How deceptive Islamists mistranslate the so-called "Last Sermon" of Muhammad to make it sound egalitarian and progressive, what it is not...
In recent years, Islamists and their apologists have been promoting a hoax in order to make Islam appear modern and progressive to the un-indoctrinated. It began with a spurious translation of the famous Last Sermon of Mohammad by Syed F. H. Faizi. His version—oddly, there are more than one—is being used today to cast Islam as a universal, peaceful faith, instead of—as critics argue—a violent, deceitful, Arab-centric ideology used by powerful clerics to control the masses.
Faizi’s translation of the sermon (khutba) is rather long, but the following key paragraph presses the right progressive buttons:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves. “
You might think this sounds very modern. Did Arabs even use racial terms like black and white? Did Arabs even call themselves Arab? Wasn’t Arab first used by western orientalists to describe a rather diverse collection of linguistically-related people? Is this sermon what professional anti-racists to alienated prisoners say gives Islam its street credentials?
The exact same Faizi translation, along with it adjoining unique commentary, is cut and pasted on Islamic websites across the Internet. Unlike most Islamic primary and respected secondary texts, virtually no source is given. Very strange, you might think; certainly this sermon is in an authenticated hadith (traditional stories of Muhammad) collection or the Sira—the biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq—if not in the Koran. Why wouldn’t it be sourced?
I was finally able to track down the origin of the translation from a cryptic “Faizi 145” reference; the only one among dozens of postings I checked. Searching an online bookstore, I guessed this must be S.F.H. Faizi, an Indian, later Pakistani, Islamist who wrote “The Sermons of the Prophet,” first published in 1991. I ordered it. I was right; the sermon is indeed on page 145, translated as “The Farewell Pilgrimage Address.” Yet, even Faizi does not provide his source. Highly unusual, considering how popular this version is with modern Muslims.
Faizi gives us as close to a source as he could when he describes in the introduction to Sermons how he translated and published a collection of obscure writings into English. He writes:
“This book is a collection of some of the selected sermons of the Holy Prophet which include long as well short ones as the situation demanded. They were not available in the form of Khutbas but have been derived from various books of Ahadith and history. It is only recently that some of these have appeared in book-forms along with original texts and translation in Urdu; but the authenticity of the texts thereof is still doubted by ulema. On English language, they are hardly available. So an attempt has been made not only to have them translated in English but also to find out circumstances under which they were delivered so that their delivery date could be ascertained and an elucidation made thereof. How far I have succeeded in my undertaking rests to be adjudged by the readers. Any suggestion or comment shall, however be welcomed to improve upon it.” (emphasis added)
In other words, Faizi said “derived” sermons from various unnamed books not accepted by the ulema (scholarly Muslim clerics). He does not know the original sources, but welcomes readers to help in his search. As a reader of Faizi, I’m happy to take a swag at it. Like Faizi, I’ll be adjudged by the readers.
My theory:
It is well known that over the centuries, especially on the periphery of Islamic civilization, in places like India, a great deal of bogus religious material was generated. Even the Caliphate is known to have generated many bogus ahadith to legitimize its political claims. For more than three centuries while Britain ruled India, anti-colonial Indians, including Muslims, were very interested in finding significant sources of inspiration that would undermine the racial, ethnic and caste systems that oppressed them. This era also saw the black/white racial dynamic and the Arab identity being introduced into language. It is, therefore, no great leap to surmise that an inspired young Muslim cleric would decide to enhance Islam, by writing a bit of historical fiction in order to achieve a practical result. Who in pre-Internet, pre-electric India would know? A complete collection of authenticated ahadith was as rare as a magic carpet in colonial India. It wouldn’t be the first time someone wrote phony Islamic tracts; not by a long shot. Maybe our cleric even thought, “Well, if I must be Muslim (apostates are killed), then I’ll make it more suitable to me” –the old “change from the inside” strategy at work.
