Refuting lies about Islam

Abrogation in the Quran

2011-06-02T14:34:00.000+01:00

The Quran says in the following verse:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

[Al-Qur’an 2:106]

A reference to this is also made in chapter 16 verse 101 of Surah Nahl. The Arabic word mentioned is ayat which means ‘signs’ or ‘verses’ and which can also mean ‘revelations’. This verse of the Qur’an can be interpreted in two different ways:

a. The revelations that are abrogated are those revelations that were revealed before the Qur’an, for example the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel.

Here Allah (swt) says that He does not cause the previous revelations to be forgotten but He substitutes them with something better or similar, indicating that the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel were substituted by the Qur’an.
(16:101)- “When we replace a message with another and God knows best what He reveals, they say you have made it up. Yet most of them do not know”

Read the above verse and think carefully.

I ask, who was there to question Prophet that you have made it up yourself?

1- it couldn’t be the Sahabas for they believed him to be Prophet, they would accept whatever prophet would had said.

2- Of course it couldn’t be pagans, as they didn’t believe in the Quran so it didn’t matter to them that what was earlier and what gets abrogated. “they” would never say such a thing on one verse being replaced by another and that you made up the later verse, as they did not actually believe the Quran was from God in the first place. They actually believed Muhammad had made up the entired Quran, so it is impossible for them to hold this belief and also say you have replaced a verse that was correct and true with one which is false and from you rather than God.

Furthermore if you look at the verses before 16:101 you can see God talking about those who break the covenant with God and those who sell it for a miserable price, so it is quite clear the Quran is referring to those people who had previous revelation, thus making “they” the Jews and Christians to whom the Gosepl and Torah were given.

Thus we understand when God says;

002.106

YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

016.101

YUSUFALI: When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
He means replace Torah and Gospel, which is replaced with something better which is the Quran

b. If we consider that the Arabic word ayat in the above verse refers to the verses of the Qur’an, and not previous revelations, then it indicates that none of the verses of the Qur’an are abrogated by Allah but substituted with something better or similar. This means that certain verses of the Qur’an, that were revealed earlier were substituted by verses that were revealed later. I agree with both the interpretations.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims misunderstand the second interpretation to mean that some of the earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and no longer hold true for us today, as they have been replaced by the later verses of the Qur’an or the abrogating verses. This group of people even wrongly believe that these verses contradict each other.

Let us analyze a few such examples.

Produce a recital like the Qur’an / 10 Surahs / 1 Surah:
Some pagan Arabs alleged that the Qur’an was forged by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Allah (swt) challenges these Arabs in the following verse of Surah Al-Isra:
"Say: If the whole of Mankind and Jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur’an they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support." [Al-Qur’an 17:88]

Later the challenge was made easy in the following verse of Surah Al-Hud:

"Or they may say, "He forged it." Say, "Bring ye then ten Surahs forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsover ye can, other than Allah, if ye speak the truth!’." [Al-Qur’an 11:13]

It was made easier in the following verse of Surah Yunus:

"Or do they say, "He forged it"? Say: "Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!’."[Al-Qur’an 10:38]

Finally in Surah Al-Baqarah, Allah (swt) further simplified the challenge:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.But if ye cannot – and of a surety ye cannot – then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones – which is prepared for those who reject faith". [Al-Qur’an 2:23-24]
Thus Allah (swt) made the challenges progressively easier. The progressively revealed verses of the Qur’an first challenged the pagans to produce a book like the Qur’an, then challenged them to produce ten Surahs (chapters) like those in the Qur’an, then one Surah and finally it challenges them to produce one Surah somewhat similar (mim mislihi) to the Qur’anic Surahs. This does not mean that the later verses that were revealed i.e. of Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verses 23 and 24 contradict the earlier three verses. Contradiction implies mentioning two things that cannot be possible simultaneously, or cannot take place simultaneously.
The earlier verses of the Qur’an i.e. the abrogated verses are still the word of God and the information contained in it is true to this day. For instance the challenge to produce a recital like the Qur’an stands to this day. Similarly the challenge to produce ten Surahs and one Surah exactly like the Qur’an also holds true and the last challenge of producing one surah somewhat similar to the Qur’an also holds true. It does not contradict the earlier challenges, but this is the easiest of all the challenges posed by the Qur’an. If the last challenge cannot be fulfilled, the question of anyone fulfilling the other three more difficult challenges does not arise.
Suppose I speak about a person that he is so dumb, that he would not be able to pass the year 10 in school. Later I say that he would not be able to pass the year 5, and further say that he would not be able to pass even the year 1. Finally I say that he is so dumb that he would not even be able to pass Nursery. One has to pass Nursery before one can be admitted to school. What I am stating is that the person is so dumbl as to be unable to even pass nursery. My four statements do not contradict each other, but my last statement i.e. the person would not be able to pass Nursery is sufficient to indicate the intelligence of that person. If a person cannot even pass Nursery, the question of him passing the year 1 or 5 or 10, does not arise.
Gradual prohibition of intoxicants

Another example of such verses is that related to gradual prohibition of intoxicants. The first revelation of the Qur’an to deal with intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Baqarah:
"They ask thee concerning wine and gambling say: ‘In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit’." [Al-Qur’an 2:219]

The next verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants is the following verse from Surah Nisa:

"O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say" [Al-Qur’an 4:43]

The last verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Al-Maidah:

"O ye who believe! intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork; eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper."

[Al-Qur’an 5:90]

The Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years. Many reforms that were brought about in the society were gradual. This was to facilitate the adoption of new laws by the people. An abrupt change in society always leads to rebellion and anarchy.

The prohibition of intoxicants was revealed in three stages. The first revelation only mentioned that in the intoxicants there is great sin and some profit but the sin is greater than the profit. The next revelation prohibited praying in an intoxicated state, indicating that one should not consume intoxicants during the day, since a Muslim has to pray five times a day. This verse does state that when one is not praying at night one is allowed to consume intoxicants. It means one may have or one may not have. The Qur’an does not comment on it. If this verse had mentioned that one is allowed to have intoxicants while not praying then there would have been a contradiction. God chose words appropriately. Finally the total prohibition of intoxicants at all times was revealed in Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 90.
This clearly indicates that the three verses do not contradict each other. Had they been contradicting, it would not have been possible to follow all the three verses simultaneously. Since a Muslim is expected to follow each and every verse of the Qur’an, only by following the last verse i.e. of Surah Maidah (5:90), he simultaneously agrees and follows the previous two verses.

Suppose I say that I do not live in Birmingham. Later I say that I do not live in West Midlands. Finally I say, I do not live in England. This does not imply that these three statements contradict each other. Each statement gives more information than the previous statement. The third statement includes the information contained in the first two statements. Thus, only by saying that I do not live in England, it is obvious, that I also do not live in Birmingham. Similarly since consuming alcohol is totally prohibited, it is obvious that praying in an intoxicated state is also prohibited and the information that in intoxicants is "great sin and some profit for men; but the sin is greater than profit" also holds true.

Qur’an does not contain any contradictions

The theory of abrogation does not imply that there is a contradiction in the Qur’an, since it is possible to follow all the verses of the Qur’an at the same time.
If there is a contradiction in the Qur’an, then it cannot be the word of God

"Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy (contradictions)."

[Al-Qur’an 4:82]

Islam on slave girls/concubines

2011-06-01T14:58:00.000+01:00

It is true that a lot of people push this subject ‘under the rug’ and do not understand it or are sometimes ashamed of this concept. That is because, today’s society and behavior is absolutely different from the conditions prevalent 1500 years ago at the time of Revelation of the Quran. There is no place on earth where this concept is practiced today, thus to really understand the concept in its entirety, we must try to imagine the times of the Revelation of the Glorious Quran.

Since time immemorial, slavery was an accepted practice; thus it was not Islam that started this practice, but rather Islam was the first system to inculcate the freedom of slaves and take steps to make them equal citizens of society. Slavery was abolished in modern society only a couple of centuries ago, and was openly practiced in almost all parts of the civilized world even until the early 1900s. But Islam made it a virtue to free slaves, and inculcate them into society as equal citizens, almost 1500 years ago

The prophet said regarding the rights of slaves:

Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them.

Source: Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124

Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were: "The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves ! "

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 158.

· Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised that slaves should be well-treated. He said, 'Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created.' "

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 188.

· Sallam ibn 'Amr reported from one of the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Your slaves are your brothers, so treat him well. Ask for their help in what is too much for you and help them in what is too much for them."

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 190.

· Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The slave has his food and clothing. Do not burden a slave with work which he is incapable of doing."

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 192.

Not one of you should [ when introducing someone ] say ‘This is my slave’ , ‘This is my concubine’. He should call them ‘my daughter’ or ‘my son’ or ‘my brother’.

Source: Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2 ,4

For this reason ‘Umar and his servant took it in turns to ride on the camel from Madina to Jerusalem on their journey to take control of Masjid al-Aqsa. While he was the head of the state, ‘Uthman had his servant pull his own ears in front of the people since he had pulled his. Abu Dharr, applying the hadith literally, made his servant wear one half of his suit while he himself wore the other half. From these instances, it was being demonstrated to succeeding generations of Muslims, and a pattern of conduct established, that a slave is fully a human being, not different from other people in his need for respect and dignity and justice.

"The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among “themselves with their master's permission - or with free men or women ! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all “affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over “an impious free man." Source: Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir ( vol.16, pp. 338-358 )

The Prophet, had stipulated in his "last pilgrimage" speech:

"And your slaves ! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a “mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented! "

Source: Ibn Sa'd, op. cit., vol. II:1, p. 133

"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him ; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours “who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the way-farer (ye meet), And what your right hands possess : for God loveth not the arrogant, the “vainglorious" Surah An Nisa, verse 36

The phrase "What your right hands possess" refers to one’s slaves (male and female). Allah swt ordains the kind treatment of slaves in the same verse where He commands man to worship Him and to treat his parents, relations and neighbours generously, and this signifies the importance of this ruling.

What were the rights of concubines?

The status was similar to that of wife. The children were exactly like the other children from the person’s legally wedded wife. They were to be given exactly the same rights as his other children. The children of the slave girl would inherit the property exactly as the other children. There was absolutely no difference amongst the children. And once any slave girl bore a child, she could not be sold to anybody else and thus became a permanent member of the household.

Then you will probably ask how is this any different from the modern days concept of a mistress/prostitution/adultery?

There is a huge difference between the slave girls of those times and the system of prostitution which is so prevalent as a disease in today’s society.

The slave girl was a social issue of the times, which if not solved by Islam would give rise to adultery and prostitution. In prostitution, the woman sells here services for a fee to anyone who is willing to pay. The slave girl was taken into a household as a full member.

In prostitution, the woman has sexual relationships with many men. The slave girl would have sexual relations only with the person she was given to; very similar to the husband-wife relationship, the only difference being that the wife came into the house through a marriage contract, and the slave girl was allotted to the person by the state.

Prostitution is a result of illegal lust, and is a huge sin in the eyes of Allah.

The allocation of slave girls was a issue of the times to envelope the woman taken as slaves in a war into the Islamic society. Prostitution and adultery do not have any responsibility attached to it. The man- woman have a one-off relationship and depart. The slave girls were a responsibility of the person, who spent on them, gave them a place to live, fed them, clothed them, and raised their children as his children.

The children from adultery and prostitution are regarded as born out of wedlock and grow up without the name and without the shadow of a father. The children of the slave girls were known as the children of the person, grew up with his other children, and had exactly the same rights and inheritance as the other offspring. The system of slave girls was accepted and respected by the Islamic society of the times. The slave girl was treated like his wife, and the children from these slave girls were treated like their children by society. No religion, no state, no moral society accepts and respects the institutions of prostitution and adultery. This is a disease of society and every moral society has tried to eradicate this disease with little success.

Despite this, it was not simply a case of forcing someone into having sex to satisfy your desires.

Below are three English translations to the Verse where Allah commands the Muslim men to not force their slave women into sex.

The following translations were taken from http://mama.stg.brown.edu/webs/quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml

Translation: Yusufali:

"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

Translation: Pickthall:

"And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

Translation: Shakir:

"And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

In all three translations, we clearly see that if the slave woman desires to keep chaste, then her Muslim master must not compel her into sex. It might sound odd to us today, but pagans back then were used to having sex with and raping their slave girls, even the ones who were married:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

So to women back then, it was something normal for a married slave woman to sleep with her master. It was something normal in the society at that time.

Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran not only allows for the slave man or woman to earn their freedom from their Muslim master, and receive money from their Muslim master to help them start their free life, but also commands the Muslim men to not compel their slave women into sex.
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him also said:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

Islam came to liberate all slaves and to end the Judeo-Christian and Pagan slavery that was practiced before Islam. When Allah Almighty made lawful for the Muslim men to have sex with their slave women, He did it to keep the Islamic society back then during Islam's weak, partial and venerable times under control.

Also, if any compulsion was made unto the slave woman, then Allah Almighty will add more mercy and forgiveness unto her in the Day of Judgement. Below is the commentary on this exact section and point in Noble Verse 24:33 by Minister (Sheikh) Abdullah Yusuf Ali; may Allah Almighty rest his soul:

"The poor unfortunate girls, who are victims of such a nefarious trade (i.e., slave trade), will yet find mercy from Allah, whose bounties extend to the lowest of His creatures."

When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad, slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.

In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.

Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-à-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.

Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free.

Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.

Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.

As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse: “And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.” (An-Nisaa’: 25)

This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.

In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it's something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.

This is not a practice for today which allows men to take extra sexual partners in addition to his wife, or a loophole as you put it. You have the same responsibilty to the slave girl as you would to the wife, with the same inheritence rights for the children born out of such relations hence it is more of a burden than a loophole to escape the 'treating wives equally' concept. Regardless of that, it is not a concept which is in practice today or encouraged for today. It was something specifically utilised and designed for 1500 years ago where the practice was already widespread. All Islam did was to bring structure to what was already in existence, and eventually aim to remove it all together. One may say it should be banned straight away, why the long drawn out process.

The reality is however human nature does not allow for such action. People gradually get use to change, and the Quran itself was revealed over a long period of time for this reason so people could gradually get use to the injunctions and guidelines and thus adapt better. That is exactly the case with this issue, rules were bought in to slowly eradicate the practice and give rights to women who without Islam would have nothing equivalent to rely upon

Surah 3 verse 178 explained "God gives respite for more sins"

2011-06-01T13:42:00.000+01:00

Allegation:

"Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them." If there is a chance for unbelievers to return to righteousness, why does Allah say he is "only" allowing them to live so they can "commit more grievous sins." It says nothing about giving the unbelievers a chance to become righteous. If they had a chance to become righteous due to their prolonged days, then this by definition would be for their own good.

Answer:

First of all to make it clear the translations use the word unbelievers which generally implies anyone who does not believe will be treated in so and so manner. The actual word used in arabic is 'kafir' or 'kafiroon' which means one who covers or conceals, in this case conceals the truth. So the harsh nature of the verses are actually referring to those who intentionally lie and conceal the truth as oppose to those who just generally do not believe.

"Wala yahsabanna allatheena KAFARoo annama numlee lahum khayrun li-anfusihim innamanumlee lahum liyazdadoo ithman walahum AAathabunmuheenun"

This difficulty in language is just due the different structures of arabic and english, like I said before there are multiple words to describe the one word in english

The literal translation of the arabic is:

"And (let not) those who disbelieved think/suppose (E) that We extend in time/life/enjoyment/delay goodness for themselves, but We extend in time/life/enjoyment/delay for them to increase (them in) sin/crime, and for them (is) a despised torture"

A more accurate translation is:

YUSUFALI: Let not the Unbelievers think that our respite to them is good for themselves: We grant them respite that they may grow in their iniquity: But they will have a shameful punishment

Now lets look at the verses before and after 3:178:

003.167

YUSUFALI: And the Hypocrites also. These were told: "Come, fight in the way of Allah, or (at least) drive (The foe from your city)." They said: "Had we known how to fight, we should certainly have followed you." They were that day nearer to Unbelief than to Faith, saying with their lips what was not in their hearts but Allah hath full knowledge of all they conceal.

003.168

YUSUFALI: (They are) the ones that say, (of their brethren slain), while they themselves sit (at ease): "If only they had listened to us they would not have been slain." Say: "Avert death from your own selves, if ye speak the truth."

003.169

YUSUFALI: Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord;

003.170

YUSUFALI: They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.

003.171

YUSUFALI: They glory in the Grace and the bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least).

003.172

YUSUFALI: Of those who answered the call of Allah and the Messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward;-

003.173

YUSUFALI: Men said to them: "A great army is gathering against you": And frightened them: But it (only) increased their Faith: They said: "For us Allah sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs."

003.174

YUSUFALI: And they returned with Grace and bounty from Allah: no harm ever touched them: For they followed the good pleasure of Allah: And Allah is the Lord of bounties unbounded.

003.175

YUSUFALI: It is only the Evil One that suggests to you the fear of his votaries: Be ye not afraid of them, but fear Me, if ye have Faith.

003.176

YUSUFALI: Let not those grieve thee who rush headlong into Unbelief: Not the least harm will they do to Allah: Allah's plan is that He will give them no portion in the Hereafter, but a severe punishment.

003.177

YUSUFALI: Those who purchase Unbelief at the price of faith,- not the least harm will they do to Allah, but they will have a grievous punishment.

003.178

YUSUFALI: Let not the Unbelievers think that our respite to them is good for themselves: We grant them respite that they may grow in their iniquity: But they will have a shameful punishment.

003.179

YUSUFALI: Allah will not leave the believers in the state in which ye are now, until He separates what is evil from what is good nor will He disclose to you the secrets of the Unseen. But He chooses of His Messengers (For the purpose) whom He pleases. So believe in Allah. And His messengers: And if ye believe and do right, ye have a reward without measure.

The verse you quote therefore is part of a running commentary on the hypocrites and those who concealed the truth. If you look at it as one isolated verse, it gives the impression that God condemns all unbelievers to hell no matter what they do, but no verse was ever revealed with the intention that it alone would be read. The Quran is revealed as a book and should be looked at as a whole.

It is beyond the principle of Allâh to punish a person or a community immediately after a sin is committed (16:61; 35:45). Under the fair system of justice, it is imperative that all sinners are given adequate opportunity, time and resources to arbitrate their case and nobody should be brought to book unless s/he was given proper hearing in the court of justice. Under the divine system of justice, all sinners are allowed enough time in life so that no person or community can express alibi of not getting an opportunity to rectify and amend. Thus, in the history of a nation it is not unusual to see anarchy and transgression continues unabated and sinners keep on averting divine punishment. God's giving respite to the sinners is not necessarily good for them since they are unable to utilize it in rightful manner. Due to their habitual rejection of truth and routine violation of moral, ethical and spiritual standards, the respite of time only increases their share of sin.

And again it links into the principle that all things are within the knowledge and power of the supreme being, and everything happens with his permission. So even though they do it, the ultimate power and creation of the whole system whereby which sins and good deeds take place is created by the designer, and that is God. The we do this and we do that is simply used to illustrate the power of God and that everything is under his control. It is a literary ploy to emphasise Gods greatness more than a malicious personal vendetta against non believers

Why does Allah seal the hearts?

2011-05-31T21:03:00.000+01:00

The verse in question:

"As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them." (Surah 2 verses 6 and 7)

Firstly the context of the verses should be made clear. They were revealed at a time when the Prophet had just delivered the message of Islam to the people, and new Muslims were facing persecution and violence. Along with this there were a lot of political conversions from people who aimed to destroy Islam from within before it started spreading. These people were referred to as hypocrites.
There is a hadith on this issue:

"When a sin is committed for the first time, a black point, that is, a black stain occurs in the heart. If the person repents and asks forgiveness from Allah, the heart shines again. I the person does not repent and he repeats the sin, the stain becomes larger; in time, it becomes so large that it covers all of the heart like a cover. It is what is mentioned in the following verse in Chapter al-Mutaffifin: "By no means! But on their hearts is the stain of the (ill) which they do!" (al-Mutaffifin, 83/14). It is the stain mentioned in the verse."

There are a number of verses that show that their disbelief came about by their own choice and volition such as His sayings:

"But they preferred blindness over guidance." (41:17)

"Those are they who have purchased misguidance at the price of guidance, torment at the price of forgiveness." (2:175)

"Then whosoever wills let him believe, and whosoever wills let him disbelieve." (18:29)

"This is because of the (evil) which your hands have sent before you." (3:182)

"Evil indeed is that which their own selves have sent forward." (5:80)

The reconciliation between these verses lies in the fact that the seal and covering placed upon their ears, eyes and hearts is done as punishment from Allaah for their insisting upon disbelief and their denying the Messengers out of their own choice. So Allaah punished them for their doing this in a fitting and reciprocal way as He has clarified with His sayings:

"Allaah has set a seal upon their hearts because of their disbelief." (4:155)

"That is because they believed, then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed so they understand not." (63:3)

"And We shall turn their hearts and their eyes away (from guidance), as they refused to believe therein for the first time" (6:110)

"So when they turned away (from the Path), Allaah turned their hearts away." (61:5)

"In their hearts is a disease and Allaah has increased their disease." (2:10)

"Nay! But on their hearts is the covering of sins which they used to earn." (83:14)

However the word veil mention in this verse (ghishawah) is the veil that you still can see through, it is temporary and can be removed. You would say what does that matter, but arabic is a rich language with several words for the one equivalent word in english so the choice of word is key and is for a specific reason. This is emphasised by a number of other verses that prove that some of the disbelievers did believe in Allaah and His Messenger (and hence became Muslims) such as His sayings:

"Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from their disbelief) their past will be forgiven." (8:38)

"So were you yourselves in the past (i.e. disbelievers) until Allaah conferred upon you His Favours." (4:94)

"And some of these (disbelievers) believe therein." (29:47)

Their hearts are only sealed for as long as they wish to keep themselves in denial and ignorance. So, if a person wishes to open his eyes and learn, his seal will be removed. The seal is dependent on the actions and intentions of the person in question. So despite the verse in question, some individuals could be preached to and in fact were preached to successfully.

Just like the strengthening of one's heart and belief is attributed to Allah 8:10-11,10:57,18:14,48:4,57:27 the natural phenomenon of sealing of the hearts, ears, and eyes exists with the will of Allah, like each and every natural phenomenon such as rain etc., this is why it is attributed to Allah.Everything that occurs is within the boundary of the divine laws created and designed by God.

We must not think that "either I did it or God did it." Both did it. What do I mean? Let's say you choose to burn your hand with fire. Did you burn yourself? Yes

However, the existence of fire, the physical laws that surround the fire, the biological properties of your body and etc., are all created by God. So, your action was/is/ and always will be based on God's divine/universal laws. You yourself seal your own heart by rejecting the message of God, but God says that He seals your heart because your heart is sealed by the laws created by God. Everything is within the knowledge of God and hence everything happening in the scheme of things is due to God's will, but this does not negate your own free will. You still have consequences for your actions. It may sound slightly confusing but it is linked into the larger topic of predestination which is a different discussion entirely

So again for this specific verse, you commit the misdeed and as a result and based on God's divine laws, your misdeeds will lead to the sealing of your heart. This occurs because that is how God created and designed the laws. This and other verses similar to this show the consequences of negative actions. It is similar to the rusting of the iron, to the rotof a tree or to the smutting of the mirror out of negligence, because the human decay is similar to the decay of the nature

In other words, Divine destiny and decree are but a part and parcel of the regulations governing the cosmos and the necessity of an effect following its complete cause. And in the case of the volitional acts of the human being, will, decision, and intention are among the essential components of the complete cause and hence are necessary to bring about his volitional acts. When the human being performs a certain action, its effects inescapably leave their impression on the human soul and psyche. In this light, if the human being himself prepares the grounds for God sealing his heart, by the Law of the cosmos, its effects will haunt him.

In the light of what has been said the following points can be highlighted:

1. God sealing of the heart is the direct outcome of the volitional conduct of the human being.

2. As the sealing of the heart is part of the cosmic scheme of Divine destiny and decree, it is attributed to God

3. The human being whose heart has been tainted by the dross of sin can add to his spiritual contamination by repeating the past mistakes. It should be noted that this perpetuation of sin is on his own accord.

4. Although it is very difficult for the sinful human being whose heart is covered with the dross of sin to return to the path of righteousness and is very unlikely, it is not impossible. He can choose with a firm resolution to embark on purging his heart of the darkness of sin. In other words, if the soul and heart of the unbeliever and hypocrite become sealed and dark and debased such that no bright space remains, he is, to employ the words of the Quran, finished and there is no hope of his redemption. He has intentionally removed himself from the path of guidance and light and thus has shut the door of repentance on himself.

What is Taqiyya?

2011-05-28T18:57:00.001+01:00

The Anti-Muslim demagogues love to talk about this weird, so called, rule that permits Muslims to lie to spread Islam. I had never even heard of it until I was accused of it by someone in a discussion once. The basic idea, according to them, is that if any Muslim ever denies being a blood thirsty lunatic engaged in perpetual war against the West, they must be lying. Muslims are simply presumed guilty, and if we profess innocence that is only further evidence of our guilt.

It should be fairly clear to any rational being that lying to spread a religion is nonsensical. If I lie to you about what Islam is and you convert I haven't spread Islam because what you have accepted was a lie.

These constant stream of Islamophobes carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”) also end up convincing the average joe non muslim about this myth

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers) and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”.

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.” [1]

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).” [2]

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal.

Sadly, Islamophobes – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonise Muslims – have misapplied this term in their exaggerated claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death” [1]

So, this make a mockery of the Islamophobes’ general suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.” [2]

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution!

For further clarity, we are not talking about general, everyday fibs here, thus the ethical question of dishonesty is bypassed:

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.” [1]

Sadly, our Islamophobic counterparts attempt to convince the gullible that takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) allows Muslims to lie (or conceal) about aspects of their faith (Islam) as well as lie in general.

Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)

A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar B. Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, p) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam. [1] [3]

The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire”. [3]

“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities” [3]

Ammar bin Yasir told Prophet Muhammad (p) of what he was forced to say.

“The Prophet (p) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.” [3]

So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

If Jesus (pbuh) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!

Taqiyyah and the Shi’ites (Shia)

"It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims. "[2]

Obviously, if these Shi’ites felt they would have been persecuted for publicly announcing their shia beliefs, one can understand why they concealed (used taqiyya) their beliefs.

Is taqiyyah allowed in the Quran?

Our Islamophobic friends jump up and down in joy whilst proclaiming taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya) is allowed in the Quran. Let’s analyse (via scholarship) the two Verses they cite.

Quran 16:106 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

The reason for this verse is unanimously said to have been the case of Ammar b. Yasir, whose conscience was set at rest by this revelation when he was worried about his forced worshipping of idols and objurgation of the Prophet. [1]

The story of Ammar bin Yassir is relayed earlier (see above).

Tabari says on Sura 16:106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323 sqq.24.122): If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls him on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe” [1]

The Quran’s (16:106) allowance of uttering disbelief whilst under extreme force is hardly justification for the outrageous smears the Islamophobes propagate.

Quran 3:28 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their guardians in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. [Pikthal translation of the Quran 3:28]

This Verse instructs Muslims to not take the unbelievers as patrons over the believers but does allow for this in the case of fear. Tuqatan is used here (a verbal noun of taqiyyah). Tafsir Jalalayn explains:
“unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” [Tafsir Jalalayn – 3:28]

It is hardly something Islamophobes can latch onto as evidence for their demonization of Muslims as this Verse allows concealment (taqiyyah, taqiyya, takiya) in the case of fear (i.e. to avoid persecution). We are essentially back to where we started as initially stated on taqiyyah:

Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury. [1]

Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”). [2]

Lying about the Prophet Muhammad (p)

Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (p). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

“Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell” (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12) [4]

In fact, presenting misinformation about the Prophet (p) was considered an extreme offense amongst early Muslim communities:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his [Prophet Muhammad’s] description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. [5]

So much for the Islamophobes claims of “Muslims using taqiyyah” regarding Prophet Muhammad (p).

Conclusion

Taqiyyah (taqiya, takiya) is not something to be writing home about. To use this practice to brandish Muslims as untrustworthy (or to demonise them) is unscholarly and unjust.

If you do encounter an anti-Muslim bigot on the internet crying “taqiyya” (there are plenty about), please do send him/her to this group to be educated

References

[1] Article by R. Strothmann, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Fourth impression, 1995, E.J. Brill Leiden. New York. Koln p. 561 - 562
[2] The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, p450-451.

