muhammad
7) Koranic Sources: Pre-islamic, Christian, and Qumranian Influences
8) Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
Many of these books are basically compilation of essays of other academics and scholars that were going to be lost. And none of these books are set up as debate/refutation of Islamic apologists or scholars. They are not refutation of Islam either, can't even be called critique of Islam. They are basically an attempt at establishing what Islam truly is, how it came about etc.
Even if you call it refutation of Islam, it is hugely different from debating Islamic apologists and scholars.
No, he didn't say "I have nothing to debate," at all. He said that he has "no stake in this." Not the same thing. He was affirming his lack of personal stake, of personal bias. At no point did he refuse the debate.Listen to the video again. He certainly said, "I have nothing to debate" -- at least once. Also it's expected that when one take a side in a debate, he/she has a stake on the issue. Participation in a debate automatically involves a stake in it.
Your conclusion about his work based on his one small essay -- "How to Debate Muslims?" -- and suggesting that "Ibn Warraq's entire work is a refutation of Islam" need a lot more justification with references from his entire work.
Moreover, "How to Debate Muslims" was just an essay of a writer, not necessarily a demagogue's invitation/challenge to debate -- which are different things.
Since this argument is not what the article is intended to be, I may not comment any further on this.
We highly appreciate your praise of our work.
written by Abc , April 15, 2012
Fred Donner, a professor in Near Eastern studies, notes his lack of specialist training in Arabic studies, citing "inconsistent handling of Arabic materials," and unoriginal arguments, and "heavy-handed favoritism" towards revisionist theories and "the compiler’s [i.e. Ibn Warraq's] agenda, which is not scholarship, but anti-Islamic polemic
Daniel Martin Varisco has criticized Ibn Warraq's book Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism, writing that "This modern son of a bookseller imprints a polemical farce not worth the 500-plus pages of paper it wastes.
Ibn Warraq claims to subscribe to secularism and freethinking, yet he objects to Islam only and aligns himself with Christian fundamentalism, which raises questions about the true thrust of his mission" and added that "the more rigid and biased the Orientalists, the better for Warraq".
This is what non Muslim academics think of warraq.
written by vbv , April 15, 2012
I hope you find my response quite fitting to your incoherent babbles.
written by Taru Dutt , April 15, 2012
Just something to keep in mind for the future when you are tempted to use the length of writing as directly propotional to salience.
Ibn Warraq did not refuse the debate, and it's quite false to claim that "he doesn't claim to refute anybody." He DOES refute people, he DOES refute ideologies - his whole work says so; his whole work is a much needed antidote to unquestioning belief in Islam and in Orientalism. The books you pointed out all have to do with Islam. Perhaps you're not familar with Ibn Warraq's well-known refutation of Edward Said's highly influential "Orientalism." Again, that book of Mr. Warraq's IS a refutation of Said's work. It's called "Defending the West - a Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism."
Thanks for your time. I stand by my contention that Mr. Warraq never refused a debate with Mr. Mahmud; that he came off poorly; and that throughout his work he refutes, exposes and critques the belief system called Islam. However, although on this occasion Mr. Warraq came off second best, that does not therefore mean that his refutations and critques of Islam are no longer valid - far from it.
written by Real Salladin , April 15, 2012
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 15, 2012
His extra-Islamic work, namely those addressing Said's Orientalism, are certainly refutation, which is all too obvious. So, I admit to my mistake for not clarifying that I was talking only about his work on Islam.
And I still feel that his works on Islam are not refutations of Islam. I'm quite familiar with his work in this area, because he was kind enough to gift me a whole set of his books for free when I had an opportunity to meet him in a conference, and before that I had already read his "Why I Am Not A Muslim" and "Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out." His works are basically "are basically an attempt at establishing what Islam truly is, how it came about etc." as I claimed in the earlier comment. He doesn't refute Muhammad's claims, Quran's claims, Hadith's claims -- which would constitute refutation of Islam. If you think that doing things other than these is refutation of Islam, then I would say, I have problem with understanding the issue.
written by vbv , April 16, 2012
written by Salladin , April 16, 2012
written by Yibel , April 17, 2012
He is the All-knowing Allah of Islam who selected Muhammad to spread His message/will/commands to mankind, and to avoid any misunderstandings or confusions, He instructed Jibril to use the Arabic language for His revelations to simplify things to the finite mind of the "Prophet."
There are at least 11 verses in the Qur'an that emphasize the selection of the Arabic language as a privilege, as a simple measure to insure the clarity of the message, and a way of undermining the power of Shaytan who managed to infiltrate the ranks of The People of the Book (Jews and Christians), and forced them to commit the ultimate evil of rejecting Allah's Prophet and his teachings.
“A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand... ” 41:3
But, Arabic is one of the 4 hardest languages to learn. So, why oh why, did Allah (Al-Hamid) pick such a difficult language and then say it was for "the clarity of the message"? And, why oh why, do we need additional outside sources in order to understand and clarify the "message" if it is so easy to understand? And since when is the Arabic language (a language BTW which is thoroughly disgusting to the ear) a "privilege?
And how do we know that this book is inspired and full of truth? Well, Muhammad says so, that's how we know:
“By the declining star, your compatriot (Muhammad) is not in error, nor is he deceived. He does not speak out of his own fancy. This is an inspired revelation. He is taught by one (Jibril) who is powerful and mighty.” 53:1-6 Yeh, Riiiiight!!!
written by The Infidel Alliance , April 17, 2012
Good points about Arabic in Islam. On a similar note, we have to wonder why the all powerful Allah would have picked Muhammed as his messenger when it was a known fact that he was illiterate.
Isn't it a bit ironic that Muhammed couldn't even read the very Koran which was supposedly spewed from his grotesque mouth?
How perfect could the Koran be if Islam's perfect man, Muhammed, couldn't even read it to verify if what his supplicants wrote was correct?
Muhammed is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity, and when Muslims finally have their eyes opened that their perfect man, their insan al-kamil, was just another murdering, raping, enslaving, thieving, lying, torturing, sexually deviant pervert criminal sociopath, they will be ashamed and embarrassed at their own stupidity for venerating this Meccan Charles Manson.
~ The Infidel Alliance
written by davids , April 18, 2012
written by Yibel , April 19, 2012
There is no evidence in the Qur'an that Muhammad ever had access to any of the information in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Some of Muhammad's Biblical tales are twisted stories taken from the Talmud, but are not found in the Torah. They are just too mixed up and bear so little resemblance to any of the Jewish scriptures that the Jews just laughed at him.
While scholars differ as to the identity of the man that helped Muhammad translate the Talmud (a Jewish book of commentary, stories, and legal decisions) and perfect his Qur'an/Recite, Salman the Farsi is generally considered to be the most likely suspect. Other possible suspects are Suhaib bin Sinan and Ada the Monk.
Muhammad was trying to get the local Jews to join his cult of maraudering cut-throats, but his lack of any real knowledge of Jewish history (Torah) gave him away. When the Jews refused to accept him as a prophet, or his god as their god, he turned on them and ordered them to be anniliated. This worked out well for him because he got lots of booty, the town of Yathrib which he renamed Madinah, and slaves to sell in order to buy horses and weapons for further conquests.