In lieu of hard evidence, I believe this scenario is more plausible than the fish tales Islamists routinely employ to explain ahadith. The Faizi version of the Last Sermon is not endorsed by either the Sunni or Shi’a ulemas, which each refer to different “authentic” sources. The Sunni ulema has for hundreds of years endorsed various fragments of the sermon diffused among authenticated hadith collections, most notably in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Today though, the un-sourced Faizi translation is the overwhelming choice for English Islamic websites great and small. It seems to have gone viral, you might say. At least two other versions are also used, but do not mention race at all. One Sunni version with the relevant passage reads:
“You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. You are all equal. Nobody has superiority over other except by piety and good action.”
Another version, this one translated by a well-known convert to Islam, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, reads:
O people, your Lord is One, and your father is one: all of you are from Adam, and Adam was from the ground. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most godfearing: Arab has no merit over non-Arab other than godfearingness. Have I given the message? — O Allah, be my witness.
Oddly, Keller’s translation is accompanied by commentary by a Canadian Pakistani, Syed Mumtaz Ali, who borrows from the Faizi translation, without credit, to explain Keller’s!
These two versions are arguably a decline from Saint Paul’s letter to a nascent Christian community 600 years earlier:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28)
It is likely the pagan-born Muhammad paraphrased Paul, considering the obvious influence Christianity and Judaism had on Islam.
The Shi’a English translation also makes suspect use the terms black, white and Arab. The etymology of black/white racial dualism dates to the sixteenth century, and no tribe was named Arab in the time of Muhammad. The closest the Koran comes is using Arab to disparage a tribe that resisted Muhammad, “al’a’rabu asaddu kufran wa nifaqan” meaning: “the Bedouin are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy.” The relevant text follows:
“Oh people! Know that Allah has assigned him (Ali) as a guardian and a leader for you, whose obedience is obligatory for the immigrants, the helpers, and those who follow them in goodness, and for everyone, whether nomad or city resident, Arab or non-Arab, free or slave, young or old, white or black, and for every monotheist. His (Ali’s) decree is to be carried out, his saying is sanctioned as law, and his command is effective.”
I’d say the Shi’a version doesn’t quite hit the progressive notes Faizi does, as it accepts without comment the hierarchy of classes that existed in the age of Muhammad. The traditional Shi’a sources for the Last Sermon, other than the Koran, are different from the Sunni.
Historically, the main point of contention between the Sunni and Shi’a versions is not about equality at all. It revolves around what two “weighty things” Muhammad left to his followers. Sunnis contend that he left the Koran and the Sunnah—a record of the manners and actions of Muhammad. Shi’as insist Muhammad said he left the Koran and his family (ahl al-bayt) from which the reigning Caliph, the political leader of the worldwide Islamic state (ummah) was always to be selected. This difference led directly to the split in Islam upon Muhammad’s death in 632 A.D.
The solution to the schism for many moderate Muslims is to cut the Gordian knot of sectarianism, by dismissing the disturbing ahadith entirely, and accepting only the Koran. But “Koran-only” Muslims still must confront the many horrendous passages in the Koran itself, as well as addressing the need which the ahadith filled, albeit incompetently. The Koran by itself is a confusing, incomplete basis for a faith without supporting documentation. Should the ulema grant themselves artistic license to replace the old ahadith with new, logical ahadith? Do for the Koran what the Talmud does for the Torah?
We are left to speculate as to how Faizi derived his Sermons. Did he invent phrases whole cloth? Were the sources in Urdu? Since he was Pakistani, could he have used Ahmadi texts? That would be interesting, since Ahmadi Muslims were declared apostates in much of the Muslim world, including their native Pakistan, and are often murdered for that reason.