[3] Men and Women around the Messenger, Sa’d Yusuf Abu ‘Aziz, Translated by Suleman Fulani, Darussalam, 2009, p. 286-287

[4] Reliance of the Traveller, Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications, 2008, r8.0, p 747

[5] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004, p. 387

Marriages of the Prophet

2011-05-28T18:49:00.000+01:00

Unbiased historians, both Muslims and Christians, are agreed that the number of marriages contracted by the Prophet of Islam was not as a result of lust or to satisfy the sexual desires. If this had been the case, he would not have married the twice-widowed Khadijah, 40 years old, at the youthful age of 25 when one is full of emotion and sexual urge.

Prophet Mubammad (s.a.w.) lived together with his first (and, at that time, only) wife, Khadijah, happily for 26 years with great mutual affection, despite the fact that young and beautiful girls of Arabia were easily available to him and were keen to be married to the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Not even once, during that period, did the Prophet Muhammad (saw) take another wife. Undoubtedly he would have at least considered another younger wife simultaneously with Khadijah if he ever suffered from lust and fondness of young women, particularly when the country's customs wholly approved unlimited marriages.
Let us look at the life history of the Prophet of Islam. During the prime of his life, he remains satisfied with an aged and twice-widowed wife, and does not even think of another. Then during the last ten years of his life, after passing the age of fifty, in his old age, when he is surrounded by various difficult problems of the newly-born Islamic State, he starts marrying a number of wives.

Was it not a difficult exercise and heavy burden to marry widows and support their orphans? Was it easy for a perfectly dignified man in the person of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) to marry women of different outlook, characters and tribes, including some of much younger age who were still unaware of the full responsibilities of life?

Let us ponder over the reply to these questions as given by a famous western historian, Thomas Carlyle in his book "Heroes and Heroes Worship". He says in effect that contrary to what his enemies accuse him, Muhammad was never lusty and sexualize and that it was a slander only out of prejudice against him and this indeed is a great injustice.
John Devenport says, "and it may then be asked, is it likely that a very sensual man, of a country where polygamy was a common practice, should be contented for five-and-twenty years with one wife, she being fifteen years older than himself".

List of wives of the prophet of Islam:

After the death of his first wife, Khadijah, he married upto twelve wives in the following order:

Sawdah

A'ishah bint Abu Bark Siddiq (first Caliph)

Umm Salamah

Hafsah bint Omer Farooq (second Caliph)

Zaynab bint-Khuzaymah

Zaynab bint-Jahsh

Umm-Habibah (Ramla) bint Abu Sufyan

Maymunah

Zaynab bint-Umais

Juwayriyah

Safiyah

Khawlah bint-Hakim

Let us examine the circumstances and conditions under which these marriages had taken place.

In principle, it can be stated that the marriages were contracted with one or more of the following objectives:

(1) For the sake of caring for the orphans and looking after the poor widows. These were some Muslim women who had earlier enjoyed high dignity in the Arab society. But on the death of their husbands, their status and even faith were in jeopardy, because their tribal chiefs would take them back and compel them to renounce Islam, thus converting them back to polytheism.

For example, Sawdah had migrated to Abyssinia where her husband died, and she became absolutely without helper. It was the time when the Prophet Muhammad (saw) had lost Khadijah, his first wife; so he married Sawdah.

Likewise, Zaynab daughter of Khuzaymah, was an old-aged widow, who after the death of her husband was inflicted with poverty, despite her being amiable and being known as 'Ummul-Masakin' (Mother of the poor). Prophet Muhammad (saw) married her to uphold her dignity and she died of old age only after two years of that marriage.

(2) For the sake of enacting a new law and eradicating injustice by the ignorant tribes. For example, Zaynab bint-Jahsh was the daughter of the Prophet's aunt. She was married, at the recommendation of the Prophet, to Zayd ibn-Harithah, the freed slave and adopted son of the Prophet. This marriage was contracted to eradicate the discrimination against slaves and poor and to emphasize the Islamic equality and brotherhood, as Zaynab was from the family of Abd al-Muttalib, the grandfather of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the Chief of Quraysh, whereas Zayd was a slave who was freed by the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Unfortunately, Zaynab due to her family pride, did not get along well with Zayd despite Prophet's persuasions. The rift between the two culminated into divorce. Meanwhile, the system of adoption of children was expressly forbidden by Allah (SWT). So, when Zayd divorced Zaynab, the Prophet of Islam, at the express command of God, married Zaynab; and, thus, put an end to the then prevalent belief that adopted sons were like real sons and that wives or widows of adopted sons were like daughters-in-laws.

(3) For the sake of freeing prisoners and slaves. For example, 'Juwayriyah' was from a prominent tribe of Banul-Mustalaq. In a war against Islam this tribe was defeated; and Juwayriyah, the daughter of their Chief, was held in captivity. Prophet Muhammad (saw) married her to set an example of protection and good treatment to prisoners of war.

On seeing that the prisoners had become relatives of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) by marriage, the Muslims released all the prisoners of war held by them. According to Ibne Hisham, over one hundred families of Banul-Mustalaq were freed from captivity as a result of this marriage.

(4) For the sake of uniting some prominent Arab tribes who often were at logger heads with each other and to safeguard the internal political status of Islam.

Prophet Muhammad (saw) married A'ishah daughter of Abu Bakr Siddiq (first caliph) from the tribe of Bani Tim, Hafsah daughter of Omar ibn Al-Khattab (second caliph) from the tribe of Adi, Umm-Habibah daughter of Abu Sufyan from the tribe of Umayyah, Safiyah daughter of Huaiy bin Akhtab of the Jewish tribe of Bani an-Nadir, and Maymunah from the tribe of Bani Makhzum.

Umm-Habibah (i.e. Ramla) was daughter of Abu Sufyan of Bani Umayyah who was the bitterest enemy of Prophet Muhammad (saw) and had repeatedly fought against him. She, as a Muslim, was in great distress since she was divorced from her original husband (who had become a Christian in Abyssinia) and her father was a great enemy of Islam.

Seeing her deprived of every help from parent and divorced from husband, Prophet Muhammad (saw) married her in sympathy. This marriage also gave a chance to the people of Bani Umayyah to soften their hearts for Islam.

Safiyah was widowed daughter of Huaiy bin Akhtab, one of the chiefs of Jewish tribe of Bani an-Nadir. When the prisoners of this tribe were released by the Muslims, Prophet Muhammad (saw) married her in order to safeguard her status; and, thus, also linking himself with one of the great Jewish tribes of that time, and paving the way for them to come nearer to Islam.

Maymunah was 51 years of age and from a prominent tribe of Bani Makhzum whom Prophet Muhammad (saw) married in the year 7 after Hijrah.

The above marital history of Prophet Muhammad (saw) clearly shows the noble aim and objectives for which he married a number of wives. It is not difficult to see that none of these marriages was for personal satisfaction of sexual desires as unjustifiably accused by some. Also, it is important to remember that all of these marriages, except that with A'ishah bint Abu Bark Siddiq, were contracted with women who were widowed not only once, but often twice or thrice.

Polygamy in Islam

2011-05-28T18:44:00.000+01:00

Polygamy (plurality of wives) is one of the controversial questions in the family system of Islam. The following are a few points worth of consideration in an effort to clarify the wisdom of polygamy and when it can be used:

Islam has emphasized that taking advantage of the permission of polygamy is conditional on the observance of several factors and circumstances -as it will be explained later. If the man lacks those material and moral conditions, or he is not competent enough to satisfy all of them, then he will not be eligible to take more than one wife. Also, Islam has emphasized that the basic objective of healthy marital life comes from mutual love and benevolence between the husband and the wife which normally can be found in the form of regular marriage - monogamy. Preservation of that cordiality, stability, and purity in the family life can be seen clearly in the Quranic doctrines as well as in the tradition of the prophet (p.b.u.h):

The Quran says:

“And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.”(Quran 30: 21)”

" live with them ( wife or wives) on a footing of kindness and equity” (Quran 4:19)

“And women (wives) shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (Quran 2:28)

Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) said:

"The best man among you is the best with his wife".

”The best of your women are those: Who are loving and kindly; who look after their chastity; Who are not arrogant or disobedient to their husbands; Who are faithful to their husband in their absence.”

Imam Ali (A.S.) said:

"By your chastity protect your wife from casting an evil eye on others stealthily and entertaining an idea of sin".

"Be kind to your wife and treat her well. Kindness will change her for the better, will keep her satisfied and will preserve her health and beauty".

Is there a perfect Solution?

As a realistic religion that legislates real solutions for humanity, Islam avoided any utopian doctrine. In many of its laws, Islam keeps in mind the flexibility of the law and the realistic factors and circumstances. A law can not be 100% good for every person, groups, culture, or country. However, Islam considers the over all values and gaining. If the advantages of a law overcome its disadvantages, then that law would be legislated and vise versa. This concept is driven from Quran: “They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great harm (sin) and some benefits for people; but the harm (sin) is greater than the benefits (2:219).”

Polygamy before Islam

Polygamy existed before the advent of Islam among several civilizations and religions. All that Islam has done is restricted it and make more organized and civilized.

In his book, History of Civilization (vol.1 p.61), Will Durant says:

The clerics in the Middle Ages thought that polygamy was an innovation of the Prophet of Islam. But that is not the case. As we have seen, it has been practiced in most societies before Islam.

Among the history lots of stories were narrated about men who cheated on their wives or got married with more than one. Take an example from the bible: some people accuse prophets and make them look sinful just not to say they had more than one wife. Isn’t that Abraham (peace be up on him) was married Sarah and from her he had Isaac and simultaneously he was married to his made and had from her Ishmael?

The following are some phrases from the bible

"After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him."

2 Samuel 5:13

"He (Solomon) had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines..."

1 Kings 11:3

"And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Genesis 4:19

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh..."

Deuteronomy 21:15

"if he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall her not diminish."

Exodus 21:10

The point here is not to say that monogamy never been practiced or not applicable. However, it is just a wondering that how come the legalized polygamy in Islam is inferior to the unlimited clandestine adultery in other religions and civilizations.

Polygamy and its Preconditions in Islam

Islam allows polygamy when:

a- The wife(s) has no objection about polygamy during or before the marriage contract. And if the husband disregards that, the wife has the right to raise that to the Islamic court.

b- Equitable treatment for all the wives

c- Number of wives not to exceed four

What was the purpose of the Verse 4:3?

Verse 4:3 was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in Madina after he migrated to it from Mecca and established an Islamic state there right after the battle of Uhud in which the Muslims not only had lost badly against the Pagans, but also suffered a dramatic decrease in the number of Muslim men. The Muslim men before that battle were approximately 700. They became only 400 after the battle. This loss had left so many Muslim women (1) Widows, and (2) Not able to get married if they were single.

To make matters even worse, the Muslims had faced yet another battle against the Pagans in Mecca and its neighboring tribes who wanted to attack the Muslims in Madina to finish off Islam once and for all, and by the Jews and the Christians in Madina who betrayed the Muslims in the "battle of Trench" after signing a defense treaty with Muhammad peace be upon him against the Pagans.

The Quran limited the maximum number of wives to four. In the early days of Islam, those who had more than four wives at the time of embracing Islam were required to divorce the extra wives. Islam further reformed the institution of polygamy by requiring equal treatment to all wives. The Muslim is not permitted to differentiate between his wives in regards to sustenance and expenditures, time, and other obligations of husbands. Islam does not allow a man to marry another woman if he will not be fair in his treatment. Prophet Muhammad forbade discrimination between the wives or between their children.

Also, marriage and polygamy in Islam is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Islam simply permits polygamy; it neither forces nor requires it. Besides, a woman may stipulate that her husband must not marry any other woman as a second wife in her prenuptial contract. The point that is often misunderstood in the West is that women in other cultures - especially African and Islamic - do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women’s degradation. Consequently, to equate polygamy with degrading women is an ethnocentric judgment of other societies.

Even though we see the clear permissibility of polygamy in Islam, its actual practice is quite rare in many Muslim societies. Some researchers estimate no more than 2% of the married males practice polygamy. Most Muslim men feel they cannot afford the expense of maintaining more than one family. Even those who are financially capable of looking after additional families are often reluctant due to the psychological burdens of handling more than one wife. One can safely say that the number of polygamous marriages in the Muslim world is much less than the number of extramarital affairs in the West. In other words, contrary to prevalent notion, men in the Muslim world today are more strictly monogamous than men in the Western world.

Karen Armstrong, a well known writer and expert on Islam wrote in Muhammad: A Biography Of The Prophet:

"In seventh-century Arabia, when a man could have as many wives as he chose, to prescribe only four was a limitation, not a license to new oppression. Further, the Quran immediately follows the verses giving Muslims the right to take four wives with a qualification which has been taken very seriously. Unless a man is confident that he can be scrupulously fair to all his wives, he must remain monogamous. Muslim law has built on this: a man must spend absolutely the same amount of time with each of his wives; besides treating each wife equally financially and legally, a man must not have the slightest preference for one but must esteem and love them all equally. It has been widely agreed in the Islamic world that mere human beings cannot fulfill this Quranic requirement: it is impossible to show such impartiality and as a result Muhammad's qualification, which he need not have made, means no Muslim should really have more than one wife. In countries where polygamy has been forbidden, the authorities have justified this innovation not on secular but on religious grounds." -- p. 191

There are people who object to polygamy, but accept polygamous life as a form of human behaviour. Many eyebrows are raised at having a second wife, 'but to have at many 'mistresses' or 'girlfriends' as one likes is accepted in good grace. The contradiction between these two attitudes is conveniently ignored.

I am going to quote Mrs. Annie Besant and Dr. Havelock Ellis on this point. Mrs. Besant says: "There is pretended monogamy in the West, but there is really polygamy without responsibility; the mistress is cast off when the man is weary of her, and sinks gradually to the 'woman of the street, for the first lover has no responsibility for her future and she is a hundred times worse off than the sheltered wife and mother in the polygamous home. When we see thousands of miserable women who crowd the streets of Western towns during the night, we must surely feel that it does not lie within western mouth to reproach Islam for polygamy. It is better for woman, happier for woman, more respectable for woman, to live in polygamy, united to one man only with the legitimate child in her arms, and surrounded with respect, than to be seduced, cast out in the Street - perhaps with an illegitimate child outside the pale of the law -unsheltered and uncared for, to become the victim of any passerby, night after night, rendered incapable of motherhood despised by all." -- Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras, 1932, p.3.

Dr. Havelock Ellis writes: "It must be said that the natural prevalence of monogamy as the normal type of sexual relationship by no means excludes variations, indeed it assumes them. The line of nature is a curve that oscillates from side to side of the norm. Such oscillations occur in harmony with changes in environmental conditions and no doubt with peculiarities of personal disposition. So long as no arbitrary and merely external attempt is made to force Nature the vital order is harmoniously maintained. The most common variation, and that which must clearly possess a biological foundation, is the tendency to polygamy, which is found at all stages of culture, even in an unrecognised and more or less promiscuous shape. In the highest civilisation...'The path of social wisdom seems to lie on the one hand in making marriage relationship flexible enough to reduce to a minimum of these variations - not because such deviations are intrinsically bad but because they ought not to be forced into existence - and on the other hand in according to these deviation when they occur such a measure of recognition, as will deprive them of injurious influence and enable justice to be done to all the parties concerned. We too often forget that our failure to recognise such variations merely means that we accord in such cases an illegitimate permission to perpetrate injustice. In those parts of the world in which polygamy is recognised as a permissible variation a man is legally held to his natural obligations towards all his sexual mates and towards the children he has, by those mates. In no part of the world is polygamy so prevalent as in Christendom; in no part of the world is it so easy for a man to escape the obligations incurred by polygamy. We imagine that if we refuse to recognise the fact of polygamy, we may refuse to recognise any obligations incurred by polygamy. By enabling man to escape so easily, from the obligations of his polygamous relationship we encourage him, if he is unscrupulous, to enter into them; we place a premium on the immorality we loftily condemn. Our polygamy has no legal existence. The ostrich, it was once imagined hides his head in the sand and attempts to annihilate the facts by refusing to look at them; but there is only one known animal which adopts this course of action and it is called Man." -- Ellis, Havelock, The PsychoIogy of Sex, 1910, Vol. IV. Pp.491-92, 493-94

Islam does not allow marriage of multiple wives for males' sexual privileges and desires as Anti-Islamics claim. Verse 4:3 came to solve social problems. Unfortunately today, some Muslims intensify the Muslim's social problems in the Islamic countries by marrying multiple wives and bringing more illiterate and poor kids into the society which on the long run will only keep their entire society below the level of poverty. Therefore, Verse 4:3 doesn't allow polygamy just for anyone or any reason.

The permission to practice polygamy in Islam is not associated with 'mere satisfaction of passion'. It is rather associated with 'compassion' toward widows and orphans, a matter that is confirmed by the atmosphere in which the verse 4:3 was revealed - after the battle of Uhud in which many Muslims were killed, leaving widows and orphans for whom due care was incumbent upon the Muslim survivors.

Polygamy is neither mandatory, nor encouraged, but merely permitted in Islam.

"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them), THEN (MARRY) ONLY ONE…. (Qur’an 4:3)

This verse, when combined with another verse in the same chapter, shows some discouragement of such plural marriages.

“You are never able to be fair and just as between women even if it is your ardent desire…” (Qur’an 4: 129)

So in conclusion general, Polygamy is not allowed if it will become a destructive behavior and carelessness. And the husband who is misusing it, he is basically misusing the law. In such case, the impious human is the problem not the law itself. God legislates for all times, from the start of time till the end of time. The rule on polygamy simply gives structure to what was already in existence. It by no means is mandatory, the law just allows for it given the necessary circumstances should arise. Being a revelation of God, the Quran should aim to deal with as many issues as it possibly can so it can provide the relevant guidance for mankind. It is an exception rather than the general rule.

Does Islam allow/encourage marriage with prepubescent girls?

2011-05-28T18:39:00.000+01:00

The marriage of Aisha is totally unrelated to the verses usually bought up by anti islamists

65:1 O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately) their prescribed periods: and fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are the limits set by Allah: and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does verily wrong his (own) soul: thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation.

65:2 Thus when they fulfill their term appointed, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms; and take four witnesses two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah. Such is the admonition given to him who believes in Allah and the Last Day and for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out.

65:3 And He provides from (sources) he never could imagine. And if anyone puts his trust in Allah, sufficient is (Allah) for him. For Allah will surely accomplish His purpose: verily for all things has Allah appointed a due proportion.

65:4 Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if he have any doubts is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

65:5 This is the Command of Allah, which He has sent down to you: and if anyone fears Allah, He will remove his ills from him, and will enlarge His reward.

65:6 Let the women live (in iddah) in the same style as ye live, according to your means annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in the wombs) then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.

65:7 Let the man of means spend according to his means: and the man whose resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given him. Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him. After a difficulty, Allah will soon grant relief.

Sura 65:4 isn't talking about pre pubescent girls. It is talking about the iddah of a divorced woman. 4 months for a widow is the prescribed iddah, 3 months for a woman who you are in doubt about, and 9 months if the woman is pregnant. The three monthly courses for women is prescribed as a way to see if the woman is pregnant, if she is then by the end of three months you will know if she is pregnant or not. If she is pregnant then she can not marry until she delivers the baby. It is to ensure the child's lineage. During those three months the woman can not get married until all parties see if she is pregnant or not.

A woman can not bleed for the following reasons:
1. Medical
2. Born without a uterus (in which case she doesn't get a menses)
3. Post menopausal or menopause

Footnote on Sura 65:4 from Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
For normal women, the iddah is the three monthly courses after separation: if there are no courses or if the courses are in doubt, it is three calender months. By that time it will be clear whether there is pregnancy if there is the waiting period is still after delivery.

The verses are clearly speaking about divorce of women, and there are three categories of those women:

1- Women who are very old.

2- Women who have not had their monthly period at the time of the divorce.

3- Women who are pregnant at the time of the divorce.

For point #2, it doesn't necessarily have to mean that the woman was a young girl. It is clearly talking about the wife not having her period yet when the divorce happened. Women on average have 10 days of menstruation each month. Point #2 could be speaking about the 20 other days

I would like to add that many women do not have menstruation cycle even after reaching age of puberty, the verses in question also deal with this issue

**COUNTERCLAIM**

First the phrase: “Yaisna min al-maheedhi” which means “those women who are desperate of menses” is an indication to women who reached the stage of menstruation but do not menstruate and of those who reached menopause. Desperate of menses underlines that it concerns women who though reached the age, fail to menstruate too. Their 'Iddah period is three months.

Next comes, “Wallaee Lam yahidhna” which means “those who have not menstruated yet” This group of females are pre-pubescent girls who have not yet menstruated. Here the 'Iddah prescribed for them is equal to the previous group of women (ie. three months).

ANSWER:

واللائي
and those
لم
Did not
يحضن
have their periods
فعدتهن
so their waiting time
ثلاثة
Three
أشهر
Months

So it is referring to those who do not have their period, it does not mention kids or young girls. As i said it is referring to those who have not had their period yet, or those after puberty who still have not had a menstruation cycle even after reaching age of puberty. To say it is referring to pre-pubescent girls is incorrect, whether it is you saying it or any writer of tafsir. It is simply inserting something into the text which is not there, making that which is plain and clear more confusing

As respected as they may be, anyone can make mistakes.

Islamic rules on marriage:

1. The first condition required is puberty. Some girls, even if they are 17 years old still haven't had their first menstruation, so without this 1st condition marriage is impossible.

2. The second condition - 'Rushd' the girl has to be mature “enough to distinguish between good and bad" - (prudent judgement) and therefore be able to give an "INFORMED CONSENT".

3. Third condition - a girl has to be really ready mentally and physically to undertake the heavy responsibilities of marriage and child bearing, including the right and duties and the basis of fulfilling this condition is education. This is why in Islamic education is fundamental in all aspects. Academic education and the learning of skills is also very important.

4. If all those 3 conditions are present, then the last condition is that no one, even the parents can force their daughter to marry without her consent so without this the marriage is not valid. Coercion is also classified as a forced marriage.

Verses in the Quran have to be looked at in a hollistic context, and as I showed you the conditions of marriage, marriage of pre-pubescent girls would be impossible based on the Quran's very own conditions so to say this verse is referring to this is false. Hence it must be looked at bearing the conditions of marriage in mind, when done so if one continues to say it refers to pre-pubescent girls then it becomes an absurdity and an internal contradiction, which it is not. It only becomes as such to the one trying to force the issues and convince everyone this verse refers to pre-pubescent girls.

Conclusion:

Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, the highest religious body in the Sunni world, has recently released a new manual on the rights of Muslim children.

"Marriage in Islam is regulated by certain rules, namely, children must reach puberty and maturity so that they can get married," it reads.

According to the Islamic Jurisprudence the conditions for marriage are:

1. The first condition required is puberty. Some girls, even if they are 17 years old still haven't had their first menstruation, so without this 1st condition marriage is impossible.

2. The second condition - 'Rushd' the girl has to be mature “enough to distinguish between good and bad" - (prudent judgement) and therefore be able to give an "INFORMED CONSENT".

3. Third condition - a girl has to be really ready mentally and physically to undertake the heavy responsibilities of marriage and child bearing, including the right and duties and the basis of fulfilling this condition is education. This is why in Islamic education is fundamental in all aspects. Academic education and the learning of skills is also very important.

4. If all those 3 conditions are present, then the last condition is that no one, even the parents can force their daughter to marry without her consent so without this the marriage is not valid. Coercion is also classified as a forced marriage.

So clearly an INFORMED CONSENT (Rushd) is required for a halaal marriage otherwise it is void in Islam. In this day and age, a girl at puberty is clearly not mature to give an informed consent. This is a requirement by Islamic law. If this law is not fulfilled the marriage is haram and 'void' in Islam. Coercing little girls is equivalent to forcing them so if there are such practices taking place in the world today I condemn them and needless to say they are totally unislamic.

In reference to the marriage of the prophet we have a different historical context. Various studies have proven that psychological maturity and adulthood were reached at puberty in pre-modern times:- it is imprudent of anyone to believe that they can bring the social norm of the 7th Century and apply it in the world today. Psychological maturity has delayed in modern times, much above the age of puberty whereby adulthood and maturity is supported by a structured education and legal system. That is the new social norm. Islam demands psychological maturity (required for an Informed Consent). Similarly trying to apply modern norms on 7th century arabia is also imprudent as maturity was reached alot earlier then

Allegation that Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims

2010-11-24T18:44:00.000Z

There is one issue which non muslims usually misunderstand, regarding the issue of whether muslims are forbidden to take non muslims as friends. The verses in question are the following:

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (The Noble Quran, 5:51)"

"O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport - whether among those who received the Scripture (i.e., the Bible) before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith (indeed). (The Noble Quran, 5:57)"

"Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God. (The Noble Quran, 4:139)"

"O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) To people on whom Is the Wrath of Allah. Of the Hereafter they are Already in despair, just as The Unbelievers are In despair about those (Buried) in graves. (The Noble Quran, 60:13)"

In the above Noble Verses, the Arabic word for "friends" is "Awliyaa", which has four literal meanings: (1) Allies; (2) Friends; and (3) Guardians. In Noble Verse 60:13, the Arabic word used was "tatawallu", which is derived from the root word "Awliyaa".

"Waliy" which is the singular of "Awliyaa" means "Guardian" as your parents were your guardians when you were a kid. So as you can see, the Arabic word "Awliyaa" has different literal meanings.

Important Note: In Noble Verse 60:13 above, Allah Almighty said "la tatawallu qawman", which literally means "take not as allies a tribe (or a community)", which further proves my point that "Awliyaa" in the Noble Verses above is meant for "alliance" and not personal "friendship".

There is nothing wrong with developing a personal friendship with a non-Muslim. As clearly shown in the introduction above, Allah Almighty commanded all Muslims to treat with kindness and justice all of the good non-Muslims.

The English translation of the Noble Verses above is not accurate, because the use of the word "friends" is wrong. The word "Allies or guardian" is the correct one, because in all of the Noble Verses above Allah Almighty was talking to the Muslims in the context of war where they were told to be cautious as to taking non muslims (who were at the time showing aggression and deception towards the muslims) as protectors or guardians instead of Muslims.

It does not in any shape or form mean personal "friendship" on an individual level outside of the circumstance or context of the time.

Islamic treatment of animals

2010-11-24T18:08:00.000Z

Do animals have rights?

The vegetarian argument is that killing animals for the benefit of humans is cruel and an infringement of their rights. They put both on the same level without conceding any superiority to humans over animals. This argument is seriously flawed, because if animals had rights comparable to those of humans, they must also have equivalent duties. In other words, we must be able to blame them and punish them if they violate the rights of others. It is absurd that it should be considered a crime for humans to kill a sheep, but natural for a lion to do so. The problem stems from a misconception of the role of human life within the animal kingdom: a denial of purposeful creation within a clearly defined hierarchy degrades humans to the level of any other creature. Yet even then, the argument is illogical: Why should plants, for example, be denied the same protection from a violation of the sanctity of their life?

Is Islamic slaughter cruel?

The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels.

The scientific facts

A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.

The Halal method

With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.

The Western method

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.

Appearances can deceive

Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.

The holistic view

Islam is a balanced way of life. For Muslims, the privilege of supplementing their diet with animal protein implies a duty to animal welfare, both during the rearing of the animal and during the slaughter. Modern Western farming and slaughter, on the other hand, aims at the mass consumer market and treats the animal as a commodity. Just as battery hens are easier for large-scale egg production, Western slaughter methods are easier for the meat industry, but they do neither the animal nor the end consumer any favours. The Islamic way guarantees a healthier life for the animal and a healthier meat for the consumer.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout&cid=1157365866876

Good reading for non-muslims

2009-12-27T23:28:00.000Z

The Qur'an (Oxford World's Classics) (Paperback) by M.A.Abdel Haleem

This book can easily be obtained from Amazon or any highstreet bookstore. This translation of the Qur'an is by far one of the best. It expresses the meaning of the Qur'an in an eloquent style retaining some of the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic original. The choice of words (as seen by the example above) are based upon a scholarly approach i.e. context, intertextuality, use of classical dictionaries, the Prophetic understanding etc are all taken into account. This translation lets the Qur'an speak for itself and makes the book a pleasure to read. It flows very well and the translation is much closer to the miraculous original - the Qur'anic concepts and ideas penetrate the reader. A must have for all those who want to read the Qur'an in the English language.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quran-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0199535957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216125199&sr=8-1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings

A non muslim account on the life of Muhammad based on the earliest and original sources. An excellent bias free view of the final Messenger.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594771537/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exploring the Qur'an (Paperback) by Abdul-Raof Hussein

Exploring the Qur’an is a journey into the unfathomable depths of the Qur’an. It investigates the multifaceted Qur’anic discourse and provides an in-depth account of multifarious Qur’anic topics some of which have never been tackled by traditional or modern scholars. Exploring the Qur’an opens new horizons for both Muslim and non- Muslim readers. It attempts to provide an insight into the intricate nature of the Qur’an’s theological and linguistic facets through an interesting contrastive analysis of both Muslim and non-Muslim views. The book provides rigorous academic analysis of the intriguing linguistic, phonetic and rhetorical features of Qur’anic discourse. It also investigates the text linguistic feature of consonance which is the logical sequence and discoursal harmony of Qur’anic statements and chapters. A must read for all those who want to appreciate the Qur'an's inimitable features and it's unique us of the Arabic language.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Exploring-Quran-Abdul-Raof-Hussein/dp/1904436013/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216125622&sr=8-1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Quran: An Eternal Challenge (Paperback) by M.A. Draz

This is a great book for all those who are interested in the Miraculous nature of the Qur'an. It deals with rational arguments and explains how the Qur'an has a superior litetary style. Although this book only deals with literary aspects of the Qur'an (as opposed to more objective approaches such as its linguistic aspects and the form of its language), it explains the objectivity of the challenge and answers many questions. A must read for all those who wish to appreciate the liteary excellence of the Qur'an.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quran-Eternal-Challenge-M-Draz/dp/086037341X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216125745&sr=1-1

Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time (Eminent Lives) by Karen Armstrong

Muhammad was born in 570 CE, and over the following sixty years built a thriving spiritual community, laying the foundations of a religion that changed the course of world history. There is more historical data on his life than on that of the founder of any other major faith, and yet his story is little known.
Karen Armstrong's immaculately researched new biography of Muhammad will enable readers to understand the true origins and spirituality of a faith that is all too often misrepresented as cruel, intolerant, and inherently violent. An acclaimed authority on religious and spiritual issues, Armstrong offers a balanced, in-depth portrait, revealing the man at the heart of Islam by dismantling centuries of misconceptions. Armstrong demonstrates that Muhammad's life—a pivot point in history—has genuine relevance to the global crises we face today.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-Prophet-Time-Eminent-Lives/dp/0060598972/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216160605&sr=8-1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong

The picture of Islam as a violent, backward, and insular tradition should be laid to rest, says Karen Armstrong, bestselling author of Muhammad and A History of God. Delving deep into Islamic history, Armstrong sketches the arc of a story that begins with the stirring of revelation in an Arab businessman named Muhammad. His concern with the poor who were being left behind in the blush of his society's new prosperity sets the tone for the tale of a culture that values community as a manifestation of God. Muhammad's ideas catch fire, quickly blossoming into a political empire. As the empire expands and the once fractured Arabs subdue and overtake the vast Persian domain, the story of a community becomes a panoramic drama. With great dexterity, Armstrong narrates the Sunni-Shi'ite schism, the rise of Persian influence, the clashes with Western crusaders and Mongolian conquerors, and the spiritual explorations that traced the route to God. Armstrong brings us through the debacle of European colonialism right up to the present day, putting Islamic fundamentalism into context as part of a worldwide phenomenon. Islam: A Short History, like Bruce Lawrence's Shattering the Myth and Mark Huband's Warriors of the Prophet, introduces us to a faith that beckons like a minaret to those who dare to venture beyond the headlines.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216161185&sr=1-2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong

In a meticulous quest for the historical Muhammad, Armstrong first traces the West's long history of hostility toward Islam, which it has stigmatized as a "religion of the sword." This sympathetic, engrossing biography portrays Muhammad (ca. 570-632) as a passionate, complex, fallible human being--a charismatic leader possessed of political as well as spiritual gifts, and a prophet whose monotheistic vision intuitively answered the deepest longings of his people. Armstrong ( The Gospel According to Woman ) refutes the Western image of Muhammad as an impostor who used religion as a means to power, an attitude encapsulated in a psychotic dream episode in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. Denying that Islam preaches total intransigence, she finds in the Prophet's teachings a theology of peace and tolerance. The "holy war" urged by the Koran, in Armstrong's reading, alludes to each Muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society. She draws significant parallels between the spiritual aspirations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-Biography-Prophet-Karen-Armstrong/dp/B000Z6O7BC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216161601&sr=8-5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Prophet Muhammad: A Biography by Barnaby Rogerson

'Rogerson can do epic scale, showstopping geography ... three empires contending for influence in Muhammad's Arabia. He makes you smell the frankincense' review by the Evening Standard

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prophet-Muhammad-Biography-Barnaby-Rogerson/dp/0349115869/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216161601&sr=8-1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad (Critical Lives) by Yahiya Emerick

Rather than settling in to the comfortable life of a merchant, Muhammad had a vision of himself bringing the message of the one God to his idolatrous people. Coverage includes: the claim to prophethood--Muhammad's teachings, and his first coverts; the Muslim flight to Medina, Muhammad's battles, and the eventual bloodless Muslim conquest of Mecca; Muhammad's political victory in the Arabian peninsula, and wars with Byzantium and Persia; the death of Muhammad, and the ways in which his message lived beyond him, and Muhammad's place in history--his role in Muslim theology and cosmology, the ways he is viewed in different Muslim sects and regions, and the influence of Muhammad today in Islamic movements, both peaceful and fundamentalist.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-Critical-Lives-Yahiya-Emerick/dp/0028643712/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216163023&sr=1-1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Qur'an: A Biography (Books That Changed the World) by Bruce Lawrence

Few books in history have been as poorly understood as the Qur’an. Sent down in a series of revelations to the Prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an is the unmediated word of Allah, a ritual, political, and legal authority, an ethical and spiritual guide, and a literary masterpiece. In this book, one of the launch titles in Atlantic Monthly Press’ “Books That Changed the World” series, the distinguished historian of religion Bruce Lawrence shows precisely how the Qur’an is Islam. He describes the origins of the faith and assesses its tremendous influence on today’s societies and politics. Above all, Lawrence emphasizes that the Qur’an is a sacred book of signs that has no single message. It is a book that demands interpretation and one that can be properly understood only through its history. Bruce Lawrence’s work is a beautifully written and, in these increasingly troubled times, invaluable introduction to and exploration of the core sacred text of Islam.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quran-Biography-Books-Changed-World/dp/0871139510/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216163913&sr=8-2

Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (Galaxy Book, 409) by W. Montgomery Watt

Editorial Reviews

"A standard! Highly readable. A great introduction to the man and the movement. Please keep it in print!--Cheryl L. Golden, Newman University

"Good biography of pivotal figure in middle Eastern-- and world--history. Well-written, objective, straight-forward presentation of complex subject."--Dr. Andrew F. Clark, Univ. of North Carolina

"An excellent introduction to Islam. For the last 20 years I have used this text to introduce students to the Muslim tradition."--Harold Kasimow, Grinnell College

"Still a fine and thorough survey of Muhammad's life and times."--Charles A. Kimball, Furman Univ.

"A convincing book: essential reading, not only for the more casual student of Muslim problems, but also, as a kind of illuminating revision of facts and ideas, for the serious student who has read the larger volumes."--Blackfriars

"This book...admirably fulfills its purpose. It is written in a clear and interesting style, and the reader can be assured that it is not only an interesting book to read, but is also based on sound scholarship."--Journal of Semitic Studies

"This is the best, if not the only, introduction to Muhammad."--James Lindsay, University of Dubuque

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-Prophet-Statesman-Galaxy-Books/dp/0198810784/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216309537&sr=8-1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understanding Islam: An Introduction to the Muslim World, Second Edition by Thomas W. Lippman

Thomas Lippman provides an excellent introduction into the Islamic world. Lippman is neither a historian nor a religious expert, but a journalist. As a journalist, he is able to easily explain Islamic Culture, practices, and history to an audience completely unfamiliar to this subject. Lippman spent a great deal of time in various Islamic countries as a journalist, and gives an easy to understand introduction into various aspects of Islam: (1) Basic Beliefs and Practices, (2) The Prophet Muhammad (3) The Koran, (4) Law and Government in Islamic Countries, (5) The Advance of Islam, (6) Schism and Mysticism, and (7) The Islamic Community Today. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in knowing more about Islamic beliefs and or history

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Islam-Introduction-Muslim-Revised/dp/0452011604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216309690&sr=1-1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Word of Islam by John Alden Williams

This work is destined to be treated as a pioneer and a classic in its field.... It offers a highly readable, lively, and proportionate examination of the Islamic canon and its various internal currents. (American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences )

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Word-Islam-John-Alden-Williams/dp/0500277710/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216310387&sr=8-5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by MIchael Sells

Despite the rapid growth of Islam in this country, its precepts and scripture remain inaccessible to many readers. It is difficult, too, that many of its believers assert that the Qur'an cannot be translated. This groundbreaking work by Haverford College professor Sells goes a very long way to bridging the gap that separates the non-Islamic reader from the Qur'an; he translates and extensively annotates a careful selection of the earliest "suras" (revelations), setting them in their cultural context.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Approaching-Quran-Early-Revelation-Revelations/dp/1883991692/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216311395&sr=8-1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Islam Did for Us: Understanding Islam's Contribution to Western Civilization by Tim Wallace-Murphy

In these troubled times, when Islam is under seemingly perpetual attack, it is imperative to consider how much the West owes to the religion’s spiritual insights. Bestselling author Tim Wallace-Murphy presents the first major popular book to examine the common roots of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and to reveal Islam’s immense contributions to our society—which included laying the foundations for our systems of education, astronomy, mathematics, and architecture. He also illustrates how the European Western powers helped foment the current crisis in the Middle East, and why we must strive for a just, equitable solution to these problems. Understanding can begin with this compelling acknowledgment of our shared spiritual heritage, including religious tolerance, respect for learning, and the concepts of chivalry and brotherhood.

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Islam-Did-Understanding-Contribution/dp/1842932012/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216311485&sr=8-2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists by Michael H. Morgan

"Mathematics, astronomy and medicine; those are three of the many disciplines that would not exist in their present form without the contributions of Muslim scholars and thinkers throughout the centuries. We in the West don’t often remember that."—Aaron Schachter, Anchor, BBC "The World"

You can purchase it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-History-Enduring-Scientists-Thinkers/dp/1426202806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216312108&sr=8-1

Muhammad: The Great General, Warrior and Prophet

2009-12-27T23:25:00.000Z

Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet

By Richard A. Gabriel

The long shadow of Muhammad stretches across centuries of strife to the present. Today an estimated 1.4 billion Muslims around the globe follow his teachings—the word of God as revealed to Muhammad and set down in the Koran—making Islam the world’s second-largest religion behind Christianity. But despite Muhammad’s remarkable accomplishments, there is no modern account of his life that examines his role as Islam’s first great general and the leader of a successful insurgency. Had Muhammad not succeeded as a commander, however, Islam might have been relegated to a geographic backwater—and the conquest of the Byzantine and Persian empires by Arab armies might never have occurred.

The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history’s first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.

Muhammad’s intelligence service eventually rivaled that of Byzantium and Persia, especially when it came to political information. He reportedly spent hours devising tactical and political stratagems, and once remarked that “all war is cunning,” reminding modern analysts of Sun Tzu’s dictum, “all war is deception.” In his thinking and application of force Muhammad was a combination of Karl von Clause¬witz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he always employed force in the service of political goals. An astute grand strategist, he used non¬mili¬tary methods to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations.

Muhammad’s belief in Islam and his own role as the “Messenger of God” revolutionized Arabian warfare and resulted in the creation of the ancient world’s first army motivated by a coherent system of ideological belief. The ideology of holy war (jihad) and martyrdom (shahada) for the faith was transmitted to the West during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Spain and France, where it changed traditional Christian pacifistic thinking on war, brought into being a coterie of Christian warrior saints, and provided the Catho¬lic Church with its ideological justification for the Crusades. Ideology—whether religious or secular—has remained a primary component of military ventures ever since.

Muhammad forged the military instrument of the Arab conquests that began within two years of his death by bringing into being a completely new kind of army not seen before in Arabia. He introduced no fewer than eight major military reforms that transformed the armies and conduct of war in Arabia. Just as Philip of Macedon transformed the armies of Greece so his successor, Alexander, could employ them as instruments of conquest and empire, Muhammad transformed the armies of Arabia so his successors could use them to defeat the armies of Persia and Byzantium and establish the heartland of the empire of Islam.

Muhammad was first and foremost a revolutionary, a fiery religious guerrilla leader who created and led the first genuine national insurgency in antiquity that is comprehensible in modern terms. Unlike conventional generals, Muhammad did not seek the defeat of a foreign enemy or invader; rather, he sought to replace the existing Arabian social order with a new one based upon a radically different ideological worldview. To achieve his revolutionary goals Muhammad utilized all the means recognized by modern analysts as characteristic of a successful insurgency in today’s world.

Although Muhammad began his struggle for a new order with a small guerrilla cadre capable of undertaking only limited hit-and-run raids, by the time he was ready to attack Mecca a decade later that small guerrilla force had grown into a large conventional army with integrated cavalry and infantry units capable of conducting large-scale combat operations. It was the first truly national military force in Arab history, and it was this conventional military instrument that Muhammad’s successors used to forge a great empire.

Muhammad’s rise to power was a textbook example of a successful insurgency, in all likelihood the first such example in antiquity. The West has been accustomed to thinking of the Arab conquests that followed Muhammad in purely conventional military terms. But the armies that achieved those conquests did not exist in Arabia before Muhammad. It was Muhammad’s successful unconventional guerrilla operations, his successful insurgency, that brought those armies into existence. The later Arab conquests, as regards both strategic concept and the new armies as in¬struments of military method, were the consequences of Muhammad’s prior military success as the leader of an insurgency.

This aspect of Muhammad’s military life as a guerrilla insurgent is likely to strike the reader as curious. But if the means and methods used by modern military analysts to characterize insurgency warfare are employed as categories of analysis, it is clear that Muhammad’s campaign to spread Islam throughout Arabia fulfilled all of the criteria. One requirement for an insurgency is a determined leader whose followers regard him as special in some way and worthy of their following him. In Muhammad’s case his own charismatic personality was enhanced by his deeply held belief that he was God’s Messenger, and that to follow Muhammad was to obey the dictates of God himself.

Insurgencies also require a messianic ideology, one that espouses a coherent creed or plan to replace the existing social, political, and economic order with a new order that is better, more just, or ordained by history or even by God himself. Mu¬hammad used the new religious creed of Islam to challenge basic traditional Arab social institutions and values as oppressive and unholy and worthy of replacement. To this end he created the ummah, or community of believers, God’s community on earth, to serve as a messianic replacement for the clans and tribes that were the basis of traditional Arab society. One of Mu¬hammad’s most important achievements was the establishment of new social institutions that greatly altered and in some cases completely replaced those of the old Arab social order.

Successful insurgencies also require a disciplined cadre of true believers to do the work of organizing and recruiting new members. Muhammad’s revolutionary cadre consisted of the small group of original converts he attracted in Mecca and took with him to Medina. These were the muhajirun, or emigrants. The first converts among the clans of Medina, the ansar, or helpers, also filled the ranks of the cadre. Within this revolutionary cadre was an inner circle of talented men, some of them later converts. Some, like Abdullah Ibn Ubay and Khalid al-Walid, were experienced field commanders and provided a much-needed source of military expertise. Muhammad’s inner circle advised him and saw to it that his directives were carried out. These advisers held key positions during the Prophet’s lifetime and fought among themselves for power after his death.

Insurgencies require an armed force and the manpower to sustain them. It was from the original small cadre of guerrillas that the larger conventional army could be grown that would ultimately permit the insurgency to engage its enemies in set-piece battles when the time and political conditions were right. Muhammad may have been the first commander in history to understand and implement the doctrine later espoused by General Vo Nguyen Giap of North Vietnam as “people’s war, people’s army.” Muhammad established the belief among his followers that God had commandeered all Muslims’ purposes and property for His efforts and that all Muslims had a responsibility to fight for the faith. Everyone—men, women, and even children—had an obligation for military service in defense of the faith and the ummah that was the community of God’s chosen people on earth. It is essential to understand that the attraction of the Islamic ideology more than anything else produced the manpower that permitted Muhammad’s small revolutionary cadre to evolve into a conventional armed force capable of large-scale engagements.

The rapid growth of Muhammad’s insurgent army is evident from the following figures. At the Battle of Badr (624 ce), Muhammad could only put 314 men in the field. Two years later at Second Badr, 1,500 Muslims took the field. By the 628 battle at Kheibar, the Muslim army had grown to 2,000 combatants. When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630) he did so with 10,000 men. And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later the army numbered 12,000 men. Some sources record that Muhammad’s expedition to Tabuk later the same year was composed of 30,000 men and 10,000 cavalry, but this is probably an exaggeration. What is evident from the figures, however, is that his insurgency grew very quickly in terms of its ability to recruit military manpower.

Muhammad’s ability to obtain sufficient weapons and equipment had an important political advantage. Many of the insurgency’s converts came from the poorest elements of the bedouin clans, people too impoverished to afford weapons and armor. By supplying these converts with expensive military equipment, Muhammad immediately raised their status within the clan and guaranteed their loyalty to him, if not always to the creed of Islam. In negotiations with bedouin chiefs he made them gifts of expensive weaponry. Horses and camels were equally important military assets, for without them raids and the conduct of operations over great distances were not possible. Muhammad obtained his animals in much the same manner as he did his weapons and with equal success. At Badr the insurgents had only two horses. Six years later at Hunayn Muhammad’s cavalry squadrons numbered 800 horse and cavalrymen.

An insurgency must be able to sustain the popular base that supports the fighting elements. To accomplish this, Muhammad changed the ancient customs regarding the sharing of booty taken in raids. The chief of an Arab clan or tribe traditionally took one-fourth of the booty for himself. Muhammad decreed that he receive only one-fifth, and even this the chief took not for himself but in the name of the ummah. Under the old ways individuals kept whatever booty they had captured. Muhammad required that all booty be turned in to a common pool where it was shared equally among all combatants who had participated in the raid. Most important, Muhammad established that the first claimants on the booty that had been taken in the name of the ummah were the poor and the widows and orphans of the soldiers killed in battle. He also used the promise of a larger share of booty to strike alliances with bedouin clans, some of whom remained both loyal and pagan to the end, fighting for loot rather than for Islam.

The leader of an insurgency must take great care to guard his authority from challenges, including those that come from within the movement itself. Muhammad had many enemies, and he was always on guard against an attempt upon his life. Like other leaders, Muhammad surrounded himself with a loyal group of followers who acted as his bodyguard and carried out his orders without question. For this purpose he created the suffah, a small cadre of loyal followers who lived in the mosque next to Muhammad’s house recruited from among the most pious, enthusiastic followers. The suffah members spent much of their time studying Islam. They were devoted to Muhammad and served not only as his life guard but also as a secret police that could be called upon at a moment’s notice to carry out whatever task Muhammad set for them.

No insurgency can survive without an effective intelligence apparatus. As early as when Muhammad left Mecca in 622, he left behind a trusted agent, his uncle Abbas, who continued to send him reports on the situation there. Abbas served as an agent-in-place for more than a decade, until Mecca itself fell to Muhammad.

In the beginning Muhammad’s operations suffered from a lack of tactical intelligence. His followers were mostly townspeople with no experience in desert travel. On some of the early operations Muhammad had to hire bedouin guides. As the insurgency grew, however, his intelligence service became more organized and sophisticated, using agents-in-place, commercial spies, debriefing of prisoners, combat patrols, and reconnaissance in force as methods of intelligence collection.

Muhammad himself seems to have possessed a detailed knowledge of clan loyalties and politics within the insurgency’s area of operations and used this knowledge to good effect when negotiating alliances with the bedouins. He often conducted advance reconnaissance of the battlefields upon which he fought. In most cases his intelligence service provided him with sufficient information as to the enemy’s location and intentions in advance of any military engagement. We have no knowledge of exactly how the intelligence service was organized or where it was located. That it was part of the suffah, however, seems a reasonable guess.

Insurgencies succeed or fail to the degree that they are able to win the allegiance of great numbers of uncommitted citizens to support the insurgency’s goals. Muhammad understood the role of propaganda and went to great lengths to make his message public and widely known. In a largely illiterate Arab society, the poet served as the major conveyor of political propaganda. Muhammad hired the best poets money could buy to present his message. He issued proclamations regarding the revelations he received as the Messenger of God, and remained in public view to keep the vision of the new order and the promise of a heavenly paradise constantly before the public. He also sent missionaries to other clans and tribes to instruct the “pagans” in the new faith, sometimes teaching those groups to read and write in the process. Muhammad understood that the conflict was between the existing social order with its manifest injustices and his vision of the future, and he surpassed his adversaries in spreading his vision to win the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Arab population.

Muhammad also managed to bring about a revolution in the way Arabs fought wars, transforming their armies into instruments capable of large-scale combat operations that could achieve strategic objectives instead of only small-scale clan, tribal, or personal objectives. In so doing he created both the means and historical circumstances that transformed the fragmented Arab clans into a national military entity conscious of its own unique identity. As a result, the greatest commanders of the early Arab conquests were developed by Muhammad himself.

Had he not brought about a military revolution in Arab warfare, it is possible that Islam might not have survived in Arabia. Within a year of Muhammad’s death many of the clans that had sworn allegiance to Islam recanted, resulting in the War of the Apostates, or Riddah. The brilliance of Muhammad’s generals and the superior fighting skills of his new army made it possible for Islam to defeat the apostates and force them back into the religious fold. Commanding the Arab armies, those same generals carried out the Arab conquests of Persia and Byzantium. The old Arab way of war would have had no chance of success against the armies of either of those empires.

Muhammad transformed the social composition of Arab armies from a collection of clans, tribes, and blood kin loyal only to themselves into a national army loyal to a national social entity, the ummah. The ummah was not a nation or a state in the modern sense, but a body of religious believers under the unified command and governance of Muhammad. The ummah transcended the clans and tribes and permitted Muhammad to forge a common identity, national in scope, among the Arabs for the first time. It was leadership of this national entity that Muhammad claimed, not of any clan or tribe. Loyalty to the ummah permitted the national army to unify the two traditional combat arms of infantry and cavalry into a genuine combined arms force. Bedouins and town dwellers had historically viewed one another with suspicion. Arab infantry had traditionally been drawn from the people living in the towns, settlements, and oases of Arabia. Arab cavalry was traditionally drawn from bedouin clans, whose nomadic warriors excelled at speedy raids, surprise attacks, and elusive retreats, skills honed to a fine edge over generations of raiding.

These two different types of combatants possessed only limited experience in fighting alongside one another. Bound by clan loyalties and living in settlements, Arab infantry was steadfast and cohesive and could usually be relied upon to hold its ground, especially in the defense. Arab cavalry, on the other hand, was unreliable in a battle against infantry, often breaking off the fight to keep their precious mounts from being hurt or make off with whatever booty they had seized. Bedouin cavalry was, however, proficient at reconnaissance, surprise attack, protecting the flanks, and pursuing ill-disciplined infantry. Muhammad was the first Arab commander to successfully join both combat arms into a national army and use them in concert in battle.

Thanks to the larger religious community of believers, the ummah, he could combine the two primary elements of traditional Arab society, town dwellers and bedouin tribes, into a single Arab national identity. That change was actually preceded by a shift in the social composition of Arab society.

Before Muhammad, Arab military contingents fought under the command of clan or tribal leaders, sometimes assembled in coalition with other clans or tribes. While the authority of these clan chiefs was recognized by their own clan, every chief considered himself the equal of any other, so there was no overall commander whose authority could compel the obedience or tactical direction of the army as a whole. Clan warriors fought for their own interests, often only for loot, and did not feel obligated to pursue the larger objectives of the army as a whole. They often failed to report to the battlefield, arrived late, or simply left the fight once they had captured sufficient loot. Warriors and horses were precious, and clan leaders resisted any higher tactical direction that might place their men and animals in danger. As a result, Arab battles were often little more than brief, disorganized brawls that seldom produced a decisive outcome.

To correct these deficiencies Muhammad established a unified command for his armies centered on himself. Within the ummah there was no distinction between the citizen and the soldier. All members of the community had an obligation to defend the clan and participate in its battles. The community of believers was truly a nation in arms, and all believers followed the commands of Muhammad, God’s Messenger. As commander in chief Muhammad established the principle of unified command by appointing a single commander with overall authority to carry out military operations. Sometimes he also appointed a second-in-command. Muhammad often personally commanded his troops in the field. He also appointed all the other commanders, who operated under his authority. As Muslims, all members of the army were equally bound by the same laws, and all clan members and their chiefs were subject to the same discipline and punishments. When operating with clans whose members were not Muslims, Muhammad always extracted an honor oath from their chiefs to obey his orders during the battle.

The establishment of a unified military command gave Muhammad’s armies greater reliability in planning and in battle. Unified command also permitted a greater degree of coordination among the various combat elements of the army and the use of more sophisticated tactical designs that could be implemented with more certainty, thereby greatly increasing the army’s offensive power.

Traditional Arab warfare emphasized the courageous performance of individual warriors in battle, not the clan’s ability to fight as a unit. The Arab warrior fought for his own honor and social prestige within the kin group, not for the clan per se. One consequence was that Arab armies and the clan units within them did not usually reflect a high degree of combat unit cohesion, the ability of the group to remain intact and fight together under the stress of battle.

Muhammad’s armies, by contrast, were highly cohesive, holding together even when they fought outnumbered or were overrun. The ummah served as a higher locus of the soldier’s loyalty that transcended the clan. Many of Muhammad’s early converts had left their families and clans to follow the Prophet. There were many instances where members of the same clan or even families fought on opposite sides during his early battles. Religion turned out to be a greater source of unit cohesion than blood and clan ties, the obligations of faith replacing and overriding those of tradition and even family. His soldiers cared for each other as brothers, which under the precepts of Islam they were, and quickly gained a reputation for their discipline and ferocity in battle.

Muhammad’s armies demonstrated a higher degree of military motivation than traditional Arab armies. Being a good warrior had always been at the center of Arab values, but Muhammad enhanced the warrior’s status. His soldiers were always guaranteed a share in the booty. It became a common saying among Muslims that “the soldier is not only the noblest and most pleasing profession in the sight of Allah, but also the most profitable.” Muhammad’s soldiers were usually paid better than Persian or Byzantine soldiers.

But better pay was only a small part of the new Islamic warriors’ motivation. One of Muhammad’s most important innovations was convincing his troops that they were doing God’s work on earth. There were of course soldiers of other faiths who fought on religious grounds. But no army before Muhammad’s ever placed religion at the center of military motivation and defined the soldier primarily as an instrument of God’s will on earth. The soldiers of Islam came to see themselves as fighting under God’s instructions. The result, still evident in Islamic societies today, was a soldier who enjoyed much higher social status and respect than soldiers in Western armies.

A central element to an Islamic soldier’s motivation in Muhammad’s day was the idea that death was not something to be feared but rather embraced. Muhammad’s pronouncement that those killed in battle would be welcomed immediately into a paradise of pleasure and eternal life was a powerful inducement to perform well in combat. To die fighting in defense of the faith was to fulfill God’s will and become a martyr. Life itself was subordinate to the needs of the faith. Muslim soldiers killed in battle were accorded the highest respect on the Arab scale of values. While those who died in battle had formerly been celebrated as examples of courage and selflessness, before Muhammad it was never suggested that death was to be welcomed or required to be a good soldier. Muhammad’s teachings changed the traditional Arab view of military sacrifice and produced a far more dedicated soldier than Arab armies had ever witnessed before.

Arab warfare prior to Muhammad’s reforms involved clans and tribes fighting for honor or loot. No commander aimed at the enslavement or extermination of the enemy, nor the occupation of his lands. Arab warfare had been tactical warfare, nothing more. There was no sense of strategic war in which long-term, grand strategic objectives were sought and toward which the tactical application of force was directed. Muhammad was the first to introduce to the Arabs the notion of war for strategic goals. His ultimate goal, the transformation of Arab society through the spread of a new religion, was strategic in concept. Muhammad’s application of force and violence, whether unconventional or conventional, was always directed at this strategic goal. Although he began as the founder of an insurgency, he was always Clausewitzian in his view that the use of force was a tactical means to the achievement of larger strategic objectives. Had Muhammad not introduced this new way of thinking to Arab warfare, the use of later Arab armies to forge a world empire would not only have been impossible, it would have been unthinkable.