No doubt the Faizi translation is a powerful stimulant for a young multicultural idealist or searcher unfamiliar with similar beliefs, like Paul’s “neither Jew nor Greek” sermon. In Christianity, while Paul’s sermon may not be truly universal because it urges accepting Jesus, God judges in the afterlife. On Earth, man has free will. Islam, in contrast, supplies a legal framework (sharia) for theocratic rulers to ensure Muslims remain superior to non-believers. Islam is mandatory for a child of a Muslim and for anyone who earnestly recites the shahada: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” This mandate clearly distorts religious faith—a person’s innermost feelings about God and religion. For this reason, Islam is often said to be more an ideology than a faith. For Islam to succeed, Muslims don’t have to be spiritually content, just obedient.
Although the secular left and Muslims share little in practice, they each share a claim to represent the little guy—the poor and oppressed. While there is certainly a partial truth to this, it is neither unique nor central to Islam. The reality is Muhammad was never poor or born into a persecuted tribe. He was from the noblest tribe, the Quraysh. At the time of his death, his closest followers—also from his elite tribe—were fabulously wealthy (except possibly Ali), fat on the booty stolen in attacks on non-Muslim merchant caravans. Islam, compared to other religions, came to the aid of the huddled masses late and with meager offerings. Only through centuries of massaging the message of the messenger have talented poets, artists and philosophers been able to squeeze water from Islamic stones. They either paid lip service to Islam, or the ulema issued a death fatwa.
Ending belief inequality, such as Islamic supremacy, was once a major goal for the left. It has been replaced by a singular focus on ending perceived western racism. Islamists thus exploit Faizi’s translation to manipulate the organized left, which has been led into an unholy alliance with raw Islamic terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas to destroy the institutions that make up western civilization, such as private enterprise, the bourgeoisie, and rights of the individual. While destroying these allegedly racist institutions is an ideological goal of the left, it is merely a hegemonic goal of Islamists, who, as conquerors, simply would stand up similar Islamic institutions. In Islam, private property, classes (including slaves and concubines), and “rights” for dhimmis (subdued Jews and Christians) and women are well defined (Polytheist rights, not so much). For now, though, a common enemy (democratic, entrepreneurial countries mostly in the west) makes Islamists and the left strange bedfellows.
Islamists—self-proclaimed master manipulators—have no illusions about progressive views on issues like gay rights, feminism, animal liberation, etc. If such ideas are not found in the de facto Islamic canon—the Koran, authenticated ahadith, and Sira—then they are not permitted. And to the extent that there is ambiguity in the text waiting for left-leaning Muslims to exploit—this has been shut off by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Contrary to modern assumptions, many modern ideas are not new, even to Islam. But the doors to innovation (ijtihad) were officially closed centuries ago by consensus (ijma) of all Islamic schools of law (madhhabs). Islam is therefore not in the least friendly to reinterpretation, and mass communication seems to be making this more so, not less. Muslim theocrats and scholars are increasingly able to filter out weak ahadith and the accumulation of centuries of attempts by secular-leaning Muslims to expand Islam to include freedoms that Muhammad never contemplated or forbid outright. The ulema can because they have the political power to carry out Muhammad’s command never to alter or distort a word of his message.
It is quite possible that Faizi convinced himself his translation is authentic, although he freely admits the ulema does not accept his unnamed references. But why does the ulema now promote if not endorse the Faizi version? Is it a case of Islamic ecumenicism that occasionally arises, even including avowed racist sects like the Nation of Islam? Or is it a situation like that of the Gospel of Barnabas, a Tunisian forgery dated to the sixteenth century about an Islamic Jesus, intended to prove to Christian Europe that its Bible was corrupt. Or is the ulema attempting to sanitize a cruel and bigoted Muhammad as a saint after all. Indeed, the Faizi sermon is leveraged constantly by Islamists today to end discussion on the long history of Arab supremacy and racism related to Islam. That would put the Faizi version squarely alongside the infamous forged Hitler Diaries “found” in 1983, intended to prove Hitler did not know about the Holocaust.
It’s only when pseudo-Islamic writings such as Faizi’s convince non-Muslims and wayward Muslims of an imaginary feel good Islam do the ulema look the other way. The religion of Islam should not be confused with defunct classical Islamic civilization—produced by conquered peoples only halfway in the process of their Islamification. The religion of Islam is a set of written documents, not a culture. Islamic doctrine was finalized about two centuries after Muhammad died, when the final authenticated ahadith were recorded. The ulema will not and cannot incorporate pretty Islamic propaganda into Islam, to the dismay of many Muslims.