Once war was harnessed to strategic objectives, it became possible to expand its application to introduce tactical dimensions that were completely new to Arab warfare. Muhammad attacked tribes, towns, and garrisons before they could form hostile coalitions; he isolated his enemies by severing their economic lifelines and disrupting their lines of communication; he was a master at political negotiation, forming alliances with pagan tribes when it served his interests; and he laid siege to cities and towns and he also introduced the new dimension of psychological warfare to weaken the will of his enemies. Various texts also mention Muhammad’s use of catapults (manjaniq) and movable covered cars (dabbabah) in siege warfare. Most likely these siege devices were acquired in Yemen, where Persian garrisons had been located on and off over the centuries. Muhammad seems to have been the first Arab commander to use them in the north. Where once Arab warfare had been a completely tactical affair, Muhammad’s introduction of strategic war permitted the use of tactics in the proper manner, as a means to greater strategic ends. War, after all, is never an end in itself. It is, as Clausewitz reminds us, always a method, never a goal.

As an orphan, Muhammad had lacked even the most rudimentary military training typically provided by an Arab father. To compensate for this deficiency, he surrounded himself with experienced warriors and constantly sought their advice. In fact, he frequently appointed the best warriors of his former enemies to positions of command once they converted to Islam. He sought good officers wherever he found them, appointing young men to carry out small-scale raids to give them combat experience, and sometimes selecting an officer from a town to command a bedouin raid, to broaden his experience with cavalry. He always chose his military commanders on the basis of their proven experience and ability, never for their asceti¬cism or religious devotion. He was the first to institutionalize military excellence in the development of a professional Arab officer corps. From that corps of trained and experienced field commanders came the generals who commanded the armies of the Arab conquests.

We have little information on how Muhammad trained his soldiers, but it is almost certain he did so. There are clear references to training in swimming, running, and wrestling. The early soldiers of Islam had left their clan and family loyalties behind to join the ummah. Converts had to be socialized to a new basis of military loyalty—the faith—and new military units created with soldiers from many clans. References in various texts suggest that Muhammad trained these units in rank and drill, sometimes personally formed them up and addressed them before a battle, and deployed them to fight in disciplined units, not as individuals as was the common practice. These disciplined units could then be trained to carry out a wider array of tactical designs than had previously been possible. Muhammad’s use of cavalry and archers in concert with his infantry was one result. While Arab fathers continued to train their sons in warfare long after Muhammad’s death, the armies of the Arab conquests and later those of the Arab empire instituted formal military training for recruits.

Muhammad had been an organizer of caravans for twenty-five years before he began his insurgency, and he showed the caravaner’s concern for logistics and planning. His expertise in those areas permitted him to project force and conduct military operations over long distances across inhospitable terrain. During that time he made several trips to the north along the spice road, for example, and gained a reputation for honesty and as an excellent administrator and organizer.

Such expeditions required extensive attention to detail and knowledge of routes, rates of march, distances between stops, water and feeding of animals, location of wells, weather, places of ambush, etc. knowledge that served him well as a military commander. In 630 he led an army of twenty to thirty thousand men (sources disagree on the exact numbers) on a 250-mile march across the desert from Medina to Tabuk lasting eighteen to twenty days during the hottest season of the year. By traditional Arab standards, that trek was nothing short of astounding.

Muhammad’s transformation of Arab warfare was preceded by a revolution in the way Arabs thought about war, what might be called the moral basis of war. The old chivalric code that limited bloodletting was abandoned and replaced with an ethos less conducive to restraint, the blood feud. Extending that ethos beyond the ties of kin and blood to include members of the new community of Muslim believers inevitably made Arab warfare more encompassing than it had ever been.

Within two hundred years after the Muslim conquests of Byzantium and Persia, Muhammad’s reform influence on the conventional Arab armies had disappeared, displaced by the more powerful influence of Byzantine, Persian, and Turkic military practices. Muhammad’s military legacy is most clearly evident in the modern methodology of insurgency and in the powerful idea of jihad. In the years following his death, Islamic scholars developed an account of the Islamic law of war. This body of law, essentially complete by 850, ultimately rests on two foundations: the example and teaching of Muhammad and the word of God as expressed in the Koran. At the heart of the Islamic law of war is the concept of jihad, meaning to endeavor, to strive, to struggle, but in the West commonly understood to mean holy war.

Richard A. Gabriel, a military historian and adjunct professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, has authored forty-one books. His latest is Muhammad: Islam’s First Great General (Oklahoma University Press, 2007).

Islamic view on homosexuality

2009-12-27T23:18:00.000Z

What does Islam say about homosexuality?

Islam teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and punishable by God. This teaching comes not from human beings, but from the Creator of all humans. God tells us in His own words how He punished the people of Lot for their homosexual behaviour.

The story of prophet Lot, on whom be peace, finds mention in several Qur'anic passages, especially Chapter 26:160-175 which reads:

"The people of Lut rejected the apostles. Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will ye not fear (God)? "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust. "So fear God and obey me. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom God has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"

He said: "I do detest your doings." "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might Most Merciful."

From these passages we learn that God saved Lot and the righteous ones of his family, and rained on the rest a shower of brimstone, so they were utterly destroyed. This is mentioned in the Qur'an not only for the sake of information, but mainly to serve as a warning to anyone who dares to repeat such acts.

Muslims believe that every human action leads to consequences. Good actions entail good results, and evil actions entail evil consequences. Some of these consequences may not become known for many years after a certain action. The consequences of some actions will become manifest only after death when one enters a new, everlasting life.... A common mistake among humans is that if they don't see any negative consequences for their actions they consider it harmless. Human experience has taught us that a source of superior knowledge can be of tremendous benefit to humans.... God, the source of all knowledge, warns us of His punishment if people perpetrate homosexual acts. Let us pay attention and learn the easy way.

Some will say that a person may be born with homosexual tendencies. We say that everyone is a free agent. God lays before us two paths and has given us knowledge of where these paths lead. One is the path to which the devil call us. We must avoid that. One is the path leading to paradise. We must stick to that one. Everyone experiences evil prompting from time to time. We must resist those with all our might. If one feels a tendency to do something that God prohibits, he or she should seek help from a community of loving, caring, believers who would understand his or her difficulty and help him or her overcome it.

A common ploy of the devil is to convince people that they cannot avoid sin. Then they do not even try. But God promises that the devil can have no lasting power over those who sincerely seek God (see Qur'an 15:42)

The Quran forbids any sexual relationship other than in a marriage between a man and a woman. Many homosexual men and women claim that they are born with their sexual preferences and that they have no choice. Although this point is very much in dispute in the medical world, it has no support in the Quran. Even then, irrespective of the nature of homosexuality, this matter would not affect the laws spelled out clearly in the Quran.

We know that this life is a test. Everyone of us has his/her own test. For example someone may be born blind, but that person is expected to live his/her life according to God's law. Others are born poor, short, tall, weak, missing fingers, having big nose...etc but all of them are expected to follow God's law. Some men or women may never marry in their life, or spend part of their life without a spouse.

Some medical circles also argue that it is in the nature of man to cheat on his wife and be promiscuous, again just because someone has certain feelings it doesn’t mean they have to act upon them. Similarly it is even argue some people have a natural propensity to commit crime as it is genetic, again just because we have an inclination does not mean we have to act upon it. As per the Quran they still have to live a chaste life and avoid any sexual contacts outside a marriage. They have to suppress their sexual feelings to follow God's law. It is a major test and not an easy one for many. Only those who submit to God will do everything they can to follow His law. They know that their salvation and eternal happiness rests in doing so.

Since God condemns homosexuality, then we have to believe that a man or a woman with homosexual feelings is expected to behave like any other human being and follows God's laws if he/she truely believes in them. He/she shall resist his/her feelings, maintains abstinence, use all available resources of help including medical, social and behavioral therapies to overcome their behavior and feelings. They should pray to God to help them getting over it and submit to God's law that sees homosexuality as gross sin. Only those who steadfastly persevere in obeying God's law will they pass their test and confirm their submission to God.

For a person who asks, "why me?" We know God is the Most Merciful and Just (16:90) and He will give each one of us a fair test and a fair chance. He assigns the tests to suite each one of us and we believe that He will never burden any soul beyond its means (23:2).

And We have explained to man in this Qur'an every kind of similitude: yet the grater part of men refuse (to receive it) except with ingratitude!- Holy Quran 17:89

We have explained in detail in this Qur'an for the benefit of mankind every kind of similitude: but man is in most things contentious. - Holy Quran 18:54
We have put forth for men in this Qur'an every kind of Parable in order that they may receive admonition. - Holy Quran 39:27

The spouses that God have made from among ourselves are those that aid in producing children. Since the spouses in homosexual relationship would not produce children they are not the spouses God made from among ourselves.

And Allah has made for you mates (and companions) of your own nature. And made for you out of them sons and daughters and grandchildren and provided for you sustenance of the best: will they then believe in vain things and be ungrateful for Allah's favors? - Holy Quran 16:72

The reason for the prohibition can be traced to Islamic view of the perfect society. It is based upon a strong family structure, and without this structure society breaks down. There is no doubt that this act, which goes against the pure human nature created by God, by making men content with men and women with women, destroying families, adversely affecting the birth rate, causing the spread of killer diseases.

This is something which will and does destroy the family structure, but also harms society as a whole. Not in every case, one can say I have a gay friend who is perfectly normal, practices safe sex and would be a great parents. Islam however legislates for society as a whole, it does not have different rules for different people in such situations. It gives a general principle which must be followed in order for society to function in the best way possible. Society cant function with a legal system for case by case situations, thus the law of God is most just as it legislates for all situations in the fairest way possible with the general good of the majority of society being the main aim.

The aim is not to totally eradicate homosexual feelings, and nor to rid the earth of homosexuals as this would be impossible. The aim is to reduce the effect of homosexuality as much as possible on society, and this can be best achieved through Gods law, not through any man made law.

Finally, our bodies are given to us in trust from God. One should not use his or her body contrary to the user guide provided by its Maker. Consenting adults also need God's consent.

Check out the following short video on the issue:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AerCqUUxiUo

Homosexual related research:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-2.shtml

Development of sexual orientation:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-3.shtml

Homosexuality in psychiatry:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-4.shtml

What constitutes normal?
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-5.shtml

Therapy:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-6.shtml

Diseases related to Homosexuality:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/article01-7.shtml

Did Jesus exist?

2009-12-27T23:12:00.000Z

Regarding the existence of Jesus, i have seen alot of stuff on it inluding the zeitgeist movie which tries to cast doubt. As Muslims, we believe that everything recounted in the noble Quran is true. This means that every historical event narrated in the Quran has really happened, inlcuding Jesus.

Our faith needs no external corroboration from historians or researchers to "prove" the veracity of these narrations. But as we have been blessed with powers of reasoning such as induction and deduction as well as a number of other faculties, we need to use them for the purpose of studying nature and history. The Quran however is our evidence and yardstick

As for the story of Jesus and the New Testament narrations, difficulties of a different nature were encountered. First it was seen that the New Testament documents were arranged to serve a theological purpose, and not according to chronology.

Of the New Testament stories, we are concerned in particular with the Gospels which tell the story of Jesus himself. The first problem with the Gospels was that the earliest of them was written some 60 years after Jesus' disappearance. Secondly, they were the compositions of several persons that significantly differed from one another as to details.

Speaking of the historicity of Jesus, a former evangelical minister called Dan Baker wrote in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist:

"[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed." (Barker, Dan, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, Madison, Wisconsin: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992, p. 360)

Prof G.A Wells in his "The Historical Evidence for Jesus" noted:

"The Gospels are widely agreed to have been written between forty and eighty years after his [Jesus'] supposed lifetime by unknown authors who were not personally acquainted with him. And their miracle stories are nearly all couched in general terms, with no indication of time or place or details concerning the person or persons who benefited." (Wells, G.A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988, p. 206)

It is such studies as referred to above that cast serious doubts on the historicity of Jesus, which led some freethinkers to hold the view that the religion of Christianity built around the crucifixion and resurrection of "the Son of God" was a pure invention of Saul of Tarsus, the self-styled "Apostle to the Gentiles", St Paul.

Historian Will Durant observes:

"Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man that he did not even know, 50 or more years after the death of Jesus, with complete disregard and neglect for even the sayings that are attributed to Jesus in the synoptic Gospels. The simple teachings attributed to Jesus become lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's theology." (Cited in Edelen, William, Toward the Mystery [Boise, Idaho: Josylyn & Morris, Inc.], p. 76)

Ian Wilson in his significant work, "Jesus the Evidence" acknowledges the shortcomings of the gospels as history; but at the same time maintains that Jesus did exist. (Wilson, Ian, Jesus: The Evidence, San Francisco, California: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984)

Outside the New Testament, we have contemporary evidence for the life of Jesus in the apocryphal writings as well as in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So the claim that Paul invented Jesus stretches the available historical evidence to the breaking point; while the truth is that Paul has actually subverted Jesus' teachings under pagan influences.

Indeed we have absolutely no teaching of Jesus in the Gospels to prove his divinity or the claim that he came to die on the cross to redeem mankind from a mythical Original Sin.

God in the Quran says what means:

*{He (Jesus) said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet. And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live.

(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)" Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.}* (Maryam 19:30-36)

There are first and second century writes who wrote about Jesus, including:

• Clement (A.D. c. 30-100) the Bishop of Rome

• The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. c. 70-130)

• Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) the Bishop of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John

• Ignatius (A.D. 35-110) the Bishop of Antioch

• Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200) the second century Bishop of Lyons

• Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) the second century apologist

• Clement (A.D. 150 -215) the second century Bishop of Alexandria

• Tacitus in his Annals (c.115 A.D.)

• Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.)

• The correspondence between Pliny the younger and the Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.)

• Gaius Suetonius

• Lucian

• The Didache, a late first century catechism, quotes extensively from the New Testament.

• Ignatius (A.D. 35-110), the Bishop of Antioch, quotes from 16 New Testament books.

• Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200), the second century Bishop of Lyons, makes 1,819 references to New Testament scriptures.

• Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) quotes from the New Testament 7,258 times

This is sufficient proof the A man called Jesus existed, however there is no verification on the nature of the man as described by christianity. So the evidence shows that the christian Jesus didnt exist, but a man called Jesus who fits the Islamic description did exist

Its a fact that no one can cannot account for the New Testament being written in the first century if Jesus did not exist. The only real doubt is regarding the existence of the historical Jesus, i.e the one who was crucified, killed, ressurected, the one who was God. This is where the myths from ancient civilisations have interpolated christian teachings. However most historians, even most critics accept that a man called Jesus existed. (Well Esau was his given name in hebrew, Isa in arabic - the greeks latinised it by adding the J and the S at the end hence you have Jesus)

Alot of people raise the question why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him. Because he was seen as a threat and the romans and the jews were embarrassed about the fact that he was causing so much of a rebellion, it is clear they would want to deal with him and remove him from the pages of history - which they tried to do

Once Christianity was established as a major force in the empire then Jesus became rather more interesting and he is mentioned by Tacitus in the early second century

Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out because they are from christian sources. This however is unfair in my opinion as later evidence for a human Jesus is trustworthy and should not simply be ruled out because of the circumstances of the times. As mentioned only the christians would really have been interested in Jesus in a time of such political turmoil in the Roman and jewish world, so it is only natural that most of the documented evidence is recorded by christians, the people most interested and those in closest proximity. It is the same for any historical figure, around 2000+ years ago so i dont think its anything unusual

Ofcourse all the ideas did not come out of thin air so again it is likely a man named Jesus existed, only dispute is regarding his qualities. Sadly the christians have removed alot of credibilty for the existence of Jesus by adopting and adding alot of mythical ideas to his story

It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus

Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from historical sources, as i previously posted. We cant forget that this was over 2000 years ago

I think realistically there is too much evidence showing Jesus the man did exist. Only doubts are concerning the characteristics assigned to him and as such doubts are regarding the historical Jesus as described in the Bible. These in my opinion were stolen from ancient myths, namely son of god, crucifiction, death, ressurection, 25th december, easter, christmas etc etc.

Please see my response to the Zeitgeist movie for more details

Islamic response to the Movie Zeitgeist

2009-12-27T23:01:00.002Z

I watched it last year, thought it was really well made and very persuasive. I personally don’t agree with all of it though. I agree with some parts of the religion bit, I disagree with the 9/11 conspiracy theory but I agree with the federal reserve part. I do personally agree with some parts being plagerised and made part of Christian teachings from ancient ideas and myths. The most notable interpolations I feel are:

• Jesus born on the 25th
• The three kings
• Jesus’ death and crucifixion
• Jesus being the son of god
• Jesus being resurrected
• The cross being stolen from an ancient pagan symbol
• The references to end times and how it corresponds with ancient myths
• Easter
• Christmas
• Holy Communion
• Global flood

A lot of the attacks from the film are on Christian doctrine, which Islam does not subscribe to rather it also challenges these ideas. All the names and qualities ascribed to the historical ‘gods’ again are similar to those ascribed to Jesus in the bible, however they are not found anywhere in the Quran. We feel the reason Islam came was to correct the corruption which occurred within the Christian teachings. This includes some of the details mentioned in the movie, such as the issues already raised above. We feel that these ancient myths were granted place in Christian teachings and as such the religion became far from the true religion of God.

For example the issue of the sun and people in past times believing the sun was the son of God, this was also the belief of the Greeks at the time of the emperor Constantine. This is where we believe the idea of Jesus being the son of god came about, aswell as the trinity which would fall in line with Greek mythological beliefs and thus make mass conversion amongst the Greeks to Christianity an easier process. The same could apply to a lot of the Christian teachings referred to in this film, i.e. references to darkness and light and so on. These are quotes from the bible and as such because they are not found in the Quran, Islam does not subscribe to such ideas.

There are however parts that are the same as in Islamic teachings, and thus there is an allegation that all religions, including Islam is also a victim of the plagiarism from ancient myths. This however is false and I will refute them one by one.

We believe that Jesus did exist; he was born to a virgin named Maryam, in english Mary. His name was esau in hebrew and is Isa in Arabic. The Christians added the J and the S at the end to latinise it and hence you have Jesus. We believe he was not God, but he was a prophet. We believe he was not killed nor crucified and hence he was not resurrected. We also believe that Moses existed, and he was given the Ten Commandments by God. We also believe that Noah existed, and the flood was an event that took place. These are the Islamic beliefs that the film touches on, anything outside what I refute is not an Islamic belief and as such I accept the influence of mythical stories on those issues.

To begin with let’s look at the allegation that Isis was called Mary and that the virgin birth of Jesus is a rip off from Horus. Firstly, there is no evidence which proves Isis was called Mary so I don’t see the link, maybe the film makers just stuck it an and hoped no one would notice that the names are different lol. Secondly, Horus was not born of a virgin birth. There are many tales of his birth found in historical evidence, 3 of which are the following: First that he was given birth by a falcon, and second he was given birth via an egg laid by a goose and thirdly most common that Isis was not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris. Isis practices magic to raise Osiris from the dead so she can bear a son that would avenge his death. Isis then becomes pregnant from the sperm of her deceased husband. Again, no virgin birth occurs:

"[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus]."

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/i/isis.html

This is not a virgin birth. There is also an allegation that the virgin birth idea was ripped off from the birth of Attis also an ancient mythological god from 1200 years BC. This is false because again, Attis’s mother was called nana – not Mary, and the birth of Attis was not a virgin birth or immaculate conception. The birth was a result of the genitals of a demon being cut and thrown away, out of which a very special almond tree grew lol nana took the almond, laid it in her bosom and then she gave birth thus the demon was the father of Attis. Regarding the idea that the virgin birth was ripped off from the story of the ancient Indian mythical character of Krishna from 900 BC, this is also false. Krishna was the 8th son of princess Divaki and her husband Vasudeva as found in the Hindi scriptures in Mahabharata Bk 12, XLVIII. This was not a virgin birth.

Then is the allegation that virgin birth idea was ripped off from the story of Dionysus of Greece from 500 BC, which is also false. History shows that his mother and Zeus had an affair, as a result of which Dionysus was born. This was not a virgin birth. There are also further historical accounts of the birth, namely the following:

Zeus impregnates a mortal woman, Semele, much to the jealously of Hera. Hera convinces Semele to ask Zeus to reveal his glory to her but because no mortal can look upon the gods and live, Semele is instantly incinerated. Zeus then takes the fetal Dionysus and sews him into his own thigh until his birth. Dionysus is the product of Zeus and Persephone. Hera becomes insanely jealous and tries to destroy the infant by sending the Titans to kill him. Zeus comes to the rescue but it's too late- the Titans had eaten everything but Dionysus' heart. Zeus then takes the heart and implants it into the womb of Semele. As we can see, no virgin birth takes place but this is how Dionysus is said to have become a rebirth deity as he is twice born in the womb.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html

Again it is also claimed that the virgin birth was ripped off from the story of the ancient Persian character of Mithra, this is also false. He was not born of a virgin, but born of a rock as depicted by the ancient Persian artifacts. Regarding this allegation that the virgin birth was also ripped off from Buddha, this is also false. Gautama was born to Suddhodana and his wife of twenty years, Maya.

Regarding the allegation that the idea of Mary was adopted from astrology, it is claimed that the Virgin Mary represents or is literally the constellation Virgo. This is false because in its pagan context the constellation Virgo only means woman, not the Virgin Mary as so explicitly stated. The similarities pointed out in names and more specifically the letter ‘M’ for the supposed virgin mothers (who I have shown were not actually virgin’s lol) are a mere coincidence, and this is not proof of anything. There are more women in mythology who are alleged to be virgins without their name beginning with M then those whose name does begin with M. This is a totally random occurrence, no basis for anything. For example, the resemblance between the names Maya mother of Buddha and Mary are said to hold significance. Though similar in their English translations, their original forms and translations are completely different. Maya, from Sanskrit, means Illusion whereas Mary (Maryam) translates from Hebrew as Bitter

There is also the allegation that the place where Jesus was born, Bethlehem is actually a place in the sky rather then on earth. This is not true as archeological evidence clearly proves the there was a place called Bethlehem that existed. This was as a result by numerous excavations, most notably from the Israel archeological society. Let’s face it, they don’t like Jesus lol so there is no reason for them to lie in this situation.

It also alleges that the story of Moses is a fabrication, with the evidence being the golden bull is Taurus the bull and Moses represents the new age of Aries the ram. Citing references to a random bull, then relating it to a concept which came 4000 years later as evidence that Moses story is derived from that bull is indeed a load of bull lol. This is modern astrology, and would not have been known at the time of Moses, the 12 ages of the zodiac were unknown till the 2nd century. So it is impossible for this story to have been stolen from the astrology being referred to, even though the link between the stories is non existent lol and as such the Jews blowing the rams horn has no significance (altho it is not part of Islamic teachings anyway but I thought I would just add it in)

The point is that they claim the story is stolen from the concept of astrological ages; however it is a fact that this concept came about much later, the age concept did not exist in any shape or form in ancient astrology and thus the story could not have been possibly ripped off from this. Furthermore, the stories they claim that are ripped off have no link whatsoever to the story of Moses. Once again they are just throwing stuff in trying to get away with it lol

Let’s however say for arguments sake that they were aware of the ages at the time of Moses, and there is a similarity between the coming of the age and Moses and the calf. I still do not see anything groundbreaking, and on this basis I see no reason to believe the story of Moses is a lie. This is because the Egyptians have a well known and long history of bull worship and sacred cows. These were said to incarnate the spirit of their gods and their death was followed by a long period of mourning. The artifacts from the era and the main iconography in Egypt also show the people had an affinity with the bull of heaven. Even the physical manifestation of the God Montu was in form of the bull.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/bull.htm

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/montu.htm

This shows that this was a common thing amongst the people of the time, including the children of Israel who had left Egypt and thus them worshipping a calf or a bull would not be something unusual, especially as they were seen to be going astray from the truth path which God had revealed to them by returning to their old disbelieving ways which they had picked up in Egypt. I don’t see enough evidence to convince me that this was an adoption of the change of ages. I mean I accept the video is quite compelling if you watch it at first glance, and it convinces many people like it has done but in the historical context when each issue is broken down a lot of it is just conjecture

There is an allegation that the story of Noah is ripped off from the epic of Gilgamesh from 2600 BC. Fact is there is no evidence that these incidents were separate occurances. Rather both could be descriptions of the same event that occurred, as they would have happened around the same time. The epic of Gilgamesh would be a collection of oral traditions passed down describing the story of Noah but ascribing it to pagan mythical charactars. The flood was most likely a real event in the history of mankind that was passed down through the generations of different cultures. If so, the Gilgamesh account seems to have undergone some rather radical transformations, and thus the biblical and Quranic account would only be confirming what is previously known of the true story. Just to note however, the Quran corrects the biblical assertion that the flood was global as historical and scientific research shows there could not have been a global flood because civilisations flourished at the time of the alleged global flood; the Quran confirms what history and science agree upon, which is that this was a localised flood.

Then there is the allegation that the story of Moses is stolen from the ancient account of Sargon. This is false because the story of Moses was reported and occurred around 1500 BC, however there is no confirmed date as to when the narrative about Sargon was written so there is no way anyone can say the story of Moses was stolen from Sargon. The Neo-Assyrian orthographic forms, idiomatic expressions attested only in a later period, and the mention of cutting roads with bronze or copper picks are some factors that point to the fact that Sargon came after 1500 BC. Brian Lewis who wrote The Sargon Legend (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978) is one of the best authorities on the history of Sargon, he was of the view that the story was written in the reign of Sargon II, a much later king from 721-705 BC who was possibly a usurper, to legitimate his own rule. This was well after Moses. All the historical evidence shows that It would be more likely that the story of Moses was ripped off by the Sargon narrative. Hence this cannot really be used as an argument.

The letter ‘M’ raises its head again lol it claims now that the idea of Moses being a law giver is ripped off from a number of ancient ‘law’ givers with names all starting with ‘M’. Again, is it just me or is this the most weakest link one can use as evidence – the letter M? How many historical individuals out of the billions of humans that have lived could have the letter M at the start of their name, what the hell how many people do you know who have a name beginning with the letter M? This is no evidence, and further proof is the fact that each name would have a different spelling and meaning in each of the languages of the individual concerned. The M similarity would only exist in some languages, including English. Furthermore they were not all law givers, Minos the son of Zeus and Europa was a cruel tyrant and was given directions to for administration by his father – not by God. Manusmriti is the name of some of the hindu law, rather then the law giver. Even if they were law givers, and they all begin with ‘M’ – is this really proof of anything? Again out of the billions of people who ever lived, 3 individuals who are said to have laid down some rules, which are all very different by the way, in different parts of the world? Could this just not be a unique parallel? I hope it is because I have one of my own. Liverpool champions league final 2005, knocked out 2006, final 2007, knocked out 2008, FINAL 2009?? I really hope so

Regarding the issue of whether Jesus actually existed or not, the movie plays a clever trick as most historians agree that a person fitting his description did exist – yet the movie tries to create the impression that there is no evidence at all which is clearly false. Jewish and Roman historians of the first and second centuries A.D have all recorded his existence. The issue is simply over some of his qualities, and as such Islam does not agree with the historical Jesus being God, crucified, killed and resurrected. These ideas in our eyes have been interpolated into christian teachings, and in that case the movie makes a good case which cant be refuted. We simply believe he was a man, a prophet of God. Everything we believe about him stands as true, as I have proven the movie was false in its assertions.

There is also the allegation that the 10 commandments are stolen from the Egyptian book of the dead. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to make these laws, nor do you need to copy any ancient text. These laws are a law unto themselves, common sense. Thou shall not kill, steal etc etc…It names but a few that match out of hundreds which differ, , which shows a deliberate attempt to mislead. Mosaic law moved beyond the book of the dead, or any of the ancient law codes, because it is grounded in the worship of one God whilst the other laws specifically direct worship to different deities. Similarities are bound to exist in some cases because most ancient civilizations had their own law codes, most with basic principles similar to the commandments. Similarity however is not proof of plagerism.

So in short the Christian representation of Jesus may be a plagerisation of Horus et al, as we feel many of the Christian teachings are external ideas from civilisations gone by that have found their way into Christianity. However, Islam disagrees with all these ancient ideas that have been proven to be plagerised and seemingly adopted by Christianity (as listed previously). Islam represents a different individual, who was not the son of God, who was not born on the 25th, who was not crucified or killed, who was not resurrected. It does not subscribe to the cross, nor the references to end times which copy ancient myths or the references to light and darkness that link the Christian Jesus to Horus the sun God amongst others. Therefore it’s clear Islam, by breaking from the mould and not falling into the trap of following these ancient ideas is not in anyway plagerised from the astronomical or mythological ideas of previous civilisations. Rather we believe it to be the complete and true final revelation from the creator, free from external corruption

If anyone knows anything about Islam, they will know that it is in no shape or form a copy cat from previous sun god astrological myths or religions. This is because the Quran itself openly condemns the worship of sun moon and stars, and actually specifically says that the true God is the unseen supreme creator of all things.

The movie basically in the end condemns all religions as man made control systems. Firstly I am not comfortable with Islam being dismissed on the grounds of a critique of Christian teachings, there is more to religion. Secondly I accept that religion does exist to offer some sort of structure or system to live by. For society to exist there has to be some kind of order and rules to govern it, without this there would be anarchy. It’s just a fact that the movie and I’m guessing you feel that this system is man made.

I however feel it is from the creator, and as such is not false. I feel it has a genuine purpose, rather then the sinister man made religious system proposed by the movie. We feel the only true religion is Islam i.e. peaceful submission to the will of the creator, the religion which the creator has revealed to mankind since the beginning of time. The final installment being the Quran given to Muhammad, to come and correct all the other earlier revelations which had been corrupted by the people, like corruptions shown in the movie. Whilst the religions from previous times gone by may have been correct at that time, with the passage of time they had been changed from the original teachings. As such our yardstick is the Quran, which we feel is the final revelation and perfect representation of the true religion and if Islam should be judged, it should be judged on this basis.

Is science superior to religion?

2009-12-27T23:01:00.001Z

The topic religion and science is one which has its roots in European history, wherein a conflict developed between the Christian church and scientific enquiry. That conflict has created in the western scientific mind a generally negative attitude towards institutionalised religion.

An attitude which people hold which is a product of this history is that science is based on facts, and religion is based on blind faith. Therefore science is something we can rely on because it has been proven and is based on facts, and religion is something which is in some ways irrational, this is the general view that is prevalent in the world today.

Now this concept, or understanding is a product of history. It is not a view which was always held, these are beliefs are products of certain developments which took place particularly in Europe where modern science as we know it evolved out of.

If we in fact go back to the history and look for the origins of the sciences we so rely on today, you will find that there origins were not so much so in the facts and the rational understanding of these facts that we would be led to believe today.

If we take the general definition of science from the merits student encyclopedia, the simple version, it reads ‘science is the sum of human knowledge of the universe.’ This definition of course includes everything, including religion because religion provides certain knowledge about the universe. As well as what we understand to be science in general, it also includes philosophy. Any field of knowledge which pertains in any way shape or form to the universe will then be classified as science under this general definition.

However the definition goes on to say ‘it deals with facts’ and here is where the scientists says well here is the difference between science and religion and philosophy, science deals with facts whilst everybody else is dealing with ideas which may be a product of human experience or human reflection. However the definition does not stop there, it goes further ‘it deals with facts and with the relationships between them.’

Here we now step into another field, first they said science deals with facts – no problem, science deals with things we observe which are measurable etc. But then it goes on to talk about the relations between them, because its not just the observation of these facts but a relation is developed between them an explanation is given to these facts, these facts are strung together to form some story, some picture which is explained; now comes philosophy.

Because facts by themselves do not tell us anything, it is when you put ideas to the facts and you string them together in a particular form and make relationships between them – only then can facts tell us something.

When you go and make that relationship, and put an idea forward to string the facts together this becomes a reflection of your philosophy. So what this is in fact telling us is that science is based on philosophy.

Religion is based on a philosophy, on an understanding and explanation but it is also is based on certain facts. There are certain facts which it strings together and with a philosophy it produces an understanding of the universe. Science has certain facts which it strings together, maybe even the same facts, and with its understanding and philosophy it gives us another picture of the universe. In this case you have your philosophy and we have ours

What has happened in history in relation to this issue is that Christianity has been the main representative of the religious philosophy but this philosophy and subsequent picture has conflicted with science. Because of this conflict, modern society has looked on religion as being irrational, un-provable and has chosen science as its new religion.

Science has become the religion of the modern man, such as yourself Rick lol it seeks to explain why man exists, how he exists, and where he is heading etc…When you look into the scientists who are delving into the secrets of the universe splitting the sub atomic particles and so on, what are they looking for? They are looking to answer these very questions; they want to discover the building blocks of nature - the origin, to be able to create and to understand ultimately. They believe that by asking the right questions, by doing the right experiments you will ultimately be able to understand everything. Man is in fact the God of this world, and he is capable of not only understanding but creating. This is the philosophy of today.

When we look in the past and the definition of science, we see it comes from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge. When we look in the past to what western science considers to be the origin of science, we see a period of time in around the 7th and 6th century before the time of Christ in Greece, where science or philosophy as it was referred to back then was geared primarily to determine the basic elements of the universe. They were asking the same questions that the scientists of today are asking, but in that time it was considered philosophy but today it is called ‘science’.

In that period, no differentiation was made between science and philosophy. Later science came to be regarded as component part of philosophy, and finally as a set of disciplines all together different from philosophy. So we can clearly see that the concept of science went through a period of evolutionary change, and it is also clear that the same questions asked today were asked by the originators of science in their philosophies of the past. The leading figures according to western science of the time such as Plato and Aristotle, they considered that it was more noble and dignified to seek answers by reasoning rather then experiments. They felt that experimentation is for the ignorant, for those who wanted to go and play with matter etc. Those who were the true scholars and the higher minds they understood things from there reasoning. They looked at the universe around them and using there minds and there logic they were able to draw conclusions, establish principles and laws governing what existed around them.

These were the beginnings of science, the philosophy from that time has not changed much today, although it has been modified however the basis of modern science today is in philosophy. What we find as we went on with the history of science, is that after the time of the Greeks in the early 100 and 200 after Christ, the Roman empire took over. It bought the Greeks under their control and with it took control of the Mediterranean area. The Romans were not as much into reasoning as the Greeks, they were more concerned with administration. Scientific enquiry therefore in this period started to decline, and something happened with the spread of Christianity. We find that around the 4th century around this period, the concept of the trinity was adopted by the holy Roman emperor Constantine and was imposed on the Christian world, as a result of the council of Nicea around 325 AD. Prior to this time the majority of Christians were Unitarians, they believed that God was one not three in one.

What we find is that after this period where the trinity was introduced around the 5th and 6th century AD all the way to the 11th century, we find Europe entering what became to be known as the dark ages in European history. This was the period of time where knowledge reached its lowest ebb, most of the literature the writing the scientific theories of the Greeks were mostly forgotten, bar a few monks on monasteries. It simply existed to serve the purpose of the church as its scholars would take some of the theories which seemed to fit or provided some scope for development of the new Christian philosophy; they had a tight reign on any kind of scientific enquiry. They established what they wanted to be the understanding of the world and they wanted no competition.

During this period, we find Islam was established in the Middle East – the 7th century AD. From there it spread to North Africa, Palestine, Spain and southern Europe. This is a time when sciences flourished; as the sciences of the Greeks were translated into Arabic and Arabic thus became the language of science. These ideas were then developed upon, and Muslim scientists developed science to a very high level establishing universities in Palestine, Baghdad, Spain, and North Africa, Morocco. During this period we also find the crusades beginning, and what happened is that towards the end of this period around the 12th century AD, we see a renaissance beginning in Europe. From European scientists going to Spain, taking information back from Palestine from the crusades we find a revival of knowledge in Europe.

It is during this time that some of the great philosophers and scientists such as Sir Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon put developed the theories and concepts that became the basis for modern philosophy and science. However, after an initial spurt we find that the church tried to reign things back in to get things in control. Following the bubonic plagues in Europe, the church gained control over the situation as scientists could not really explain what was happening and people once again began to rely on religion. All people or scientists who were proposing ideas that were contrary to what the church had established back in the dark ages were put under scrutiny, inquisitions were set up and those who were found to have ideas contrary to the church were executed for example one Giordano Bruno, who was executed for heresy in 1600 because he stated the universe was infinite and the earth only a small body in it.

There was also Copernicus who established a sun centered theory about the solar system, whereas prior to him it was held that the earth was the centre of the universe according to the teaching of the Greek philosophers which the church adopted. When Copernicus came to this conclusion based on his observations, he was so afraid for his life he did not publish his theory until the year that he died. Galileo who further worked on this theory was tried by the Church and told not to pursue any more knowledge in this area, but after he persisted he was convicted of preaching false teachings and made to confess the same, and also imprisoned where he eventually died.

However the contact which had been made with the Muslims continued to bear fruits and contributed to the reformation movement in Europe, where we had people like Martin Luther challenged the teachings of Rome and the catholic Christian world, and subsequently formed the protestant movement. We had scientists who took advantage of this period of break up and dissent, and started to delve into issues concerning religion in general. Atheism would therefore also be a theory which was born out of this period. It produced later the Marxist dialectical materialism which is also known as the scientific socialism model, wherein human history is reduced to an economical struggle between the haves and the have nots, and also social systems become an expression of the classes with religion being seen as a tool used by the upper class the maintain the status quo and God as a fictitious friend of the rich who predestined there rule over the poor.

On the other hand you had other bodies of scientists who developed what is known as the Darwinism theory, where human existence is determined to be the result of natural forces, there was no need to go to look into the supernatural to explain mans existence as to why he is here where he is going etc…natural selection or survival of the fittest became the principle which determines mans existence and where he is heading.

When we look into this period, we have some reasons why scientists were led to these conclusions. One of them is fundamentally based in the Trinitarian concept, where in man is required to accept God is one but also three where it is clear that the facts tell us one plus one plus one equals three, but religion is telling us from the 4th century onwards that it equals one in relationship to God. This is something which is inexplicable, and the church called a divine secret, which cannot be understood ever. This therefore goes against the nature in which God created man, to analyse things and to be logical. Scientists were bothered by this because they could not express this or test this it made no sense, even Isaac Newton rejected this theory.

Even today in the world, very few of the worlds scientists disbelieve in God. Only 10 to 15% do not believe in God, but this minority seems to be very vocal.

Anyway the point that I am trying to make is that science and religion can have a relationship, it’s not one or the other. The reasons for science looking down upon religion also has to be looked at; Christianity. Islam we feel poses no anti science agenda, and as such we feel that the two can live in harmony, with science providing the facts, and Islam providing the philosophy.

PROOF FOR EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR

2009-12-27T22:53:00.000Z

The Collins Dictionary defines 'Proof' as, 'any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc of something'.

To better understand the concept of 'proof' let us consider an example; imagine not knowing today's date, so you decide to check the newspaper for it. As a result the newspaper forms the proof to substantiate your belief in today's date. The conclusion of the date and its correctness is based upon the correctness of the proof. Now, what if the newspaper we used in order to know the date was in fact yesterday’s. That means we incorrectly assumed the date, however, such an individual not knowing this error would feel assured in a truth that only he perceives due to the misunderstanding of the evidence. Thus, what is considered as 'proof' is of paramount concern, because although we may feel assured in the conclusion we obtained from what we perceive to be correct and valid proofs, we could in fact be completely wrong.

With regards to belief, there are three general ways, or three proofs that individuals use to adopt a particular set of beliefs. A person may adopt a belief through imitating the rest of society or following their forefathers. Similarly some base their belief upon the emotional satisfaction or contentment the particular belief gives them. Finally one may adopt a belief through the use of the intellect. With regards to the incorrectness of imitation as a method to establish ones' belief, it is self-evident.

As for emotions being the basis of adopting a belief, then this too can easily dismissed as an invalid proof, and I will not pursue to invalidate them. This then leaves us with the use of the intellect as the way to ascertain the proofs of the existence of the Creator. We thus need to ascertain how the intellect is used to obtain the correct conclusion. There are three general understandings as to the manner by which the mind/intellect could be used correctly in order to obtain objective knowledge. They are rational thought, empirical thought and the use of logic. Once we have obtained the correct manner in which to think we can then assess the proofs upon which any argument is to be built.

The use of Logic

The classical Greeks used a manner or style of thinking called 'logic', its most useful and strongest form was called deductive logic. By deductive logic they described how a conclusion would be built upon its premises, thus the correctness of the conclusion depended upon the correctness of the premises. Deductive logic therefore was built upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the conclusion which resulted from this link.

One of the most important features of the logic was the structure of the sentences i.e. semantics and terminology. So discussion branched out to discuss the theory of ideas and the theory of universals. In essence philosophers were trying to construct arguments built upon the correct use of semantics. So for example if I were to find out whether humans are warm blooded or not by using the logical approach then I may use the following premises; all mammals are warm blooded, all humans are mammals, therefore humans are warm blooded. Here the link between humans to mammals is based upon the definition we give to mammals. If our definition differs of mammals then our conclusion would change.

Hence amongst the logicians’, discussion on language, terminology and construct of sentences became an important feature. In this example, the understanding of the whether humans are mammals, is a discussion of the universal features that all mammals share, and thus do humans share this common feature. This discussion of universals and ideas are the two theories that distinguished Aristotle from Plato when understanding the commonalities that things share. So what we find, and it certainly is the case, that the use of logic can become complicated due to semantics. And we find that many philosophers fall into the trap of semantics, thus missing the wood from the trees so to say.

Further to the problem of semantics, logic also suffers from hidden defects that may not be known from the link between the two premises. This is due to the fact that the conclusion is not directly sensed but is built upon two base thoughts that may or may not have been sensed. So for example we could state oxygen is gas at room temperature and that hydrogen is also gas at room temperature thus we can conclude that oxygen combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature. But this is not the case for hydrogen combined with oxygen produces a liquid at room temperature. Such hidden defects can not be noticed when building thought upon thought and thus logic can not be used as the basis of building conclusions.

Empirical Thought

Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether the matter was the source of thought. So the rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, they stated that humans were born with innate thoughts. One such exponent was Emannuel Kant the German philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the creator from the equation the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought resulted from matter itself.

Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This they said was the basis of thinking; so that no thought could exist except if reality exists for it.

However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. So a simple example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests doesn’t establish the disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient, one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So a simple analogy throws doubt on the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought.

Further, while conducting experiments at school where we are told, in order to put into practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test the above hypothesis then record the results obtained from tests finally concluding whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.

To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight loss and urinates frequently the doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes, as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. So the doctor then tests his blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial hypothesis or not.

Finally with regards to empirical thought, due to the fact that the empiricists state that thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a specific reality. Then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true thoughts. Then the empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought process.

In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.

Rational thought

Finally on this section of the thinking process we come to rational thought and how this is the source of thinking. We state that thought came before matter because by merely sensing matter we do not establish any thought. The inability of sensing the syriac language without previous information of the syriac language shows that sensation alone will not allow us to understand the language. Instead we must have the previous information together with the reality which is sensed (sensory perception) and the distinguishing mind - to make the link between the reality and the previous information to produce thought.

Further we understand that the mind has the ability to produce thought based upon one reality and extrapolate a principle. So when we sense a ball on the ground with no force applied to it we see it stationary and when force is applied to the ball we see it move. We would understand that after observing the ball moving after applying force to it then this would be true each time we apply force to the ball and not just for that particular time. In fact this is true for all types of balls.

Further our mind is able to extract the general principle of cause and effect based upon all things which are finite and limited after simply observing the ball moving after force was applied. So there doesn’t just exist a simple relationship between the observed reality and its representation as a thought, which is the case with empirical thinking, but in fact the mind is able to establish principles and use those principles to establish other thoughts. Again, as an example a person may have a thought of a mountain and a thought of gold, his mind has then the capacity to link the two thoughts and produce a thought of a mountain of gold even though he hasn’t sensed this. Therefore rational thought is built upon the reality together with the previous information further the mind has the ability to extrapolate general principles and produce thoughts that may not be directly sensed. This is the clearest understanding of thought and this is how humans produce thought and live their life according to established thought.

Therefore the use of the rational method is the only definite way to assess the proofs in order to produce a conclusion. It is therefore the method of thinking we employ when discussing the subject matter of the proof of God.

Argument by design

This argument has been presented by various muslim and non muslim thinkers. So Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal gave the example of the egg and Thomas Aqinas gave the example of finding a watch in the middle of a desert. The argument is simple: complicated things require a designer. So taking the watch as an example we see it is complex, we also know the watch has a watch maker, thus an analogy can be made between the watch and the universe as the universe around us is also complex in its nature.

Thus if the watch is complex requiring a designer then what about the complexities of the universe? So some would naturally conclude that such complexity that exists in the universe would require a designer and that designer would thus be the Creator.

Although it is a simple argument it is at face value quite compelling, however many thinkers have criticised this argument. They have stated that how can an analogy be made between the watch and the universe. For instance we have previous information that the watch was made by a watchmaker. But such previous information doesn’t exist for the universe. The critics of this argument would also question as to whether the universe and all that it contains is truly complex, and state that it is just simply randomly arranged.

Those who try to defend the argument have stated that the universe is truly complex and that if one of the laws of nature was different by a very small amount then this would preclude the chances of life. Similarly if the expansion rate of the universe was greater or smaller then the universe would not exist. In essence they are stating that the probability of the universe coming into existence as it is allowing life to exist is so small that this would have to compel an observer to believe in a master designer. However, this argument isn't sound, for example if I were totake a ball and randomly throw it up in the air and for it to fall unto a particular piece of ground.

Then we would ask, that for it to have fallen on that piece of ground and not another piece of ground then the probability would be extremely low. But just because the probability was extremely low doesn’t mean that the ball was directed at that region, especially when the ball was thrown in a random way. Similarly the universe having its particular laws of nature and rate of expansion doesn’t necessarily mean it was designed in such a manner. For the universe to have different laws of nature or different rate of expansion then the probability would be equally as low. So such arguments as a rebuttal against those critics of the argument by design would be incorrect.

However, with regards to the critics they have failed to appreciate the manner by which the individual considers and thinks about the complexity of the universe and all that it contains. For instance, when we look at a table we establish that it is made of wood. But simply having the wood doesn’t necessarily follow we have a table. Thus, there must be something other than the wood to have fashioned it into a table. The philosophers therefore state that the ‘material cause’ of the table (i.e. what it is made out of) is the wood, but it has another cause i.e. its ‘efficient cause’. That is to say that there is something other than the wood required to fashion it into a table. That other would be different to the wood or material cause itself. So if we look at the life, man and the universe we find that the material cause is the same for all of these things, yet they differ from one another.

In addition, by having the material cause that makes up man and life then this doesn’t necessarily follow that we have a man or life. So if we have the elements that make up man, it does not follow that we have a human. Therefore, there must be something other than these elements that make up a human, i.e. an efficient cause. Again what distinguishes man life and the universe isn't the material cause therefore there must be something other than the material cause that distinguishes man from the universe and the different life forms. This means there exists an efficient cause separate from the universe man and life. That is the creator.

Some may argue that if the premise is laid down that complicated things require a designer then wouldn’t the creator be complex and thus also require a designer. Here they are using deductive logic to try and show an inherent contradiction within the argument by design. Remember how deductive logic has four components to it. Here they use the two premises: 1. Complex things require a designer, 2. The universe is complex, the conclusion built upon the link is that the universe is therefore designed by a Creator. They would argue that the creator is complex therefore it would fit within the logical style as mentioned above. However, if their argument is accepted then one would ask who designed the designer of the designer. In fact we will fall into infinite regression.

Infinite regression means continual subtraction by one. Meaning that if the creator designed the universe and that another designer designed the creator and this keeps continuing. This is impossible because there must be a first cause i.e. something that doesn’t depend upon something prior to it for its existence. In order to understand why infinite regression is impossible the simple analogy of dominoes can be considered. For the last domino to fall over, it would need to be hit by the domino before it and each domino must be hit by a prior domino. Now if there was no starting domino that initiates the process of each domino falling over then none of the dominoes would fall over. So if everything that is complex requires a prior designer, then we would face a situation where nothing would exist but would wait for that first cause to initiate the process and because there is no first cause then nothing would exist. Yet we see things in existence. Therefore infinite regression is impossible.

Further, they are incorrect in making the assumption that because the creator is complex that this creator would also require a designer. We have established that the designer and creator of the universe must exist based upon the sensation of reality, hence the thought is rational. Whereas, stating that there must exist a designer for the creator is not built upon sensing the reality but is mere logic. That is to say building thought upon thought. And as mentioned before building thought upon thought can carry with it hidden defects in its conclusion thus, we would reject any such argument stating clearly that an infinite regression is impossible and any such thought is irrational (not based upon reality). So the argument by design although having its critics has the ability to establish firm belief in the need for the creator.

Kalam Cosmological argument

This is the argument originally developed by the muslim thinkers. It clearly states that everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite and that everything that is limited and finite is dependent. The universe is the sum of limited finite things therefore the universe is limited and because it is limited it is thus dependent upon something else. As mentioned previously: because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon the independent creator who is unlimited and infinite. This is the basic argument however, it has slight variations.

The first variance is that limited objects in the universe depend upon something else in order for it to exist. So for example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on.

Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited. So the question may arise: does this series of inter-dependant things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere? Because we haveestablished that infinite regression is an impossibility then it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent. Now for this thing to be independent then it must be other than what is dependent i.e. limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

Now some may criticise this argument by saying that we have assumed that a linear relationship exists between limited finite things. Thus A depends upon B and B depends upon C and so on in a linear relationship. And for things that depend upon each other in a linear relationship then it is true that there must be something independent. However, some may argue: what if there exists a cyclical dependency as is the cause with the water cycle. So the seas depend upon the rain, the rain depends upon the clouds and the clouds depend upon evaporation of water fromthe seas. Thus each up holds the other. This is how they say the universe preserves its existence. Therefore the universe goes through a cycle from the big bang to a big crunch and so on for infinity.

Yet we would clearly ask what initiated the cycle in the first place? For instance if the seas require the rain before seas are produced and if the rain requires clouds for the rain to exist and the clouds initially require the seas to exist then we know that each thing cannot sustain the other without their originally existing a first cause. Otherwise the seas, clouds and rain wouldn’t exist. Similarly each finite thing within the universe cannot depend upon another finite thing within an elaborate cycle as is the case in the water cycle. That is to say that a first cause i.e. something independent is required to exist. So if the big bang depended upon the big crunch and that big crunch was dependant upon a previous big bang then if there was no start to the cycle then neither the big bang nor the big crunch would exist.

Therefore things which are limited are themselves dependent upon other things and definitely they require something independent and unlimited to bring them into being in the first place.

After this has been established still some atheists tried to bring other arguments. So Bertrand Russel stated that if we accept the premise that every thing has a cause then the creator is also a thing, therefore who caused the creator?. Again using the logical style of argumentation they state that there is an inherent contradiction within this argument. If we were to say that God is uncaused then the atheist would say that we have contradicted our original premise which was everything has a cause. As a result they would claim that the universe is uncaused just as some would say that God is uncaused.

However, even if we use the logical style of argumentation, we do not state that every thing has a cause. Rather from understanding the reality we conclude that everything that is limited and finite is dependant, or has a cause and that because infinite regression is impossible there must exist a first cause i.e. something independent. That thing which is independent must therefore be something other than finite and limited. Thus, we would state that it necessarily follows that this independent thing, which is the sole creator must be infinite and unlimited. So there is no inherent contradiction and it is unfortunate that such a simple point was missed by a philosopher whom they called the Socrates of our time.

With regards to this argument that finite limited things depend upon other finite limited things, certain philosophers state that we presume the relationship of cause and effect. In essence they deny that cause and effect is an established fact that is true for all things that are limited. They base their objection to the certainty of cause and effect upon two areas: firstly they state that cause and effect can not be proven from the use of empirical thought. And secondly they state that 'empirical' propositions can not yield certain knowledge.

By 'empirical' propositions they mean knowledge which is established upon experience. For the philosophers they divide knowledge into two kinds one which is known prior to experience and one which is established upon experience. So for example mathematics, they would say, is knowledge known prior to experience and this type of knowledge is true and establishes certainty. Whereas knowledge built upon experience does not establish absolute certainty.

The strength of knowledge built upon experience is only as strong as the reality we have observed; it could be that there is something we have not observed or experienced which would change our conclusions. Thus they say such knowledge is speculative. Because cause and effect is built upon experience they state that it does not necessarily follow that everything follows this relationship, just what we have seen so far has followed this relationship.

With regards to the argument that cause and effect can not be established by the use of empirical thought, it was proposed by David Hume. He stated that it was mere coincidence that causal relations seem to exist and that nothing compels one to believe it to be an actual certainty. So as an example he stated that in order for one to produce fire a person would need to strike a match. But how can someone sense the future event. Remember empirical thinking is a reflection of reality yet future events are not reality thus they cannot be sensed and therefore no certain thought can be established.

However, as we have previously mentioned it is incorrect to assume that thought is simply a reflection of matter onto the brain. The thinking process does not work like that. So as an example to illustrate this point, imagine sensing a liquid. After sensing the liquid we find that it is odourless and colourless and remains liquidat remain temperature. Hence for that liquid under room conditions it exudes those characteristics. This would be the absolute thought about such a liquid, meaning we have sensed its whole reality under room conditions. If we subject this liquid to different conditions for example adding heat to the liquid and we find that under these conditions it boils at 100 degrees celcius. Then we have conclusively determined that such a liquid exhibits such behaviour. In fact we identify objects by the attributes it exhibits at different conditions. We also distinguish attributes according to the different attributes they exhibit under the same conditions. So if I add heat to two odourless colourless liquids and I find that one boils at 100 degrees celcius and the other boils at 70 degrees celcius then I distinguish the two different liquids accordingly.

So David Hume wrongly assumed that future events are speculative, that’s because we identify realities according to the specific attributes that are observed under different conditions. If for instance we boil a liquid and it did not boil at 100 degrees celcius then we would not call it water we would term it differently. For it to be called water then such a liquid must always exhibit the same attribute under the same conditions. If objects did not exhibit continuous attributes then it would be impossible to distinguish between the reality we live. But the fact is that we do distinguish between a chair and a table or water and alcohol.

As to the other argument David Hume had against causal relations he stated that such relationships could not be sensed. So water boiling could be sensed, the heat produced by the fire underneath the water could also be sensed, but the relationship between the fire boiling the water could not be sensed as a result thought about causal relations couldn’t be established. However, we have already shown the limitations of empirical thought.

In fact, if based upon the use of empirical thinking we deny cause and effect (causal relations) then we deny empirical thinking itself. This is because empirical thought requires the implicit acceptance of cause and effect. So experimentation and testing is done upon matter and the results are observed. Based upon the results conclusions are made. So the results are but effects resulting from causes. As a result to deny cause and effect based upon the fact that it doesn’t fit within the empirical thinking is a circular argument which ultimately requires one to also deny empirical thought itself.

As to the final argument against the certainty of cause and effect they state that such belief of cause and effect is established upon experience and experience doesn’t yield certainty. However, if again we understand the thought process we would understand that cause and effect can be applied to any given reality that is limited. So let consider the example of water. Let us say that we were unaware that the particular reality before us was water.

The first thing we sense about this reality is the fact that it is limited. We also establish that this limited thing (i.e. water) is liquid at room conditions. When we change the conditions and add heat it boils at 100 degrees celcius and when we reduce the heat we find that it freezes at 0 degrees celcius. We thus determine this reality by its attributes of being liquid at room temperature, boiling at 100 degrees and freezing at 0 degrees. As a result we give a term to this reality and call it water. As mentioned previously if the attributes change then we describe the reality by a different name. Thus, by sensing the reality of water we have determined two things. Firstly, that water exhibits specific characteristics e.g. boiling 100 degrees celcius, and secondly that limited and finite things require a cause (which in the case of water was specific conditions) in order to produce an effect (i.e, the observation of the attributes).

Therefore, in order to distinguish limited things we need to know its attributes, and attributes are determined according to its cause and effect. Thus, for something not to be determined according to cause and effect then it would have to be other than limited. Similarly for something to be other than water it must have different attributes to water. To be other than limited would require it to be unlimited, yet everything we sense is limited, thus it is determined by cause and effect and for it to be unlimited it must be the Creator and as a result we can state that the creator is not determined by cause and effect.