Islamists, in keeping with their insecure habit of finding Muslims at the root of every major innovation, including the airplane and golf, market the Last Sermon to the left as the world’s first Charter on Social Justice. Yet the version they most promote, without sources, effectively dates to 1991. In the end, it doesn’t matter when it was published, or if it is a fraud. The proof is in the headlines. Today, as this is written, Hamas killed the leader of a rival jihadist group, a Muslim in Ohio threatened to kill his apostate daughter, the Taliban claimed responsibility for bombing NATO’s Kabul headquarters, and sharia law has failed to deliver equality and accountability to northern Nigeria. Slow day—is it Ramadan?
This article appeared in 'Faith Freedom International'.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Bonnie , August 18, 2009
written by Muhamed , August 18, 2009
I do not know how misleading this website can get but even basic facts can not even be spelled out correctly. This website has in the past published things on slavery in Arabia and in the pre-Islam era, and now they say something totally contradictory. In short, yes there were blacks and there were whites and the Arabs called themselves Arabs. Maybe it is the other way around, western stole everything from the Arabs including the language.
Wish you better luck on your next article.
written by Muhamed , August 18, 2009
It is well known that over the centuries, especially on the periphery of Islamic civilization, in places like India, a great deal of bogus religious material was generated. Even the Caliphate is known to have generated many bogus ahadith to legitimize its political claims. For more than three centuries while Britain ruled India, anti-colonial Indians, including Muslims, were very interested in finding significant sources of inspiration that would undermine the racial, ethnic and caste systems that oppressed them. This era also saw the black/white racial dynamic and the Arab identity being introduced into language. It is, therefore, no great leap to surmise that an inspired young Muslim cleric would decide to enhance Islam, by writing a bit of historical fiction in order to achieve a practical result. Who in pre-Internet, pre-electric India would know? A complete collection of authenticated ahadith was as rare as a magic carpet in colonial India. It wouldn’t be the first time someone wrote phony Islamic tracts; not by a long shot. Maybe our cleric even thought, “Well, if I must be Muslim (apostates are killed), then I’ll make it more suitable to me” –the old “change from the inside” strategy at work.
Your theory is wrong. The last sermon was written in Arabic and we require no translation to read it. It was documented at the time of prophet Muhamed just like the hadeath.
In reference to the bogus ahadith used to legitimize political claims those are called weak hadeaths and you won’t find them in Bukhari and Muslim. Weak hadeaths are sourced often by Islam watch.
written by btilly , August 18, 2009
Muhammad Arab were known as Sabeans who stole Job's cattle and killed his workers. allah is a race hater as he cursed black qura 3:106 aND jEWS WERE APES AND PIGS AND RATS. Moderate Muslims is a Western term becuae no muslims are nice or moderate but followers of the evil pedophile and killer Muhammad. Read 33000 in the quran and hadiths where Allah made fun of black people calling them ugly, nappy headed pug nosed slaves and called white slaves mamluks. :0SoaYT
written by Li , August 18, 2009
30% of the muslims are illiterate and just know that quran and hadith is authentic and they are pure
) The true muslims who have read quran and hadith thoroughly and belive in it know that muhammed after claiming prophet never did any constructive thing, his only source of income was looting the caravans, killing men and enjoying women. These true muslims think that by killing non-muslims they can claim there 72 virgins.