What has been demonstrated is that cause and effect is a definite reality when associated with things that are limited and finite. Hence, the argument that has been used above to prove that the creator exists based upon the fact that limited things within the universe depend upon other limited things which ultimately require something independent and unlimited is a true argument.

The argument above is a particular variance of the kalam cosmological argument. Another variance of this argument is to establish that the universe is limited. Because we have proven the general principle that limited things are dependent then if the universe is limited then it too is dependant. In order to prove the universe is limited then we state that the universe is the sum of limited things. And the sum of limited things is irrefutably limited. Some thinkers have tried to argue that the sum of limited things can add up to infinity. They give as an example numbers, which they say, goes on forever. However, does that mean we can count to infinity?

The answer is definitely no. It is impossible to start from something which is finite and count to infinity, that’s because every number you reach is a finite number thus we cannot cross the infinite barrier. Some have argued that although starting from a finite number that it is true one cannot then reach infinity but what if in origin infinity always existed? Meaning that there already existed an infinite sum of finite things. David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when infinite sum of finite things is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles.

If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity.

Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite. Similarly another analogy can be used, imagine standing on an island and all around the island is the ocean. Although, one may not see the end of the ocean we can establish that the ocean is finite and doesn’t go on forever. That is done by simply taking a glass of water out from the ocean, hence decreasing the ocean. Infinity cannot be increased nor decreased yet the sum of finite things is something that can be increased and decreased.

Therefore, the universe which is the sum of limited things must be limited and all limited things are subject to cause and effect and thus depend upon something other than itself i.e. a Creator.

Similarly time which is the interval between series of events taking place in a chronological order must have a beginning. This is due to two reasons, firstly, the sum of events must be finite and not infinite, because of the principle proven above which states the sum of finite things is irrefutably finite. In addition, if time had no beginning then we would not reach this moment in time. This is because, this moment in time is dependent upon a series of past events. If there was no beginning event in time then we would not reach the present. By proving, that time has a beginning we have proven that anything that resides in time including the universe must have a beginning also. Therefore, only something that is independent of time could have originated time and the universe itself, that is to say the Creator.

As a concluding remark, in order to appreciate the various proofs of the creator one must be fully acquainted with the correct method of thinking. Through the correct method of thinking we are able to assess the proofs to establish our arguments. Further, the refutation of the counter arguments can be clearly understood by understanding the method or style of thinking they employ. By understanding logic and empirical thinking we can understand its strengths and weaknesses and when it can be applied and when it fails to establish any proofs. Thus we avoid falling into error and by using the rational method of thinking we can establish the correct conclusion about man, life and the universe.

That is to say that man life and the universe are all limited and all things that are limited are dependant, further all of the things that are limited cannot arrange a system for themselves but depend upon some other to determine its system for organising society. Clearly then there must exist an all powerful independent Creator, who decided to create.

The True Religion?

2008-07-28T21:42:00.000+01:00

Each person is born in a circumstance which is not of his own choosing. The religion of his family or the ideology of the state is thrust upon him from the very beginning of his existence in this world. By the time he reaches his teens, he is usually fully brain-washed into believing that the beliefs of his particular society are the correct beliefs that everyone should have. However, when some people mature and are exposed to other belief-systems, they begin to question the validity of their own beliefs. The seekers of truth often reach a point of confusion upon realizing that each and every religion, sect, ideology and philosophy claims to be the one and only correct way for man. Indeed they all encourage people to good. So, which one is right? They cannot all be right since each claims all others to be wrong. Then how does the seeker of truth choose the right way?

God gave us all minds and intellects to enable us to make this crucial decision. It is the most important decision in the life of a human being. Upon it depends his future. Consequently, each and every one of us must examine dispassionately the evidence presented and choose what appears to be right until further evidence arises.

Like every other religion or philosophy, Islam also claims to be the one and only true way to God. In this respect it is no different from other systems. This article intends to provide some evidence for the validity of that claim. However, it must always be kept in mind that one can only determine the true path by putting aside emotions and prejudices, which often blind us to reality. Then, and only then, will we be able to use our God-given intelligence and make a rational and correct decision.

There are several arguments which may be advanced to support Islam's claim to be the true religion of God. The following are only three of the most obvious. The first argument is based on the Divine origin of the names of the religion and the comprehensiveness of its meaning. The second deals with the unique and uncomplicated teachings concerning the relationship between God, man, and creation. The third argument derives from the fact that Islam is universally attainable by all men at all times. These are the three basic components of what logic and reason dictate necessary for a religion to be considered the true religion of God. The following will develop these concepts in some detail.

The Religion's Name

The first thing that one should know and clearly understand about Islam is what the word "Islam" itself means. The Arabic word "Islam" means the submission or surrender of one's will to the only true God, known in Arabic as "Allah". One who submits his will to God is termed in Arabic a "Muslim". The religion of Islam is not named after a person or people, nor was it decided by a later generation of man, as in the case of Christianity which was named after Jesus Christ (p), Buddhism after Gautama Buddha, Confucianism after Confucius, Marxism after Karl Marx, Judaism after the tribe of Judah, and Hinduism after the Hindus. Islam (submission to the will of God) is the religion which was given to Adam (p), the first man and the first prophet of God, and it was the religion of all the prophets sent by Allah to mankind. Further, its name was chosen by God Himself and clearly mentioned in the final scripture which He revealed to man. In the final revelation, called the Qur'an in Arabic, Allah states the following:

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and I have chosen for you Islam as you religion." (Qur'an 5:3)

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him." (Qur'an 3:85)

Hence, Islam does not claim to be a new religion brought by Prophet Muhammad (p) into Arabia in the seventh century, but rather to be a re-expression in its final form of the true religion of Almighty God, Allah, as it was originally revealed to Adam (p) and subsequent prophets.

At this point we might comment briefly on two other religions that claim to be the true path. Nowhere in the Bible will you find God revealing to Prophet Moses' (p) people or their descendants that their religion is called Judaism, or to the followers of Christ (p) that their religion is called Christianity. In other words, the names "Judaism" and "Christianity" had no divine origin or approval. It was not until long after his departure that the name "Christianity" was given to Jesus' (p) religion.

What, then, was Jesus' (p) religion in actual fact, as distinct from its name? His religion was reflected in his teachings, which he urged his followers to accept as guiding principles in their relationship with God. In Islam, Jesus (p) is a prophet sent by Allah and his Arabic name is Eesa. Like the prophets before him, he called upon the people to surrender their will to the will of God (which is what Islam stands for). For example, in the New Testament, it is stated that Jesus (p) taught his followers to pray to God as follows:

"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your Name, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." (Luke 11:2; Matt. 6:9-10)

This concept was emphasized by Jesus (p) in a number of his statements recorded in the Gospels. He taught, for example, that only those who submitted would inherit Paradise.

Jesus (p) also pointed out that he himself submitted to the will of God.
"None of those who call me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of God, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt. 7:21)

"I cannot do anything of myself. I judge as I hear and my judgment is honest because I am not seeking my own will but the will of Him Who sent me." (John 5:30)

There are many reports in the Gospels which show that Jesus (p) made it clear to his followers that he was not the one true God. For example, when speaking about the final Hour, he said:

"No one knows about the Day or Hour, not even the angels in heaven, not the son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32)

Thus, Jesus (p) like the prophets before him and the one who came after him, taught the religion of Islam: submission to the will of the One true God.

God and Creation

Since the total submission of one's will to God represents the essence of worship, the basic message of God's divine religion, Islam, is the worship of God alone. It also requires the avoidance of worship directed to any person, place or thing other than God. Since everything other than God, the Creator of all things, is God's creation, it may be said that Islam, in essence, calls man away from worship of creation and invites him to worship only his Creator. He is the only one deserving of man's worship, because it is only by His will that prayers are answered.
Accordingly, if a man prays to a tree and his prayers are answered, it is not the tree that answered his prayers but God, Who allows the circumstances prayed for to take place. One might say, "That is obvious"; however, to tree-worshipers, it might not be so. Similarly, prayers to Jesus (p), Buddha, Krishna, St. Christopher, St. Jude, or even to Muhammad (p), are not answered by them, but are answered by God. Jesus (p) did not tell his followers to worship him but to worship God, as the Qur'an states:

"And behold! Allah will say: 'O Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say to men, worship me and my mother as gods besides Allah?'; He will say: 'Glory to you, I could never say what I had no right (to say)'" (Qur'an 5:116)

Nor did Jesus (p) worship himself when he worshiped, but rather he worshiped God. And Jesus (p) was reported in the Gospels to have said:

"It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.'" (Luke 4:8)

The basic principle is contained in the opening chapter of the Qur'an, known as Surah al-Fatihah, verse 4:

"You alone do we worship and from you alone do we seek help."

Elsewhere in the final book of revelation, the Qur'an, God also said:

"And your Lord says: 'Call on Me and I will answer your (prayer).'" (Qur'an 40:60)

It is worth emphasizing that the basic message of Islam (namely, the worship of God alone) also proclaims that God and His creation are distinctly different entities. God is neither equal to His creation nor a part of it, nor is His creation equal to Him or a part of Him.

This might seem obvious, but man's worship of creation, instead of the Creator, is to a large degree based on ignorance, or neglect, of this concept. It is the belief that the essence of God is everywhere in His creation or that His divine being is or was present in some parts of His creation, which has provided justification for the worship of God's creation and naming it the worship of God. However, the message of Islam, as brought by the prophets of God, is to worship only God and to avoid the worship of His creation either directly or indirectly.

In the Qur'an, God clearly states:

"For We assuredly sent amongst every people a prophet, with the command: Worship Me and avoid false gods." (Qur'an 16:36)

When idol worshipers are questioned as to why they bow down to idols created by men, the invariable reply is that they are not actually worshiping the stone image, but God Who is present within it. They claim that the stone idol is only a focal point for God's essence and is not in itself God! One who has accepted the concept of God being present in any way within His creation will be obliged to accept this argument for idolatry. Whereas, one who understands the basic message of Islam and its implications would never agree to idolatry no matter how it is rationalized.

Those who have claimed divinity for themselves down through the ages have often based their claims on the mistaken belief that God is present in man. Taking one step further, they claim that God is more present in them than the rest of us, and that other humans should therefore submit to them and worship them as God in person or as God concentrated within their persons. Similarly, those who have asserted the godhood of others after their deaths have found fertile ground among those who accept the false belief of God's presence in man.

It should be abundantly clear by now that one who has grasped the basic message of Islam and its implications could never agree to worship another human being under any circumstance. God's religion, in essence, is a clear call to the worship of the Creator and the rejection of creation-worship in any form. This is the meaning of the motto of Islam:

Laa ilaaha illaa Allah" (there is no god but Allah)

The sincere declaration of this phrase and the acceptance of prophethood automatically brings one within the fold of Islam, and sincere belief in it guarrantees one Paradise. Thus, the final Prophet of Islam (p) is reported to have said:

"Any one who says 'There is no god but Allah', and dies holding that (belief) will enter Paradise."

Belief in this declaration of faith requires that one submit his/her will to God in the way taught by the prophets of God. It also requires the believer to give up the worship of false gods.

The Message of False Religions

There are so many sects, cults, religions, philosophies, and movements in the world, all which claim to be the right way or the only true path to God! How can one determine which one is correct or whether, in fact, all are correct? One method by which the answer can be found is to clear away the superficial differences in the teachings of the various claimants to the ultimate truth, and identify the central object of worship upon which they call, directly or indirectly. False religions all have in common one basic concept with regard to God: they either claim that all men are gods, or that specific men were God, or that nature is God, or that God is a figment of man's imagination.

Thus, it may be stated that the basic message of false religion is that God may be worshiped in the form of His creation. False religions invite man to the worship of creation by calling the creation or some aspect of it God. For example, prophet Jesus (p) invited his followers to worship God, but those who claim to be Jesus' followers today call people to worship Jesus (p), claiming that he was God.

Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles in the religion of India. He did not claim to be God, nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and they prostrate themselves to idols made in their perception of his likeness.

By using the principle of identifying the object of worship, we can easily detect false religions and the contrived nature of their origin. As God said in the Qur'an:

"That which you worship besides Him are only names and you and your forefathers have invented for which Allah has sent down no authority; the command belongs only to Allah: He has command that you worship Him; that is the right religion, but most men do not understand." (Qur'an 12:40)

It may be argued that all religions teach good things, so why should it matter which one we follow? The reply is that all false religions teach the greatest evil: the worship of creation.

Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of His creation. Man was created to worship God alone as Allah has explicitly stated in the Qur'an:

"I have only created jinns and men, that they may worship Me." (Qur'an 51:56)

Consequently, the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life. This is not an option, but a revealed fact stated by God in His final revelation to man:

"Verily Allah will not forgive the joining of partners with Him, but He may forgive (sins) less than that for whomsoever He wishes." (Qur'an 4:48,116)

Universality of God's Religion

Since the consequences of following a false religion are so grave, the true religion of God must have been universally understandable and universally attainable in the past and it must continue eternally to be understandable and attainable throughout the entire world. In other words, the true religion of God cannot be confined to any one people, place, or period of time. Nor is it logical that such a religion should impose conditions that have nothing to do with the relationship of man with God, such as baptism, or belief in man as a savior, or an intermediary. Within the central principle of Islam and its definition (the surrender of one's will to God) lie the roots of Islam's universality. Whenever man comes to the realization that God is one and distinct from His creation, and submits himself to God, he becomes a Muslim in body and spirit and is eligible for paradise.

Consequently, anyone at any time in the most remote regions of the world can become Muslim, a follower of God's religion, Islam, be merely rejecting the worship of creation and turning to God alone. It should be noted, however, that in order to actually submit to God's will, one must continually choose between right and wrong. Indeed, man is endowed by God with the power not only to distinguish right from wrong but also to choose between them. These God-given powers carry with them an important responsibility, namely, that man is answerable to God for the choices he makes. It follows, then, that man should try his utmost to do good and avoid evil. These concepts are expressed in the final revelation as follows:

"Verily, those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians (angel-and-star worshipers) - any of these who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord. They will not be overcome by fear or grief." (Qur'an 2:62)

If, for whatever reason, they fail to accept the final message after it has been clearly explained to them, they will be in grave danger. The last Prophet said:

"Whoever among the Christians and Jews hears of me but does not affirm his belief in what I brought and dies in that state will be among the inhabitants of Hell." (Sahih Muslim [English Translation], Vol.1 P.91 No.284)

Recognition of God

The question which arises here is: How can all people be expected to believe in the one true God, given their varying backgrounds, societies and cultures? For people to be held responsible for worshipping the one true God, they all need to have access to knowledge of him. The final revelation teaches that all human beings have the recognition of the one true God imprinted on their souls as a part of their very nature with which they are created.

In the seventh chapter of the Qur'an (Al-A'raaf, verses 172-173),God explained that when He created Adam He caused all of Adam's descentants to come into existence and He took a pledge from them saying:

"'Am I not your Lord?' To which they all replied, 'Yes, we testify to it.'"

Allah then explained why He had all of mankind bear witness that He is their creator and the only true God worthy of worship. He said:

"That was in case you (mankind) should say on the Day of Resurrection, 'Verily we were unaware of all this.'" (Qur'an 7:172)

That is to say, we cannot claim on that Day that we had no idea that Allah was our God and that no one told us that we were supposed to worship Allah alone. Allah went on to further explain that:

"It was also in case you should say, 'Certainly it was our ancestors who made partners (with Allah) and we are only their descendants; will You then destroy us for what those liars did?'" (Qur'an 7:173)

Thus, every child is born with a natural belief in God and an in-born inclination to worship Him alone. This in-born belief and inclination is called in Arabic the "Fitrah".

The Prophet Muhammad reported that Allah said, "I created my servants in the right religion, but devils made them go astray." The Prophet also said, "Each child is born in a state of Fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, Christian or a Zoroastrian." If the child were left alone, he would worship God in his own way, but all children are affected by the environment. So, just as the child submits to the physical laws which Allah has imposed on nature, in the same way his soul also submits naturally to the fact that Allah is his Lord and Creator. But, if his parents try to make him follow a different path, the child is not strong enough in the early stages of his life to resist or oppose the will of his parents. In such cases, the religion which the child follows is one of custom and upbringing, and God does not hold him to account or punish him for his religion up to a certain stage of his life.

The Signs of God

Throughout people's lives, from childhood until the time they die, signs of the one and only true God are shown to them in all regions of the earth and in their own souls, until it becomes clear that there is only one true God (Allah). God says in the Qur'an:

"We will show them our signs in the furthest regions (of the earth) and in their souls, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth." (Qur'an 41:53)

The following is an example of God revealing by a sign to one man the error of his idol-worship. In the south-eastern region of the Amazon jungle in Brazil, South America, a primitive tribe erected a new hut to house their man-idol Skwatch, representing the supreme God of all creation. The following day a young man entered the hut to pay homage to the God, and while he was in prostration to what he had been taught was his Creator and Sustainer, a mangy old flea-ridden dog slunk into the hut. The young man looked up in time to see the dog lift his hind leg and pass urine on the idol. Outraged, the youth chased the dog out of the temple, but when his rage died down he realized that the idol could not be the Lord of the Universe. God must be elsewhere, he concluded. As strange as it may seem, the dog urinating on the idol was a sign from God for that young man. This sign contained the divine message that what he was worshiping was false. It liberated him from slavishly following his traditionally learned worship of a false god. As a result, this man was given a choice: either to seek the true God or to continue in the error of his ways.

Allah mentions Prophet Abraham's quest for God as an example of how those who follow His signs will be rightly guided:

"So also did We show Abraham the power and the Laws of the heavens and the earth that he might (with understanding) have certitude.

When the night covered him over, he saw a star. He said: 'This is my Lord.' But when it set, he said: 'I love not those that set.'

When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said: 'This is my Lord.' But when the moon set, he said: 'Unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.'

When he saw the rising sun in splendor, he said:

'This is my Lord, this is the greatest (of all).' But when the sun set, he said: 'O my people! I am indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah. For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah.'" (Qur'an 6:75-79)

As was mentioned earlier, prophets have been sent to every nation and tribe to support man's natural belief in God and man's in-born inclination to worship Him, as well as to reinforce the divine truth in the daily signs revealed by God.

Although much of these prophets' teachings became distorted, portions revealing their God-inspired messages have remained untainted and have served to guide mankind in the choice between right and wrong. The influence of God-inspired messages down through the ages can be seen in the "Ten Commandments" of Judaisn's Torah which were later adopted into Christianity's teachings, as well as in the existence of laws against murder, stealing and adultery in most societies throughout the ancient and modern world.

As a result of God's signs to mankind through the ages combined with His revelation through His prophets, all mankind has been given a chance to recognize the one and only true God.

Consequently, every soul will be held accountable for its belief in God and its acceptance of the true religion of God, namely Islam, which means total submission to the will of Allah.

Conclusion

The preceding presentation has demonstrated that the name of the religion of Islam expresses Islam's most central principle, submission to God, and that the name "Islam" was chosen not by man, but by God, according to the holy scriptures of Islam. It has also been shown that Islam alone teaches the uniqueness of God and His attributes and enjoins the worship of God alone without intermediaries. Finally, due to the divinely instilled inclination of man to worship God and the signs revealed by God throughout the ages to each individual, Islam may be achieved by all men at all times.

In short, the significance of the name Islam (submission to God), is Islam's fundamental acknowledgement of the uniqueness of God and Islam's accessibility to all mankind at all times convincingly support Islam's claim that from the beginning of time in whatever language it was expressed, Islam alone has been and will be the true religion of God.

In conclusion we ask Allah, the Exalted, to keep us on the right path to which He has guided us, and to bestow on us His blessings and mercy, for He is indeed the Most-Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be on Prophet Muhammad and all the prophets of God and their righteous followers.

Symbolism and allegory in the Quran

2008-07-27T21:04:00.000+01:00

When studying the Quran, one frequently encounters what may be described as "key- phrases" - that is to say, statements which provide a clear, concise indication of the idea underlying a particular passage or passages: for instance, the many references to the creation of man "out of dust" and "out of a drop of sperm", pointing to the lowly biological origin of the human species; or the statement in the ninety-ninth surah (Az-Zalzalah) that on Resurrection Day "he who shall have done an atom's weight of good, shall behold it; and he who shall have done an atom's weight of evil, shall behold it" - indicating the inelucctible afterlife consequences of, and the responsibility for, all that man consciously does in this world; or the divine declaration (in 38:27), "We have not created heaven and earth and all that is between them without meaning and purpose (baatilan), as is the surmise of those who are bent on denying the truth."

Instances of such Quranic key-phrases can be quoted almost ad infinitum, and in many varying formulations. But there is one fundamental statement in the Quran which occurs only once, and which may be qualified as "the key-phrase of all its key-phrases": the statement in verse 3:7 to the effect that the Quran "contains messages that are clear in and by themselves (ayat-e-muhkamaat) as well as others that are allegorical (mutashabihaat)". It is this verse which represents, in an absolute sense, a key to the understanding of the Qur'anic message and makes the whole of it accessible to "people who think" (li-qawmin yatafakkarUn).

In my notes on the above-mentioned verse I have tried to elucidate the meaning of the expression ayaat muhkimaat as well as the general purport of what is termed mutashabih ("allegorical" or "symbolic"). Without a proper grasp of what is implied by this latter term, much of the Qur~an is liable to be - and, in fact, has often been - grossly misunderstood both by believers and by such as refuse to believe in its divinely-inspired origin. However, an appreciation of what is meant by "allegory" or "symbolism" in the context of the Quran is, by itself, not enough to make one fully understand its world-view: in order to achieve this we must relate the Quranic use of these terms to a concept touched upon almost at the very beginning of the divine writ - namely, the existence of "a realm which is beyond the reach of human perception" (aI-ghayb). It is this concept that constitutes the basic premise for an understanding of the call of the Quran, and, indeed, of the principle of religion - every religion - as such: for all truly religious cognition arises from and is based on the fact that only a small segment of reality is open to man's perception and imagination, and that by far the larger part of it escapes his comprehension altogether.

However, side by side with this clear-cut metaphysical concept we have a not less clear-cut finding of a psychological nature: namely, the finding that the human mind (in which term we comprise conscious thinking, imagination, dream-life, intuition, memory, etc.) can operate only on the basis of perceptions previously experienced by that very mind either in their entirety or in some of their constituent elements: that is to say, it cannot visualize, or form an idea of, something that lies entirely outside the realm of previously realized experiences. Hence, whenever we arrive at a seemingly "new" mental image or idea, we find, on closer examination, that even if it is new as a composite entity, it is not really new as regards its component elements, for these are invariably derived from previous - and sometimes quite disparate - mental experiences which are now but brought together in a new combination or series of new combinations.

Now as soon as we realize that the human mind cannot operate otherwise than on the basis of previous experiences - that is to say, on the basis of apperceptions and cognitions already recorded in that mind - we are faced by a weighty question: Since the metaphysical ideas of religion relate, by virtue of their nature, to a realm beyond the reach of human perception or experience - how can they be successfully conveyed too us? How can we he expected to grasp ideas which have no counterpart, not even a fractional one, in any of the apperceptions which we have arrived at empirically?

The answer is self-evident: By means of loan-images derived from our actual - physical or mental - experiences; or, as Zamakhshari phrases it in his commentary on 13:35, "through a parabolic illustration, by means of something which we know from our experience, of something that is beyond the reach of our perception" (tamtheelan li-ma ghaaba anna bi-ma nushaahid). And this is the innermost purport of the term and concept of al-mutashaabihaat as used in the Quran.

Thus, the Qur~an tells us clearly that many of its passages and expressions must be understood in an allegorical sense for the simple reason that, being intended for human understanding, they could not have been conveyed to us in any other way.. It follows, therefore, that if we were to take every Quranic passage, statement or expression in its outward, literal sense and disregard the possibility of its being an allegory, a metaphor or a parable, we would be offending against the very spirit of the divine writ.

Consider, for instance, some of the Quranic references to God's Being - Being indefinable, infinite in time and space, and utterly beyond any creature's comprehension. Far from being able to imagine Him, we can only realize what He is not: namely, not limited in either time or space, not definable in terms of comparison, and not to be comprised within any category of human thought. Hence, only very generalized metaphors can convey to us, though most inadequately, the idea of His existence and activity.

And so, when the Quran speaks of Him as being "in the heavens" or "established on His throne (al-arsh)", we cannot possibly take these phrases in their literal senses, since then they would imply, however vaguely, that God is limited in space: and since such a limitation would contradict the concept of an Infinite Being, we know immediately, without the least doubt that the "heavens" and the "throne" and God's being "established" on it are but linguistic vehicles meant to convey an idea which is outside all human experience, namely, the idea of God's almightiness and absolute sway over all that exists. Similarly, whenever He is described as "all-seeing", "all-hearing" or "all-aware", we know that these descriptions have nothing to do with the phenomena of physical seeing or hearing hut simply circumscribe, in terms understandable to man, the fact of God's eternal Presence in all that is or happens. And since "no human vision can encompass Him" (Quran 6:103), man is not expected to realize His existence otherwise than through observing the effects of His unceasing activity within and upon the universe created by Him.

But whereas our belief in God's existence does not - and, indeed, could not - depend on our grasping the unfathomable "how" of His Being, the same is not the case with problems connected with man's own existence, and, in particular, with the idea of a life in the hereafter: for, man's psyche is so constituted that it cannot accept any proposition relating to himself without being given a clear exposition of its purport.

The Quran tells us that man's life in this world is but the first stage - a very short stage - of a life that continues beyond the hiatus called "death" ; and the same Quran stresses again and again the principle of man's moral responsibility for all his conscious actions and his behaviour, and of the continuation of this responsibility, in the shape of inescapable consequences, good or bad, in a person's life in the hereafter. But how could man be made to understand the nature of these consequences and, thus, of the quality of the life that awaits him'? - for, obviously, inasmuch as man's resurrection will be the result of what the Quran describes as "a new act of creation", the life that will follow upon it must be entirely different from anything that man can and does experience in this world.

This being so, it is not enough for man to be told, "If you behave righteously in this world, you will attain to happiness in the life to come" , or, alternatively, "If you do wrong in this world, you will suffer for it in the hereafter". Such statements would be far too general and abstract to appeal to man's imagination and, thus, to influence his behaviour. What is needed is a more direct appeal to the intellect, resulting in a kind of "visualization" of the consequences of one's conscious acts and omissions: and such an appeal can be effectively produced by means of metaphors, allegories and parables, each of them stressing, on the one hand, the absolute dissimilarity of all that man will experience after resurrection from whatever he did or could experience in this world; and, on the other hand, establishing means of comparison between these two categories of experience.

Thus, explaining the reference to the bliss of paradise in 32:17, the Prophet indicated the essential difference between man's life in this world and in the hereafter in these words: "God says, 'I have readied for My righteous servants what no eye has ever seen, and no ear has ever heard, and no heart of man has ever conceived"' (Bukhãri, Muslim, Tirmidhi). On the other hand, in 2:25 the Quran speaks thus of the blessed in paradise: "Whenever they are granted fruits therefrom as their appointed sustenance, they will say, 'It is this that in days of yore was granted to us as our sustenance' - for they shall be given something which will recall that

[past]": and so we have the image of gardens through which running waters flow, blissful shade, spouses of indescribable beauty, and many other delights infinitely varied and unending, and yet somehow comparable to what may be conceived of as most delightful in this world.

However, this possibility of an intellectual comparison between the two stages of human existence is to a large extent limited by the fact that all our thinking and imagining is indissolubly connected with the concepts of finite time and finite space: in other words, we cannot imagine infinity in either time or space - and therefore cannot imagine a state of existence independent of time and space - or, as the Qur'~n phrases it with reference to a state of happiness in afterlife, "a paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth" (3:133): which expression is the Qur'anic synonym for the entire created universe. On the other hand, we know that every Qur'anic statement is directed to man's reason and must, therefore, be comprehensible either in its literal sense (as in the case of the dyãt muhkamdt) or allegorically (as in the ayat-e-mutashaabihaat); and since, owing to the constitution of the human mind, neither infinity nor eternity are comprehensible to us, it follows that the reference to the infinite "vastness" of paradise cannot relate to anything but the intensity of sensation which it will offer to the blest.