The diplomatic muslims who are now ruling think that using Oil money they will purchase few Phds and paint a rosy picture of islam and thus eliminate any critical and logical discussion of islam , so that muslim immigration continue for few more decades such that muslim becomes majority and some reason can be invented later on :?: to show muslim anger and kill and subdue the native population.
written by To Muhammed , August 18, 2009
written by y.m to Muhamed , August 18, 2009
(2)Mohd used to make love with all his 9 wives in one go.(Al-bukhari ,vol3p11(3)Mohamed possessed sexual strength of 30 men,(Al-bukhari,vol 1p181)(4)Mohd said,if any person eats seven(ejjewah)big dates of Medina daily then he will be affected by black magic and poision.(Bukhari vol 3p196)Allah had revealed this(whhi khiffee) to mohd yet surprisingly on the other hand he used a jewish woman to give posion to mohd when she served him goats meat to kill him.he could not survive and died with the effect of that poison,(History of Islam written by Mullana mohd Ashique Merthi p37(5) Aysha said, mohd possess by magic and was effected and that he was thinking he had completed a specific task,when in actual fact he had not completed it.(Bukhari vol 2p2o3)If you mention thes hadiths to a ordinary muslim he will be very ashamed but if you ask a mullah why did mohd sleep with nine(9) year old child Aysha while he was in the age of (53) the answer will be,there is (Hekmiha)wisdom behind it and that wisdom nobody know except mohd.I think this is one of the reason why non-muslim reguard the muslims brain dead zumbies.
written by balam to faisal , August 18, 2009
written by henri4 , August 18, 2009
written by kufr_for-ever , August 18, 2009
We the chinese are experimenitng with the uighur muslims for how to eradicate the islam for ever in the earth. We are banning all the ramdan activities there and shortly we will force-feed pigs into the mouths of the uighurs. burqas will be banned and no loudspeakers allowed in mosques. The muslims there will be degraded to second grade citizens soon. The methodology will be patented and sold to all western/ south/south east asian countries. Nobody will be able to cry foul since we are a security council member. We got an agreement with russia to share some secrets about eliminating muslims once for all. So faisal be ready and try to help the uigurs first. We are under Terminator-I programme for islam. Under our estimate it may take 16-17 years to completely eliminate this menace called islam.
written by Shafee al-Zindig , August 19, 2009
“All mankind is from Adam and all evil is from Eve, an Arab has superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; also a white Arab has superiority over a black Arab, nor does a black Arab have any superiority over a white Arab even by piety and good action.
"Learn that every Muslim Arab is a master to every Muslim non-Arab and that the Muslim Arabs constitute one masterhood. Learn that every Muslima is a slave to the Muslim brotherhood.
"Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Everything shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a non-Muslim even if it was taken forcibly and unwillingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves, but instead do injustice to all others”
written by Muhamed , August 19, 2009
Now I do not know where you people get all those made-up stories about Muhammad being murdered by a Jewish woman.
written by iuoqw , August 19, 2009
written by a.tayyab , August 19, 2009
the satan/allah can come up with to make a fool of the
humans and turn them into assworshipping assholes.it is time that this lie be exposed and the beast be wrapped up and buried back in arabian dessert.IT IS ABSOLUTE
IGNORANCE THAT ANY NON-ARAB BE A MUSLIM AS THE
EVIL IDIOLOGY ISLAM IS NOTHING MORE THAN ARABS'
SUPREMACIST IDEOLOGY.
written by Truth Detector , August 19, 2009
There are no lessons on Morality in the Muslims' "Satan's Bible."
No where in Satan's Bible, the Qur'an, do you find a passage about love of neighbor. I know because I've read it. The Muslims' Satan's Bible is all about HATE.
Why is this all surprising? Islam is the religion of hate, the religion of violence, the religion of Female Genital Mutilation, the religion of Muslim suicide bombers, the religion of polygamy, the religion that allows private whorehouses, the religion that allows legal adultery, the religion that allows old depraved Muslim sex perverts to legally kidnap little girls as young as seven years old, to legally force these little girls to "marry," the Muslim sex perverts, and then to legally rape the the little girls as the little girls cry for mercy, the religion of sadistic Muslim sex perverts. All this in the NAME OF SATAN, ALSO CALLED ALLAH.