By obvious analogy, the principle of a "comparison through allegory" applied in the Qur~ãn to all references to paradise - i.e., a state of unimaginable happiness in afterlife - must be extended to all descriptions of otherworldly suffering - i.e., hell - in respect of its utter dissimilarity from all earthly experiences as well as its unmeasurable intensity. In both cases the descriptive method of the Qur'ãn is the same. We are told, as it

were: "Imagine the most joyous sensations, bodily as well as emotional, accessible to man: indescribable beauty, love physical and spiritual, consciousness of fulfilment, perfect peace and harmony; and imagine these sensations intensified beyond anything imaginable in this world - and at the same time entirely different from anything imaginable: and you have an inkling, however vague, of what is meant by 'paradise'." And, on the other

hand: "Imagine the greatest suffering, bodily as well as spiritual, which man may experience: burning by fire, utter loneliness and bitter desolation, the torment of unceasing frustration, a condition of neither living nor dying; and imagine this pain, this darkness and this despair intensified beyond anything imaginable in this world - and at the same time entirely different from anything imaginable: and you will know, however vaguely, what is meant by 'hell'."

Side by side with these allegories relating to man's life after death we find in the Qur'ãn many symbolical expressions referring to the evidence of God's activity. Owing to the limitations of human language - which, in their turn, arise from the inborn limitations of the human mind - this activity can only be circumscribed and never really described. Just as it is impossible for us to imagine or define God's Being, so the true nature of His creativeness - and, therefore, of His plan of creation - must remain beyond our grasp. But since the Quran aims at conveying to us an ethical teaching based, precisely, on the concept of God's purposeful creativeness, the latter must be, as it were, "translated" into categories of thought accessible to man. Hence the use of expressions which at first sight have an almost anthropomorphic hue, for instance, God's "wrath" (ghadab) or "condemnation"; His "pleasure" at good deeds or "love" for His creatures; or His being "oblivious" of a sinner who was oblivious of Him; or "asking" a wrongdoer on Resurrection Day about his wrongdoing; and so forth. All such verbal "translations" of God's activity into human terminology are unavoidable as long as we are expected to conform to ethical principles revealed to us by means of a human language; but there can be no greater mistake than to think that these "translations" could ever enable us to define the Undefinable.

And, as the Quran makes it clear in the seventh verse 3:7, only "those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]: but none save God knows its final meaning."

When you see those allegorical verses, you should refer them to the clear and lucid verses to get the proper interpretation. Those who are sick and perverse do not go back to the clear and lucid verses, rather they make their own arbitrary interpretations instead. The Qur'an should be explained through the Qur'an itself and through the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It should not be interpreted according to one's own wishes and desires in an arbitrary manner.

It is correct that the full and the absolute meaning of the Qur'an is to know Allah the Almighty. That is why all great scholars after explaining the Qur'an used to say, "Allahu a`lam" (Allah knows best). However, this does not mean that there are verses in the Qur'an whose meanings are known to Allah alone and human beings cannot know anything of their meaning. As God clearly states in the Quran, he will not place a burden on you that you cannot bear.

We should try to do our best to know the meaning of the Qur'an. The more we try the more we shall understand the depth and profoundness of the Book of Allah. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: "The wonders of this Book shall never be exhausted." (At-Tirmidhi, Sunan, Vol. 4.) Those who are firmly established in knowledge know the meaning of this Book and we should refer to them and learn from them the proper method of understanding the Qur'an. Those are the people who say that all of this Book is from our Lord and the people of wisdom take lessons from this Book.”

Allegation that Islam allows the rape of infidels

2008-07-27T20:29:00.000+01:00

Firstly i want to tell the reader that only non-muslim prisoners of war could become slaves in islam (therefore slavery was doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam). It’s important to know that slaves in islam had the same right to respect and good treatment like any other human being.

I shall show the reader that the raping of female slaves is forbidden in islam, rather islam gave men the permission to have sexual intercourse with their slave-girl and this did certainly not mean that muslim men could rape their female slaves (female prisoners of war ), since Allah swt and the prophet (saw) command muslim men to treat their slave girls well and with respect and dignity. The next quotations from the authentic hadith proof that the raping of female slaves is forbidden in islam:

Related by Al-Daraqutni, Ibn Majah and Ahmad:

“The Prophet said, “There shall be no infliction of harm on oneself or others".

‘Others’ includes all people, so also slavegirls ! Raping a slavegirl is clearly doing her harm (emotional and physical) which would be a big sin for a muslim to commit and violation of the above hadith. Moreover the prophet (peace be upon him) commanded muslims to treat their slaves well and with respect, which clearly proofs that rape of female slaves is forbidden in islam. The prophet (peace be upon him) said:

Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them.

Source: Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124

Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were: "The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves ! "

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 158.

· Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised that slaves should be well-treated. He said, 'Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created.' "

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 188.

· Sallam ibn 'Amr reported from one of the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Your slaves are your brothers, so treat him well. Ask for their help in what is too much for you and help them in what is too much for them."

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 190.

· Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The slave has his food and clothing. Do not burden a slave with work which he is incapable of doing."

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 192.

Not one of you should [ when introducing someone ] say ‘This is my slave’ , ‘This is my concubine’. He should call them ‘my daughter’ or ‘my son’ or ‘my brother’.

Source: Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2 ,4

For this reason ‘Umar and his servant took it in turns to ride on the camel from Madina to Jerusalem on their journey to take control of Masjid al-Aqsa. While he was the head of the state, ‘Uthman had his servant pull his own ears in front of the people since he had pulled his. Abu Dharr, applying the hadith literally, made his servant wear one half of his suit while he himself wore the other half. From these instances, it was being demonstrated to succeeding generations of Muslims, and a pattern of conduct established, that a slave is fully a human being, not different from other people in his need for respect and dignity and justice.

"The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among “themselves with their master's permission - or with free men or women ! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all “affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over “an impious free man." Source: Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir ( vol.16, pp. 338-358 )

The Prophet, upon him peace, had stipulated in his "last pilgrimage" speech:

"And your slaves ! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a “mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented! "

Source: Ibn Sa'd, op. cit., vol. II:1, p. 133

And again in another hadith the prophet (saw) makes clear that rape of female slaves is forbidden, The prophet (peace be upon him) said:

“Whoever causes harm to others subjects himself to harm caused by God.”

Source: Related by Ibn Majah and Abu Dawood on the authority of Abu Sirmah.

“You must refrain from dealing wickedly with others, for that would count as a benefaction you do to yourself”.

Source: Related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Abu Tharr.

‘Others’ includes all people, so also slavegirls ! Raping a slavegirl is clearly doing her harm (emotional and physical) which would be a big sin for a muslim to commit and violation of the above hadith. Allah swt also commands in the Qur’an muslims to treat their slaves (female slaves) kindly:

"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him ; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours “who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the way-farer (ye meet), And what your right hands possess : for God loveth not the arrogant, the “vainglorious" Surah An Nisa, verse 36

The phrase "What your right hands possess" refers to one’s slaves (male and female). Allah swt ordains the kind treatment of slaves in the same verse where He commands man to worship Him and to treat his parents, relations and neighbours generously, and this signifies the importance of this ruling.

Can a Muslim man rape his slave woman?

Below are three English translations to the Noble Verse where Allah Almighty commands the Muslim men to not force their slave women into sex.

The following translations were taken from http://mama.stg.brown.edu/webs/quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml

Translation: Yusufali:
"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

Translation: Pickthall:
"And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

Translation: Shakir:
"And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

In all three translations, we clearly see that if the slave woman desires to keep chaste, then her Muslim master must not compel her into sex. It might sound odd to us today, but pagans back then were used to having sex with and raping their slave girls, even the ones who were married:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

In Islam, men are not allowed to rape their slave-girls. Allah Almighty clearly prohibited it in Noble Verse 24:33. In Islam, slavery is also not allowed. Please visit The liberation of slaves in Islam, to see how Islam gradually ended the Judeo-Christian and pagan slavery.

I was told by a Muslim scholar before along time ago that the Arab pagans used to sometimes offer their wives for several nights to the rich and powerful men in the tribe to win their support and make them become more secured in the monopolizing and unmerciful pagan society.

So to women back then, it was something normal for a married slave woman to sleep with her master. It was something normal in the society at that time.

Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran not only allows for the slave man or woman to earn their freedom from their Muslim master, and receive money from their Muslim master to help them start their free life, but also commands the Muslim men to not compel their slave women into sex.

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him also said:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

Islam came to liberate all slaves and to end the Judeo-Christian and Pagan slavery that was practiced before Islam. When Allah Almighty made lawful for the Muslim men to have sex with their slave women, He did it to keep the Islamic society back then during Islam's weak, partial and venerable times under control.

Also, if any compulsion was made unto the slave woman, then Allah Almighty will add more mercy and forgiveness unto her in the Day of Judgement. Below is the commentary on this exact section and point in Noble Verse 24:33 by Minister (Sheikh) Abdullah Yusuf Ali; may Allah Almighty rest his soul:

"The poor unfortunate girls, who are victims of such a nefarious trade (i.e., slave trade), will yet find mercy from Allah, whose bounties extend to the lowest of His creatures." [2]

There are other Noble Verses in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty grants forgiveness and mercy to those who had been forced into illegal things:

"He hath only forbidden you Dead meat, and blood, And the flesh of swine, And that on which Any other name hath been invoked Besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, Without willful disobedience, Nor transgressing due limits -- Then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 2:173)"

"Why should ye not Eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been Pronounced, when He hath Explained to you in detail What is forbidden to you -- Except under compulsion Of necessity? But many do mislead (men) By their appetites unchecked By knowledge. Thy Lord Knoweth best those who transgress. (The Noble Quran, 6:119)"

So the answer to the question is: No, the Muslim man can not rape his slave woman according to the commands of Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran.

Status of Slave Women in Islam

When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.

In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.

Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.

Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free.

Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never ! That is not the point ! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.

Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago. As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse:

“And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is “for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.” (An-Nisaa’: 25)

This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves. In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it's something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.”

What about the female slaves who were married ?

Mufti Ebrahim Desai in his fatwa comments:

After their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations only with the slave girl over which he was given the right of ownership and not with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This right of ownership was given to him by the “Ameerul-Mu'mineen” (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, It became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her ( which doesn’t mean that he can rape her, since doing harm to female slaves and rape in general is strict forbidden in islam, see the hadith quoted in my previous sections in this article as proof ).

If a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called "Iddat" before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called "Istibraa" before her owner can have coition with her.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) enjoined his followers to treat the slaves kindly, gently, and, above all, to regard them as members of the family. In this way, they were made to feel wanted; which was far better than treating them as outcasts and leaving them to wander the streets of a strange society in a peniless, destitute condition. Such treatment would have ultimately forced them to take up evil occupations such as prostitution in the case of slave woman in order to fill their hungry stomachs. The First World War in 1914 was a clear reflection of the evils involved in setting captive women free to roars about in a strange society with strange surroundings. During that war, German and English women prisoners on either side were set free to roam the streets with no-one to feed them. The result was obvious that they resorted to other unrefined and uncivilised methods of income on the streets. Thus, it is evident that the Islamic treatment of women prisoners of war was conducive towards better social relations and led to the refinement of their overall social lives.

Over and above all this, History will show that Islam did not encourage slavery but rather encouraged moves towards the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said something to this effect in a Hadith, that: "Whosoever freed a Muslim slave, the Lord would redeem all his limbs - in compensation for each limb of the slave, so much so that the private parts for the private parts - from the Fire of Hell. If a slave woman becomes pregnant from her owner, and delivers his child, she automatically gets her freedom after the death of her master whose child she gave birth to.

Moreover, there are many wrongs and sins for which the liberation of a slave serves as a compensation and atonement. This was a further incentive for the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also taught that whosoever teaches good manners to his slave girl, adorns her with politeness and good education, then frees her and gets married to her, for him there is double recompense and reward. These encouraging teachings served as incentives towards the emancipation of slaves and slaves were liberated by the thousands.

Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself freed 63 slaves,

Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu freed 63,

Hazrat Abdur-Rahman bin Auf Radhiallahu Anhu 30,000;

Hazrat Hakim bin Huzam Radhiallahu Anhu 100;

Hazrat Abbas Radhiallahu Anhu 70;

Hazrat Ayesha Radhiallahu Anha 69;

Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar Radhiallahu Anhu 100;

Hazrat Uthman Radhiallahu Anhu used to free one slave every Friday and he would say that he would free any slave who performed his prayers-with humility.

Hazrat Zul-Kilah Radhiallahu Anhu freed 8,000 slaves in a single day.

Hazrat Umar Radhiallahu Anhu passed certain laws during his Khilafat which led to the emancipation of thousands of slaves, and to the prevention of certain specific forms of slavery. Some of the edicts that he issued:

1. All the apostate tribes that were enslaved during the Khilaafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu were to be freed.

2. A Zimmi (protected non-Muslim subject of an Islamic state) should not be enslaved.

3. Arabs will not be enslaved.

4. Those who had been enslaved during the days of ignorance (prior to the advent of Islam) and had lived to witness the Islamic era, should redeem themselves from slavery by paying their costs (their value) to their owners whether they were willing or not.

As a result of all these laws, there came a time when slavery was totally extirpated. But of course, this extirpation came about after a gradual process because that was the only safe and expedient way of tackling the problem.

Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status

Guardianship: A father or grandfather had absolute authority over his offspring. He could sell or gift him or her away; could lend him or her to someone else, or exchange him or her with another's son or daughter.

When Islam came on the scene, it nullified and negated the last two factors completely. No ruler or progenitor was allowed to treat his subjects or offspring as his slaves. Every individual was bestowed with well-defined rights; the ruler and the ruled, the progenitor and the offspring had to live within the limits prescribed by religion; no one could transgress those limits.

And it drastically restricted the first cause, i.e., war, by allowing enslavement only in a war fought against unbelieving enemy. In no other way could anyone be enslaved. At the same time, Islam raised the status of slavery to that of a free man; and opened many ways for their emancipation

Source: al-Tabataba'i, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn, al-Mizan fi Tafsir'l Qur'an, vol.16, 2nd ed. (Beirut, 1390/1971), pp. 338-358.

Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status. It made no distinction between a slave or a free man, and all were treated with equality. It was this fact that always attracted slaves to Islam. It is painful to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam should take no notice of this principle of equality, when even in this enlightened age there are countries where laws are made discriminating against the vast majority of population, to keep them in practical servitude.

Islam recognises no distinction of race or colour, black or white, citizens or soldiers, rulers or subjects; they are perfectly equal, not in theory only, but in practice. The first mu'azzin (herald of the prayer call) of Islam, a devoted adherent of the Prophet and an esteemed disciple, was a Negro slave. The Qur'an lays down the measure of superiority in verse thirteen of chapter forty-nine. It is addressed to mankind, the whole human race, and preaches the natural brotherhood of man without distinction of tribe, clan, gender, race or colour. It says:

“O you men! We have created you of a male and a female, and then We made you (into different) races and tribes so that you may know (and “recognise) each other. Surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the one who is most pious among you; surely Allah is All-Knowing and “Aware.” The Qur'an 49:13

This verse makes clear the view point of Islam as regards human life on earth. It lays down only one criterion of superiority or honour and that is piety, which means complete obedience to the will of God. It annihilates all man-made and artificial distinctions of race, gender and colour which we find all over the world even now (this verse proofs my case even more: ‘ that it is strict forbidden in islam to rape female slaves’ , since rape is clearly forbidden in islam, since slaves in islam have the same position and status to allah as other human beings, it is clear that therefor rape of female slaves is strict forbidden, since rape of a free women is also strict forbidden, this verse proofs that a slave woman and a free woman have the same postion to allah swt and status as human beings in islam, therefor the raping of female slaves is strict forbidden in islam just as it is strict forbidden in islam to rape a free woman ). To explain the qualities of piety, let us note what Allah says:

“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah, the Last Day, “the angels, the Book and the Prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin, the orphans, the needy, the wayfarer, the “beggars and to those in bondage and keep up prayers, pay the poor-rate; and those who fulfil their promise and the patient ones in distress and “affliction and in the time of war - these are they who are the truthful and these are they who are pious.” The Qur'an 2:177

This verse clearly shows that by itself there is no specific virtue in turning towards any particular direction for prayer. (The unity of the Qiblah indicates the unity of faith which leads to spiritual unity and culminates in physical harmony.) The belief and practice enjoined in the verse are the real virtues, and apart from being ordered by God, they appeal to human reasoning. Please mark that "to give away wealth out of love for God to...those in bondage" is one of them.

The Non-Muslim Perspective:

On the attitude of Muslim master with his slaves, Will Durant says,

"...he handled them with a genial humanity that made their lot no worse - perhaps better, as more secure - than that of a factory worker in nineteenth-century Europe."

Source: Hurgronje C., Mohammedanism, (N.Y., 1916), p. 128 as quoted by W. Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. IV (N.Y., 1950), p. 209.

At the end of the 18th century, Mouradgea d'Ohsson (a main source of information for the Western writers on the Ottoman empire) declared:

"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans."

Source: As quoted in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol.I, p. 35.

P. L Riviere writes:

"A master was enjoined to make his slave share the bounties he received from God. It must be recognised that, in this respect, the Islamic teaching acknowledged such a respect for human personality and showed a sense of equality which is searched for in vain in ancient civilization"

Source: Riviere P.L., Revue Bleaue (June 1939).

And not only in ancient civilisations; even in the modern Christian civilisation the ingrained belief of racial supremacy is still manifesting itself every day. A. J. Toynbee says in Civilization on Trial:

"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue..." Then he comments that "in this perilous matter of race feeling it can hardly be denied that (the triumph of English-speaking peoples) has been a misfortune."

Source: Toynbee, A.J., Civilization on Trial (New York, 1948), p. 205.

Napoleon Bonaparte is recorded as saying about the condition of slaves in Muslim countries:

"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."

Source: Cherfils, Bonaparte et l'Islam (Paris, 1914)

Annemarie Schimmel writes:

"The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). “

Source: "Islam: An Introduction", p. 67

Islam totally objects and fights all forms of slavery. The focus of Islam in all its teachings and rites was to eradicate this prevailing practice. Now, slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and this goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam.

-Dr. Taha Jaber Al-`Alwani, President of the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and President of the Fiqh Council, states the following:

When Allah created human beings, He created them to be free and to be vicegerents on the earth. Slavery is something that came from people who couldn’t understand the position of the human being and it was made, in the past, as a global phenomenon.

When Islam came, it tried to bring change to get the human being back to being free, as Allah has created us, by certain procedures. Those procedures of Islam went through without interference from the other nations or states who are non-Muslim states or nations. Maybe within the third century of Hijrah or the migration of the Prophet to Madinah, this phenomenon would have been over and disappeared. But as I mentioned, because it was a global phenomenon, that procedure which was established by Islam couldn’t go through and finish with this very bad phenomenon.

Now, al-hamdulillah all people have agreed to stop this phenomenon and stand up against it. With this, there is no way to go back to adopt this phenomenon again in any way, especially for Muslims, since they must protect the freedom of others and always be with their rights to be free servants of Allah only. We should remember when the Caliph `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said in a famous khutbah (Speech or sermon) of his,

“ When did you make the people as slaves or servants of you while Allah, the Almighty, created them free”

This means that the Muslims from the very beginning advocated the freedom of all human beings and were against the oppression of free people by tyrants and dictator leaders.

Having clarified the above, we would like to states that it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with them.

Slavery was a universal law in the Arab culture, Persian, Indian, and Roman civilizations. It was not Islam that introduced slavery. Islam came when slavery was practiced widely. It was not suitable to ban slavery at once. Islam, however, tried to drain the source of slavery and close its gate gradually.

After the advent of Islam, slaves were given better treatment. All their human rights were safeguarded. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded proper treatment for slaves, that they should be fed from what other Muslims eat, be clothed from what other Muslims wear, and be not asked to do work beyond their ability unless they're helped.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) also forbade Muslims to slap their slaves. One time he summoned a man who had beaten his slave and said to him:

"Remember, you have power over him, but Allah the Almighty has power over you. Imagine you were in his situation, how would you like to be treated ? .The man felt sorry for what he had done, and he released the slave. Upon this, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "If you didn't do .that, you would be punished by Allah on the Day of Judgment."

This is how Islam honors the rights of slaves after they used to be tortured and persecuted.

Coming to the issue of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he never had a slave. The first slave that was given to him by his wife Khadija was Zayd Ibn Haritha whom the Prophet adopted as his son and called him after his name (that was before adoption was declared forbidden in Islam), but later on called him after his father.

As for his wives, there is difference among scholars whether Mariya of Egypt, who was also given as a gift to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), was a slave or not. Even if we agree that she was a slave, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married her, and she embraced Islam and became one of the Mothers of the Faithful (ummahat-il-mu'mineen).

Anyway, this question is not now a living question. Slavery has been banned by all international laws. It is against human rights. We Muslims honor human rights and we cannot enslave people while they were created free by Allah the Almighty. Slavery is neither legal nor Islamic to practice. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, "The worst sin is to capture a free person and take him as a slave."

Allegation that people are killed for leaving Islam

2008-07-27T20:27:00.000+01:00

For the attention of non-muslims.

If someone wants to leave Islam, they get killed. YES or NO??

Regarding the apostasy issue, its not as simple as a YES or NO. Its not as black an white as that, regardless of how people may invisage it.

You believe in freedom of expression and free speech an all that, fair dos. People believe in different things. You cant force us to follow what you believe and i cant force you to believe what i believe. We believe in God and feel everything should be done according to his law, which is contained in his final revelation.

This law would be Islamic law, and the issue of apostacy would come under this area. The only way the law regarding apostacy could come into practice is if the individuals concerned are living under an Islamic state. In an Islamic state, people live under the law of the land. Just as we follow English law under her majesty's pleasure in England, and everyone else follows the law of their own country. It would just happen to be that in an Islamic state, the country would have their own laws. Nout wrong with that is their, you wont prevent people from having their own laws in their own countries now would you lad.

Now if someone in an Islamic state wants to leave Islam, they will do. It is literally a personal choice and once they have made their mind up thats the end of it. However In that Islamic if someone openly declares that they are no longer a Muslim and by doing so cause unrest and seek to cause harm to the state, then this person can be dealt with by either being asked to leave the state or by being executed.

When someone enters into Islam they not only devote their personal spiritual self to God, but in the case of the one in the Islamic state they also devote themselves to the political structure laid down by Gods law. When we look at apostacy here, we have to look at it in the correct historical context and with the right conditions. Its not just a matter of YES and NO.

From the western perspective religion has no place to play in the legal system. A person is free to follow a religion or not, this is why to you the idea of someone being executed for leaving their religion seems quite absurd. However, we should keep in mind that when capital punishment was abolished for murder back in 1965, it was still retained for treason and piracy with violence. Infact it was also the legal punishment for setting fire to her majesty's ships all the way up till 1971! Now thats absurd.

This principle of treason still exists today in most countries, where treason is considered to be rebellious against the state such as where state secrets are given to some other country, people are executed. Remember now this is execution for material information.

Now when we look at the Islamic perspective, religion is viewed differently then it is in the west. In Islam, the religion is the state. There is no seperation of powers in that sense, the state an Islam are one. The state is governed by the religious principles, so rebellion against the state is rebellion against the religion. Apostacy in an Islamic state amounts to a rejection of the law and the order of that society and as such it is considered as an act of treason.

As i mentioned, a person who abandons the faith personally and feels they no longer want to live under the law of the land and the system is free to leave and do as they please. Islam does not allow or prescribe that these people should be hunted down like Salman Rushdie and killed simply because they chose to leave Islam. The law of apostacy only really deals with people who within the Islamic state openly reject the principles and laws of the state and those who undermine the social islamic system of the state as a whole.

Yes there is no compulsion of religion within Islam; compulsion in joining Islam. But once someone becomes a Muslim, they are obliged to stick with Islam in that this is a serious commitment. You cant compare being part of a religion with anything else, which is the common mistake people make. Its not like buying a new pair of trainers, or picking somewhere to eat out. The whole point is that you believe this is the true religion of God, and as such this is the purpose to your life - something you are very serious about.

You also have to look at the motives behind the entire law of apostacy in Islam. It was first implemented at the time of the prophet in Medina when opponents of Islam were intentionally joining Islam and then leaving it within days and even hours in order to shake the faith of the Muslims and to undermine the order of law. They were playing with the religion to cause confusion amongst other new muslims and weaker members of society. This law aims to prevent any such tactic being employed within an Islamic state.

The death penalty is for those who co-operate with individuals at war with the Islamic state, or those who gather people to fight against the state. This is the real practical application of the law in Islam. In Islam we dont have inqusition courts set up to track an test peoples different levels of faith. What people do personally is their own choice. The death penalty only becomes an issue in the circumstances i have already mentioned.

Where a person openly challenges the law and order of the state and undermines the social system by apostating in a rebellious and hostile fashion, if they get caught and are brought before court - they are still afforded the opportunity to retract their statement and take it back. If they do retract their statement, they are not executed and are free to go. This just goes to show the level of justice which is afforded by Islam even to people who seek to cause unrest. It also shows the type of people we are dealing with, not your average joe. Joe would simply retract his statement and not get executed, however the one who clearly has intention of causing unrest and is even unwilling to take the opportunity of leniancy and pardon - this is the type of person who will clearly be harmful to the state an thus execution is permissable.

So in short, western civilisations have and will execute its citizens for giving away state secrets - something which is mere material. Even if they beg for forgiveness and repent, they will be punished. Islamic law will not execute people for the same purpose. However they will execute them for something which is far more serious; rebellion against God. May not seem much to you, but if a muslim lives in an Islamic state and makes that choice to be muslim and abide by the law of the state, it is a very serious matter. In Islam, this type of rebellion is far greater then the rebellion against the individual or the state.

It is not for the Islamic state to simply declare someone as an apostate or for people on the street to call for someone to be killed. Their are courts of law where the matter is looked into with all the evidence presented, the individuals have to be questioned and they have the right to defend themselves.

To make it clearer and to answer a question non muslims often ask:

"So you do believe someone should be murdered if they leave your faith?"

NO i dont. I dont believe another human should be murdered because of their religious beliefs. I believe in everything i have written above, and if you need further clarification then please read it again, or message me

Allegation that Muhammad was racist

2008-07-27T20:24:00.000+01:00

This post is regarding the allegation concerning ‘Raisin heads’ which is often made by people against Islam and used as evidence of racism. The hadith being referred to is the following:

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 11:

Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, “Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief.”

Here in this hadith he is focusing on the issue of obeying your chief/leader whoever he is. Infact he is advising all whites to obey the chief even he is black, thus trying to force home the point to some of the Arabs who may have been prejudicial that all men are equal regardless of colour. By pointing out the outward appearance or external features of an individual, one does not commit a crime. Especially at that time where the Arabs felt they were superior to the Ethiopians, what the prophet said was groundbreaking. If you had to describe someone of similar appearance with one word, what would you use? Are you going to criticize the prophet because he did not share your vocabulary?

By bringing up this issue the anti islamists have infact shown that the prophet was a man who saw no boundaries based upon race, but was someone who tried to bring equality amongst all colours

If he was a racist and wanted to call them raisin heads, he would’ve called them raisin heads without saying Ethiopian. He was referring to the shape of a raisin, as we all know there are golden, purple, red, BLACK raisins, so to assume the use of the word raisin is racist is entirely wrong.

Lets not forget what the prophet said in his last sermon:

"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 a 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."

Allegation that Muhammad killed Kaab over poetry

2008-07-27T20:20:00.000+01:00

What About The Killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf?

Reagarding the allegation that the Prophet Muhammad(P) unlawfully killed ka’ab. people often cite the events of the killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf as evidence that Muhammad was of bad charactar. Our contentation is that this conclusion totally ignores the historical events surrounding this incident. This could be because people are unaware of the circumstances leading to his killing, or why the Prophet(P) had allowed it to happen, or perhaps because people are just intentionally spreading lies. It is therefore my wish to discuss this issue in its proper perspective, and stiffle the lies once and for all

Who Was Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf?

Kaab Al-Ashraf was a Jew. He used to insult Muslims, and especially Muslim women. He had been later killed by a Muslim, through the permission of the Noble Prophet(P). This account is present in Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq.
The following is the account in our own words:

The Prophet asked who would get rid of Ka’ab for him. A Muslim man responded that he would. Sadly, the Muslim who agreed with the Prophet, did not eat for three days (except for that which was required). When this was informed to the Prophet, the Prophet asked him the reason. The man told him that he had taken a responsibility (to kill Ka’ab) which he could not handle. So the Muslim asked the Prophet’s permission to tell lies, or to deceive Ka’ab. The Prophet gave him the permission. The Muslim went to Ka’ab, said something deceptive, and made him come out of his house and then killed him.