Islam is also the religion that worships Satan/Allah, the religion that allows overnight "marriages" so that Muslim sex perverts can get their "jollys" while away from their regular "wives," actually whores of a private whorehouse, the religion that hangs people on mere suspicion of homosexuality, the main religion of Satan, the religion that stones women until dead, the religion of paedophile, child molester, diaper chaser, slave owner, murderer, liar, polygamist, whoremonger, wife beater, Muhammad, the religion of the Muslims.
written by John , August 19, 2009
When I was a religionist I was immune to theological wisdom. The Apostle Paul was a misogynistic, legalistic and petty teacher, but if people showed me that, I simply considered it an act of faith to accept "God's wisdom" as being superior to mine.
Islam, as it presents itself, has an answer for everything. that goes without saying.
On the internet, when Muslims are confronted with theology, they just disappear. You might get one post... but they won't follow up or get involved with discussion. (to my experience, anyway)
I am almost entirely ignorant about the Islamic frame of mind... at least the unique parts... I do know what it is like to be superstitious and unwilling to see it. I know what it's like to cause trouble in the world and to think myself righteous for it. I know what it's like to have a warrant from God to rule over others.
I also know what it's like to break from my cultural context and begin the journey to truth.
In hindsight, I can see Paul the Apostle was a narcissistic con man. I can posit that Jesus never existed in a recognizeable form. I can see that the theology of John the Revelator was petty and small minded.
.... but none of these considerations were catalytic in my understanding of the world. I needed to engage my religion in terms that were larger than my religion, not analyze my religion in its own terms.
Did Mohammed preach such and such a thing? Who knows? If you say yes, I imagine an educated Muslim can argue "no". Islam is a large enough religion, in terms of its scriptures, that I'm sure it says whatever it needs to say.
At one place or another, Islam advocates war... and then peace, mercy, and then harsh cruelty. Islam praises ignorance, and demands learning. It's all there.
If I were to attempt to break the mold of circular thinking in another person, I do not believe I would try to disassemble religion from within. It's locked in too tight. there is an answer for everything somewhere in Islam...as there is in every religion.
Did you know Islam is not monotheistic? Did you know Muslims employ idol worship? A billion Muslims don't know it... and probably could not anticipate the arguements that reveal Islam to be a typical polytheistic religion immersed in the worship of material things.... yet it's true.
The subjects of monotheism and idol worship are a larger context than the specific theologies that drive Islam. Who cares what Mohammed preached about... considering that he couldn't even invent a monotheistic religion?
Mohammed couldn't define "an idol". Who cares what such an uncontemplated and shallow thinking man says about anything?
What is a god, that Islam has only one?
Yes, I know... Allah is "the one"... but what are the others? What is "a god" that we can count them?
How many gods does Christianity or Hinduism typically worship? Let's count them... if we can define "a god" so that we don't count the wrong beings. How could a Christian define "a god" so that they worship only one?
Let me offer two ideas. I apologize for getting off topic, but I haven't been able to figure out how to seed a conversation here.
1) a god is a being that has magical power over some aspect of human endeavor.
2) If you bow to it, if you fullfill religious obligation towards something and it's not a god, it's an idol.
3) the word "worship" means to perform religious observations.
As I said above, I doubt that a Muslim could take that much, and deduce the arguements I would employ to call Islam polytheistic and steeped in idol worship.
I don't believe a Muslim... any Muslim, could apply such an analysis to any religion, and particuarly not their own, even though the concepts involved are not rigorous or complicated in a scholastic sense.
... at least without "running away".
That's what would have to happen. If a Muslim discovers the number of gods that Christianity worships, they would have to back away from the idea that Islam is monotheistic.
The would have to do the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "blah blah blah blah", so as to avoid the incoming data.
Any Muslim could prove my thesis wrong, simply by trading a few posts with me, answering my challenges as I would answer theirs.
Not about Mohammed's sermons... but about Islam in a context that is larger than Islam. That, in my opinion, is the way Islam can be disassembled.
written by a guest , August 19, 2009
written by T. Omar Moros , August 19, 2009
Early Muslims didn't use the black/white racial dynamic, because they were fairly mixed themselves. When they used black and white on people, it was more like name calling. Like calling someone swarthy or pasty which are not races. Or like saying a Chinese girl has white skin, it doesn't mean she looks Caucasian.
Islam is guilty of mean spirited name calling, which is the beginnings of scientific racism.
written by Abdulhussein , August 19, 2009
The above is so true, the day will come when Muslims will see that they have followed a corrupted religion, a false prophet. There will be no Muslims in heaven, but Hell will be full of the very religious Muslims, lost for eternity. They will see their suicide brothers, not in the brothels with many virgins, but burning in the hottest fires of Hell. Islam is an outward religion, a religion of show, the red beared for visiting Mecca, the bruised forehead of prayer, the hijab on women, the public call to prayer, the thousands praying in the same direction, the visiting Mecca and other place, the groups of angry men, its all outward show of devotion, inside the heart there is hatred, abuse, rape, murder, theft, lying and that just within the families, we see the outward signs of this in suicide bombers, riots over little things, murders of daughters for so called honour. Muslims have nothing to offer God. No the true and living God is interested in the heart and mind not the outward show of devotion, God sees this a sins being heaped up on sin. Seek God in the quiet of your room, live in peace with neighbours; the real meaning of life and true hope in death, only come from the kindness of God, through Isa Al Masih. The true Prophet and the true Messiah, the Right path. See the Bible and the Words of Isa today. http://isaalmasih.net/index.html
written by Muhamed , August 19, 2009
1. I do know what you been reading but we Muslims do not run away. You do not insult our faith and we are happy to debate with you. I will make it simple, if someone call my family names I would not want to talk to that person, so no we don ot un away as long as someone shows basic human manners.
2. On your post
" Let me offer two ideas. I apologize for getting off topic, but I haven't been able to figure out how to seed a conversation here.
1) a god is a being that has magical power over some aspect of human endeavor.
2) If you bow to it, if you fullfill religious obligation towards something and it's not a god, it's an idol.
3) the word "worship" means to perform religious observations.
As I said above, I doubt that a Muslim could take that much, and deduce the arguements I would employ to call Islam polytheistic and steeped in idol worship.
I don't believe a Muslim... any Muslim, could apply such an analysis to any religion, and particuarly not their own, even though the concepts involved are not rigorous or complicated in a scholastic sense.
... at least without "running away". "
you wrote much and the answer in the Quran. Surat Aleklas #112 is short and to the point.
written by John , August 20, 2009
I'm very happy to talk about these things with you, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. I would also ask for the condition that neither of us revert to insults.
Of course, other voices are sure to chime in, but I won't be bothered by them if you aren't.
Do you think that my definition of a god is valid? I suggest saying a god is a being with magical authority over some aspect of human life.
The theory being, that only one of these gods would be the true one, by some, but even the true one is defined as a god by having magical authority over human doings.
"Inexplicable power" would substitute for "magical".
How might you adjust my definition of a god so as to be in a good position for this discussion?
I would suggest that we don't give each other things to read that aren't posted here. You could refer me to a section of scripture, I could respond by offering you a book to read... and nothing has been discussed.
I'll be able to post once a day or so. I hope you'll be patient.
written by Sorrow01 , August 20, 2009
written by John , August 21, 2009
I was under the impression that you had consented to exchange a few postings with me.
Perhaps I'm being impatient, or perhaps the scriptural reference you gave yesterday is all you have to say.
Perhaps if you look in again, you could let me know if you're willing to have a public discussion.
I had assumed there would be nothing objectionable about asking about a definition for the word "god".
I hope we're able to engage in an exchange of ideas.
written by billy adams , August 21, 2009
I have heard few people describe it as
accurately as you have in a nutshell. It is
nice to meet you, Kind regards Billy Adams
written by John , August 22, 2009
Pro-Islamic sites on the internet also block discussion.
Would it be a great blow to Islam should real dialogue happen? Could you be led away from your faith simply by discussing what we mean when we say "god"?
Is reasoned discourse a greater threat to Islam than the bombs of the West, the corruption of the Jews and the wiles of Shaitan?
To hear a Muslim fearlessly dismiss death is quite common. Ideas seem much more frightening. Ideas seem as though they must be avoided.
written by Rick , August 23, 2009
Wow, this muslim thinks he's found a loop hole in, despicable. It is rare, but some girls reach puberty as early as 6 years old, so by this sicko's opinion she is fair game. Old enough to bleed - old enough to breed. UNBELIEVABLE. Just because a child reaches puberty as a very young age doesn't mean she's ready for sex with filthy old men. Anything, to pathetically try and justify their evil monster muhammad. This is why so many muslims make my skin crawl.
written by Myopic , August 25, 2009
written by Taaha , August 28, 2009
The Editor must Close Down the Site For Lying.
written by T. Omar Moros , August 28, 2009
Indeed, Arab is used in the Koran, but as an insult on the unbelieving Bedouins, as I stated in the article, not as a tribe name, and definitely not for Muhammad's elite tribe of Meccan pagans, the Quraysh.
written by blah , September 22, 2009
written by blah , September 22, 2009
written by T. Omar Moros , October 16, 2009
written by Mylah , November 06, 2009
written by Humaira Nazeer , December 31, 2010
I am Humaira Nazeer from Muslim family and I have completed my all Islamic study from Islamic Institution of Toba Tek Singh . Today I have visited your website.Its realy wonderful work.I have desire to become the part of your Organization . I am able to do translation work.If you have translation work this is my request kindly contact with me. I am able to do Translation and recording work in some Pakistani Languages.
Our National Language is Urdu and some other Provinces Languages. I do Islamic Translation work in Low and proper rates in Urdu, Punjabi , Sindhi ,Arabic and Saraikie.I am also able to do Recording work
I see on your site that you have working on different Languages in different countries.
Hopefuly you will Contact with me soon.
Thanks.
Humaira Nazeer
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by I Love Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) , January 21, 2012
They spread lies and misinformation about Islam and the holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him).
The holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) is authentic and is not as this article says. The sources are clear, and Islamophobic liars (like the people of this website) only provide fallacious and wrong information.
As we can see in Bukhari and Ahmad Bin Hanbal, who are very early scholars that the approach of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) is the most natural and best approach and the farewell sermon which signifies the importance of equality of Muslims and Muslim brotherhood is accurate.
@ Li, You are a liar and a deceiver. The Ulema KNOW that the holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) had the noblest character, the best morals, and is the best man ever!
@btilly, you are a liar and deceiver. Islam is the best way of life and Allah (SWT) is God Almighty and is the greatest! Do not say lies about Islam, Allah (SWT), and the holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him)!
The holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) is not as you Islamophobic liars and bigots say. The truth is that the holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) IS the most honourable, righteous, pious, kind, sincere, handsome, beautiful, pure, intelligent, honest, modest, chaste, and GREATEST of all God's creation! Salvation is through him (SAW/Peace be upon him)!
written by Truth , January 21, 2012
The truth is that the holy, pure, perfect, and infallible Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) IS the most honourable, righteous, pious, kind, sincere, handsome, beautiful, pure, intelligent, honest, modest, chaste, and GREATEST of all God's creation! Salvation is through him (SAW/Peace be upon him)!
The truth is that Allah (SWT) is God and is the greatest, supreme, almighty, omnipotent, and all-knowing creator.
The Quran is a perfect book and is the word of Almighty Allah (SWT)!
All women will wear hijab, family bond will increase In every corner of europe mosque will be there. All churches will be peacefully changed to mosques. Ulemas will rule with Allah's command and everywhere peace will he there. All european countries will become emirates connected with mecca and jerusalem.
Inshallah that day is coming soon. All land will be under the service of Allah and all pagan and curropted religions will be banned