The attack raised by anti-Islamics here is that the Prophet (P) gave another man to do the job and gave him the permission to lie.

We must first of all understand that the situation of the Muslims were very precarious, even in the aftermath of their victory at Badr. Even though the Quraysh Meccans were defeated and had retreated back to the city to lick their wounds and mourn their dead, the Muslims still face the danger of internal dissent within the walls of Madinah. Indeed, the Muslims had just expelled the Banu Qaynuqa from their homes after their open declaration of war against the Prophet and the early Muslim community. The Banu Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the Muslims and go to war and had to be dealt with swiftly so as to quash any ideas of the other Jewish tribes to instigate a war against the Muslims. It was within the context of this situation that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf took advantage of, by inveighing against the Prophet and reciting verses bewailing the Quraysh who were slain at Badr.

Ibn Ishaq stated, "Ka'ab b. al-Ashraf was of the Ta'I tribe, of the sub-tribe of Banu Nabhan, though his mother was of Banu al-Nadir. He received news of the deaths of those at Badr after the arrival of Zayd b. Al- Haritha and Abd Allah b. Rawaha. He commented, By God, if Muhammad has really struck down those people, then better be inside the earth than upon it!" When this enemy of God was sure of this news, he left for Mecca, where he visited al-Muttalib b. Abu Wada'a b.Dubayrat al- Samhi, whose wife was Atika, daughter of Abu al- Is b. Ummayya b. Abd Shams b. Abd Manaf. She accommodated him graciously AND HE BEGAN INSTIGATING AN ATTACK UPON THE MESSENGER OF GOD (SAAS) speaking verses and mourning the deaths of those polytheists killed at Badr."Here Ibn Ishaq gave his poem. Among the lines of the aforementioned verses are:

Badr’s mill ground out the blood of its people
At events like Badr you should weep and cry
The best of the people were slain round their cisterns
Don’t think it strange that the princes were left lying.
How many noble handsome men,
The refugee of the homeless were slain,
Liberal when the stars gave no rain,
Who bore others’ burdens, ruling and taking their due fourth,
Some people whose anger pleases me say
“Ka’ab b. al-Ashraf is utterly dejected”.
They are right. O that the earth when they were killed
Had split asunder and engulfed its people,
That he who spread the report had been thrust through
Or lived cowering blind and deaf.
I was told that all the Banu’l-Mughira were humiliated
And brought low by the death of Abu’l-Hakim
And the two sons of Rabi’a with him,
And Munabbih and the others did not attain (such honour) as those who were slain

He also gave the response to this poem by Hassan b. Thabit, may God be pleased with him, as well as verse by others. He went on, "Ka'ab then returned to Medina where he composed verses suggestive about the Muslim women and critical of the prophet (SAAS) and his followers. Musa b. Uqba stated, "Ka'ab b. al- Ashraf was of Banu al-Nadir, or associated with them, he harmed the messenger of God (SAAS) by ridiculing him in verse AND HE RODE TO QURAYSH TO INCITE THEM FURTHER. Abu Sufyan, in Mecca, asked him, In your view, I pray you tell me, which religion is more favored by God, that of Muhammad and his friends, or our own? Which of us do you think, is more correct and appropriate, We slaughter our meat generously, give milk-topped water to drink, providing food for all sundry who come.' "Ka'ab b al-Ashraf replied, You are better-guided in your path than they are.' Pg. 6-7

So as you can all see, Ka'ab was the one who started the trouble, he not only insulted the prophet Muhammad. He went to the prophet's enemies, and incited them against Muhammad, he obviously incited them to fight and kill the prophet Muhammad. So therefore as we see, Ka'ab was not innocent, nor did he just insult the prophet and the Muslims, he instigated violence and murder and was rightly punished.

In the last stanza of this poetry by Ka’ab, he had comitted a transgression of the earlier covenant signed between the Muslims and his tribe with the following words of incitement:

I was told that al-Harith ibn Hisham
Is doing well and gathering troops
To visit Yathrib with armies,
For only the noble, handsome man protects the loftiest reputation.

Furthermore, Ka’ab had composed several amatory verses in defamation of the honour of a Muslim woman by the name of Ummu’l-Fadl bint al-Harith:

Are you off without stopping in the valley
And leaving Ummu’l-Fadl in Mecca?
Out would come what she bought from the pedlar of bottles,
Henna and hair dye.
What lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow in motion
When she tries to stand and does not.

The significance of “what lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow in motion” is explained in the footnote by the translator of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah as:

Presumably her buttocks are meant; they would be between her ankle and her elbow as she reclined. Large and heavy buttocks were marks of female beauty among the old Arabs.

A poet of pre-Islamic days expresses the Arab sentiment of chastity and virtuousness in a couplet, which depicts a lovely picture of Arab womanhood: “If my glance meets the looks of a neighbouring maiden, I cast my eyes low until her abode takes her in”. Hence it was within the context of the above incitements made by Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf which was why the Muslims were agitated when their women were being dishonoured and public sentiment called for his punishment.

Punishable Treason

As we have stated before, Ka’ab’s actions were against a clause in the Madinah Covenant signed between the Muslims and the Jews of Madinah. The relevant stipulation of this covenant is as follows:

Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Thalaba are as themselves. The close friends are as themselves. None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his whole household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that. The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime. A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document. Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

His acts were openly directed against the Commonwealth, of which he was a member. It is therefore clear that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf’s antagonism towards the Muslim community was his own undoing, and was no longer protected by the covenant that he himself had violated. Akram Diya’ al-Umari remarks:
The killing of Ibn al Ashraf might be seen as an act of treachery, but on further reflection one realizes that Ibn al Ashraf was party to the treaty according to the Document by which the Jews of Banu al Nadir and others were committed. By slandering the Prophet, who was the head of state, and by showing his sympathy for the enemies of the Muslims (lamenting their dead and inciting them against the Muslims), Ibn al Ashraf had broken the treaty and declared war on the Muslims, and his blood could be shed with impunity. As for his being deceived and killed by those he had trusted, such action is legally permissible (ja’iz) in the case of those who have declared war on the Muslims, and it was carried out by order of the Messenger (See al Tahawi, Mushkil al-Athar). The Messenger, however, did not blame Banu al Nadir for Ibn al Ashraf’s crime; it was sufficient to have him killed for his treachery. The Prophet, in fact, renewed his treaty with them (Banu al Nadir).

However, some may object that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf was merely composing “poetries” as a form of “freedom of expression”, and therefore was not causing any “harm” to anyone around him. Those who say this certainly do not understand the significance of the blasphemous poetry by Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf. Arabic poetry can be very influential and cannot be thought of in the terms of English poetry or any other forms of poetry in other languages. As Philip K. Hitti himself notes,

No people in the world, perhaps, manifest such enthusiastic admiration for literary expression and are so moved by the word, spoken or written, as the Arabs. Hardly any language seems capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence as Arabic.

After noting Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf’s acts of incitement and false accusations towards Muslim women, Haykal says that

The reader is perhaps aware of Arab custom and ethic in this regard, and can appreciate the Muslims’ anxiety over such false accusations directed against their women’s honour.

Certainly, the reader would agree with us that “freedom of expression” certainly does not include the right to defame the honour of another, or to incite aggression against a legitimate Government. Hence it is clear that by modern terms today, Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf will be duly charged with sedition against the State and for outraging the modesty of a Muslim woman.

A Public Trial for War Criminals?

Controversialists have stigmatised this execution as an “assassination”. And because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the criminals, in their prejudice against the Prophet(P) they shut their eyes to the justice of the sentence, and the necessity of a swift and secret execution. There existed then no police court, no judicial tribunal, nor even a court-martial, to take cognisance of individual crimes. In the absence of a State executioner, any individual might become the executioner of the law. This man had broken their formal pact - it was impossible to arrest him in public, or execute the sentence in the open before their clans, without causing unnecessary bloodshed, and giving rise to the feud of blood and everlasting vendetta. The exigencies of the State required that whatever should be done should be done swiftly and noiselessly upon those whom public opinion had arraigned and condemned.

Conclusions

As we can see already, Ka’ab did not simply insult the prophet Muhammad and Muslim women. He did much more; he went to the prophet's enemies and incited them against the prophet Muhammad. He incited the Quraysh to go kill and fight Muhammad, therefore the prophet Muhammad had every right to go and send someone to kill Ka’ab for doing such a thing. There was no injustice done at all, Ka’ab incited people to kill Muhammad and Muslims, so therefore he became an enemy, it doesn't matter if Ka’ab did not raise a weapon. Using that logic then that means that every accomplice in a murder case is free to go since they never really committed the crime, they just helped out!

In today's legal system, if you incite murder that is seen as a crime and you yourself are guilty of murder as well. This is exactly what Kab did; he incited murder and violence, so therefore he was punished.

It is clear that where the killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf was concerned, it was done as a deterrent against crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law. In considering the punishments that were dealt to the enemies of Islam, we must not forget, first, that they were political actions made necessary by the conditions of the time; second, that none of them were excessive unacceptable by the usages or mores of that time.

And only God knows best!

Allegation that the Quran says the earth is flat

2008-07-27T20:15:00.000+01:00

Regarding the allegation which is commonly made against the Quran, where websites and youtube videos allege the Quran says the earth is flat. The Quran does not say the world is flat.

Once again the allegation:

The Quran says that Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet. This gives an indication that the earth is flat. Does this not contradict established modern science?

1. Earth made as a carpet

The question refers to a verse from the Qur’an in Surah Nuh:
"And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out)." The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 71, Verse 19

But the sentence in the above verse is not complete. It continues in the next verse, explaining the previous verse. It says: "That ye may go about therein, in spacious roads." The Holy Quran, Chapter 71, Verse 20

A similar message is repeated in Surah TaHa:

"He Who has made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels)...." The Holy Quran, Chapter 20, Verse 53

The surface of the earth i.e. earth’s crust is less than 30 miles in thickness and is very thin as compared to the radius of the earth which is about 3750 miles. The deeper layers of the earth are very hot, fluid and hostile to any form of life. The earth’s crust is a solidified shell on which we can live. The Quran rightly refers to it like a carpet spread out, so that we can travel along its roads and paths.

2. Carpet can also be spread on other than an absolute flat surface

Not a single verse of the Quran says that the earth is flat. The Quran only compares the earth’s crust with a carpet. Some people seem to think that carpet can only be put on an absolute flat surface. It is possible to spread a carpet on a large sphere such as the earth. It can easily be demonstrated by taking a huge model of the earth’s globe covering it with a carpet.

Carpet is generally put on a surface, which is not very comfortable to walk on. The Quran describes the earth crust as a carpet, without which human beings would not be able to survive because of the hot, fluid and hostile environment beneath it. The Quran is thus not only logical, it is mentioning a scientific fact that was discovered by geologists centuries later.

3. Earth has been spread out

Similarly, the Quran says in several verses that the earth has been spread out.

"And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: how excellently We do spread out!" The Holy Quran, Chapter 51, Verse 48

Similarly the Quran also mentions in several other verses that the earth is an expanse:

"Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse. And the mountains as pegs?" The Holy Quran, Chapter 78, Verse 6-7

None of these verses of the Quran contain even the slightest implication that the earth is flat. It only indicates that the earth is spacious and the reason for this spaciousness of the earth is mentioned. The Quran says:

"O My servants who believe! truly. spacious is My Earth: therefore serve ye Me –(And Me alone)!"

The Holy Quran, Chapter 29, Verse 56
Therefore none can give the excuse, that he could not do good and was forced to do evil because of the surroundings and circumstances.

4. Earth is geospherical in shape

The Quran mentions the actual shape of the earth in the following verse: "And we have made the earth egg shaped". The Holy Quran, Chapter 79, Verse 30

The "dahu" in the Arabic Language means to extend and even out. It is said: "daha" the thing; "yad'hu dahwan". These terms can mean he either evened out and extended it or he threw it and rolled it. It is also said: "the rain daha the stones from the face of the earth," which means it rolled it and washed it away. It is also said: "The horse passed by yad'hu dahwan," which means he is beating his foot on the ground and yad'hu its sand. Also, the ostrich's mad'hi means its laying of its eggs, and "ad'hiha" is the nest where its chicks are born.

So as we clearly see, all of the above Arabic words that are derived from "daha" mean:
1- To extend.
2- To roll.
3- To even out.
4- Causing to become egg-shaped or creating, making or producing eggs (see the ostrich's mad'hi example above).

The meanings all derive from the root word in arabic, there is nothing wrong with applying all the meanings especially amazing in this situation seeing as they are all true. Arabic is a rich language and words usually have more then one meaning

The Arabic word dahaha in Noble Verse 79:30 above did have multiple meanings and uses. One of them was when one refers to an ostrich egg. Another was when referring to making something extended, spread out, stretched and/or expanded. This is an example of how Allah Almighty uses scientific notions in the Noble Quran when He talked about how He created certain things. He gave words that had multiple meanings and interpretations to them to make the Noble Quran truly be for all times and all places, and show it has deeper meanings. The meanings unravel more and more as scientific discoveries increase

The shape of the earth being similar to an oblate spheroid [ Also according to Wikipedia: "The Earth's shape is very close to an oblate spheroid—a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator—although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 metres (327 ft)."

Eggs can be described as prolate spheroids, ovate spehroids or oblate spheroids. The fact is the word used in the Quran has particular root link to an ostrich egg

We are specifically observing an Ostrich egg which does resemble an Oblate Spheroid and NOT Prolate Spheroid. More over technical labeling is irrelevant since these are invented modern names that we ascribe to the earth. How would it make sense for God to describe the earth as an 'Oblate spheroid' 1400 years ago? Even if God were to describe the Earth as simply 'round' it would be incorrect. Describing the Earth as resembling an ostrich egg is very significant and precise as it was not only unique at the time but is still accurate and visually relevant

Thus its not just a case of bad translation, the words in arabic have multiple meanings and all cant be used at once however deeper analysis do show that all the meanings are accurate. This however is not likely to convince the non muslim who most probably thinks the muslims are stretching it abit and using words they want to use, which is their choice and is fair enough. But to say the verses are irrelevant is incorrect, they certainly have some merit

Thus the allegation is untrue, the Quran and modern established science are in perfect harmony.

And please if you prefer videos, check out the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HR5FcRDPbg&feature=related

Why does the Quran not go into detail about the crust?

The Quran is a book of science. The Quran does not need to go into detail about the crust, all we have to do is show that what it is saying does not go against established science. If the Quran gave scientific measurements and details about every little issue, it would be a million times bigger then it is and not be fit the the purpose it was revealed.

The description given was emphasising a certain point regarding the way the surface of the earth is vast and spread out, for which it uses the term carpet. This is clear from the context provided. The Quran then goes onto clarify the actual shape of the earth as being egg shaped. Both are clear, and not against established science. So if you read the whole Quran, and the particular verses in question it will be clear to you that in one part the surface is being referred to and in the other the shape of the earth is given, both put together or looked at seperatly are correct. Simple deduction will lead you to this.

The verses did not need to go into great deal about the intimate details because as i said it is not a book of science. The descriptions and words were made so they would be easy for the people of the time to understand, and be easy for us to understand today. This again is clear by virtue of the fact that the verses do not contradict any established scientific fact.

There is an allegation that the Quran copied from the greeks regarding this issue for some reason, we may aswell look at this claim even though there is no real evidence to support this allegation

Around 250 BC, the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes came to the conclusion that the earth was spherical. The actual fact however based on scienctific research is that the earths shape is oblate spheroid, which is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle. Hence the earth is not a sphere, as was put forward by the greeks.

If what the anti islamists say is true, and Muhammad wrote the Quran and copied the greeks - why would he not actually copy what they said? I mean to say, surely he would also have written the earth is a sphere shape. In actual fact if we look at the Quran, it states the shape of the earh is egg shaped and not a sphere. The Quran mentions the actual shape of the earth in the following verse: "And we have made the earth egg shaped". The Holy Quran, Chapter 79, Verse 30

The shape of an egg being oblate spheroid, just like the earth. This clearly proves that the Quran did not copy from the greeks, because if it had it would have said the same thing, and not corrected the mistake the greeks had made. This information is not from the greeks, but is from the creator himself.

Allegation that Islam is not practical as fasting in daylight at the poles would not be possible

2008-07-27T20:12:00.000+01:00

Regarding the claim : ''Islam is not practical. For example fasting in daylight at one of the poles would not makes sense in time of 24 hour night or day''

The question itself isnt practical. Who lives in the poles?? Poles arent suitable for life. Anyway my response is as below:

Qur'an has made it very clear :

''So whoever of you sights (the crescent on the first night of) the month (of Ramadan i.e. is present at his home), he must observe Suam (fasts) that month, [Glorious Qur’aan 2:185]''

Thus, when the opportunity of Ramadaan does not arrive, and the month of Ramadaan is not seen at all, then there is NO obligation to fast. The same applies to Prayers (Salaat) at such places because Allaah (SWT) says,

Verily, the prayer is enjoined on the believers at fixed hours. [Glorious Qur’aan 4:103]
So, when these hours are not found, no prayer is prescribed. The month of Ramadaan is according to *Lunar* calendar. Allaah (SWT) after prescribing fasting,

''The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur’ân, [Glorious Qur’aan 2:185]''

It is clear that Ramadaan is a Lunar month. Each lunar month is made up of twenty-nine days and twelve hours and twenty-four minutes (29 days, 12 hours, 24 minutes), therefore, WHERE THE *LUNAR* MONTH IS NOT FOUND THERE IS NO FASTING!

Salaat is a time related obligation, so, when these hours are not found in South or North Poles, no prayer is prescribed.

------------------------------------------------------------

Let me give you an example :

The Glorious Qur’aan tells us that both hands must be washed and/or wiped when performing ablution or Tayyamum. But, if a person does not have hands or a hand, how will he/she wash them?

In the same way, when there is no Ramadan, what it means to observe fasting in Ramadan?

This is the opinion of some scholars, other opines that the underlying purpose is fasting and prayer time is appointed where it is possible. If it is not possible to determine the timetable then the required worship will not be omitted. Worshipers will have to reckon a timetable and then observe fasting and prayers. It is safer to go by this opinion.

People do not inhabit the two Poles especially Muslims, because of glaciers and ice making it almost impossible to live there. Therefore fasting is not obligatory where there is no possibility of human life.

Allegation that the Quran tells Muslims to 'kill disbelievers wherever you find them'

2008-07-27T20:06:00.000+01:00

Surah 9:5

Most of the critics of Islam quote the verse kill the Mushrikoon (polytheists) where ever you find them , The Holy Quran, Chapter 9, Verse 5 to show that Quran Commands the killing of Disbelievers

This is quotation taken completely out of context. If you read the chapter(Surah At-Taubah) from the beginning the first verse talks about the treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriks (Pagans) of Mecca who used to persecute the muslims who as of yet had not retaliated.

Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty , The Holy Quran, Chapter 9, Verse 1

In the next verse The Meccans are given four months time to set things right otherwise a declaration of War and coming to verse [9:5], the complete verse is

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful." The Holy Quran, Chapter 9, Verse 5

Hence if you read this in context we know that this statement was made in the battle field. Critics often fail to quote with context. Infact in the battle the Quran Commands that a person who seeks asylum should be escorted to a place of security.

If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." The Holy Quran, Chapter 9, Verse 6

The Quran explicitly forbids killing. Whosoever kills a human being for other than Murder or Creating Mischief in the Land, it is as if he had killed the whole of Human Kind and whoso saved the life of one as if he has saved the life of all Mankind The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5, Verse 12

People must appreciate that the Quran contains instructions and details of incidents that occured in the past. In this case the historical background is relevant, as the reason for revelation was to enable the Muslims to defend themselves from the constant persecution from the meccans. This is not a general principle as anti islamists see it, which commands all muslims to kill disbelievers.

Surah 9:14

Regarding your second quote its from surah 9, which again has to be looked at in its full context. I will give it below then you tell me if what is being said is in anyway unfair or promoting terrorism. I'll start from verse 6 so you can see the full context. (I will put the context in the brackets below if you cant understand the verses)

6. And if anyone of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allâh (the Qur'ân), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.

(Muslims are ordered to protect the disbelievers and not only that but to take them to a place of safety)

7. How can there be a covenant with Allâh and with His Messenger for the Mushrikûn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allâh loves Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

(If people are honest then respect the honesty and remain truthful with the non believers - God loves the truthful)

8. How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With (good words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are averse to you, and most of them are Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).

(God is telling the Muslims to beware of the dishonest unbelievers and to avoid making agreements with them as they may breach)

9. They have purchased with the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh a little gain, and they hindered men from His Way; evil indeed is that which they used to do.

(The people have distorted the truth and promote evil)

10. With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors.

(The dishonest dont respect their family ties or friendship let alone a covenant with the believers)

11. But if they repent, perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.

(Despite this if these dishonest people repent then forgive them as they are your brothers)

12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).

(But if they break an agreement and ATTACK YOU FIRST they show the promises they made mean nothing)

13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allâh has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

(Should you not defend yourself against people who commi such actions, those who break agreements and make war on you?)

14. Fight against them so that Allâh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people,

(You should fight such people and restore order and punish the traitors for their actions)

So as you can see, its not just a matter of killing disbelievers. The Quran tells us to protect them, but to fight back if attacked first. This is not terrorism, and to quote this verse out of context is unfair.

Allegation that Islam expanded by forcing people to pay Jizyah

2008-07-27T20:05:00.000+01:00

The Muslims have to pay taxes (which is 2.5 percent of their annual income) under the name of "Zakah" to provide welfare to the poor and the needy citizens; from both Muslims and non-Muslims. The poor and the needy (such as the Orphans, Widows and the disabled) from the Muslims are exempt from paying taxes.

The non-Muslims had to pay a varrying amount under the name of "Jizyah", depending on their situation, which is taxes that don't go to help poor and needy Muslims, but instead, it goes to the government to (1) Provide protection for them since they are a minority; (2) Provide means for them to practice their religions freely by building Temples or Churches for them.

As I mentioned above for the non-Muslims, there are exemptions for the poor, for females and children. The idea that Islam expanded by forcing people to convert by imposing jizyah is false simply because:

1) If they became muslim they would have to pay more in zakah
2) The poor and needy did not need to become muslim because as mentioned they would be exempt from paying jizyah

Allegation that Muhammad brutally slaughtered the Jews of Banu Qurayzah

2008-07-27T20:02:00.000+01:00

The claim often made:

Mohammed's bloodthirsty slaughter of the Jews at Banu Qurayza, leaving only the women and children to be sold into slavery shows Islam is false and Muhammad was a warlord

from Abu Da'ud

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (Mohammed's followers) examined us, and those who had begun to grow (pubic) hair were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Response:

Ok lets look at this incident, which is quite often used as an example of Muhammad being a butcher. Rather then the anti islamic sites, let us look at the true historical context behind the incident.

At the beginning of the seventh century A.D., there were three Jewish tribes living in Medina (Yathrib). They were Banu Qainuka'a, Banu Nadhir and Banu Qurayza. All three tribes were rich and powerful, and also, they were more civilized than the Arabs. Whereas the Arabs were all farmers, the Jews were the entrepreneurs of industry, business and commerce in Arabia, and they controlled the economic life of Medina (Yathrib). The two Arab tribes – Aus and Khazraj – were debt-ridden to the Jews perennially.

The migration of Muhammad, from Makkah to Medina (then Yathrib), brought him into contact with the Jews for the first time. At the beginning they were friendly to him. He granted them the famous Charter of Medina, and they acknowledged him the ruler of their city, and agreed to abide by his decisions in all disputes. They also agreed to defend the city in the event of an invasion by an enemy.

But, unfortunately, this friendship did not last long. It soon became obvious that the Jews had given their friendship to Muhammad with many reservations. In their own interest, they ought to have acted their part of the agreement faithfully but they did not. For this change in their attitude, there were many reasons, among them:

1. When Muhammad arrived in Medina, he reformed the life of whoever became a Muslim. He taught them to be temperate and moderate in everything, and taught them the value of discipline in life. They stopped drinking and gambling both of which were the causes of their ruin in the past; and they gave up taking loans at high rates of interest from the Jews. When the Arabs stopped taking loans and paying interest on them, a rich source of revenue suddenly dried up for the Jews, and they bitterly resented this. They could now see that their grip on the economic life of Medina was beginning to loosen.

2. The Jews also realized that Islam was an enemy of the system of exploitation, and of the capitalist system. They began to see Islam as a threat to their economic interests.

3. The Jewish priests hated Muhammad as much as the Jewish money-lenders. He had shown to the Jews how their priest followed deviant interpretations of their scriptures, and how they distorted their text. The priests, on their part, tried to convince their flocks that Muhammad did not have knowledge of their scriptures, and they tried to point out to them the "errors" in the Qur’an.

The Jews also believed that they were safe only as long as the two Arab tribes of Medina, the Aus and the Khazraj, were fighting against each other. Peace between the Aus and the Khazraj, they thought, would pose a threat to their survival in Arabia. For this reason, they were always fomenting trouble between them.

Of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qainuka'a and the Banu Nadhir had already been expelled after the battles of Badr and Uhud respectively, and they had left with all their baggage, and herds of animals, and had resettled in Khyber.

The third and the last tribe of the Jews in Medina was the Banu Qurayza. According to the terms of the Charter of Medina, it was their duty to take an active part in defending the city during the siege of A.D. 627. But not only they did not contribute any men or materials during the siege but were actually caught conspiring with the enemy to compass the destruction of the Muslims. Some Jews even attacked a house in which many Muslim women and children had taken refuge as it was considered a safer place for them than their own houses. Between the pagans of Makkah and the Jews of Medina, the Muslims would have been massacred. It was only the presence of mind of Muhammad that averted such a disaster.

R.V.C. Bodley writes:
The Jews were not at first inclined to listen to Abu Sofian's proposal (to attack Muslims from the rear), but after a while they compromised and agreed to betray the Moslems when the time seemed opportune. (The Messenger – the Life of Mohammed)

The reason for the campaign goes back to Banu Qurayzah’s breaking of the treaty between themselves and the Prophet. This has been proved from different reports which, when taken together, could be used as valid evidence. Huyayy ibn Akhtab al Nadari incited them to break the treaty at a critical time when the Muslims were being besieged by 10,000 warriors from the various tribes. There is a strong report that the Prophet sent al Zubayr ibn al Awwam to check on Banu Qurayzah, then he sent Sad ibn Mu’adh, Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah, Abd Allah ibn Rawahah and Khawwat ibn Jubayr to check whether the rumors about the treachery of Banu Qurayzah were true. These four confirmed the rumors, and this news distressed the Muslims.

Ibn Ishaq gave a detailed report — without isnad — of the treachery of Banu Qurayzah and their breaking of the treaty. Most of the Sirah writers also reported it without isnad

Musa ibn ‘Uqbah mentions — also without isnad — that Qurayzah asked Huyayy ibn Akhtab to take 90 men from the nobles of Quraysh and Ghatafan as hostages, so the Quraysh would not leave Madinah before they had destroyed the Muslims. Huyayy agreed to that, so they announced their breaking of the treaty.

The conduct of the Jews during the siege of Medina was high treason against the State. Therefore, when the confederate army broke up and the danger to Medina was averted, the Muslims turned their attention to them.
The Jews shut themselves up in their forts and the Muslims besieged them. But some days later, they requested the Prophet to raise the siege, and agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration.

The Prophet allowed the Jews to choose their own arbitrator. Here they made a very costly blunder. They should have chosen Muhammad himself – the embodiment of mercy – to be their judge. If they had, he would have allowed them to depart from Medina with their baggage and their animals, and the incident would have been closed.

But the Jews didn't choose Muhammad as their judge. Instead, they chose Sa'ad ibn Muadh, the leader of their former allies, the Aus. Sa'ad was a man who was utterly reckless with life – his own as well as that of others.
Sa'ad had received a mortal wound during the battle of the Trench, and in fact died soon after he had passed judgment on the fate of the Jews. HE declared treason to be an unpardonable offense, and his verdict was inexorable. He invoked the Torah, the Scripture of the Jews, and sentenced all men to death, and women and children to slavery.

The number of WARRIORS who were executed was 400. Three of Banu Qurayzah were spared because they entered Islam and they kept their wealth; three others may have been spared because they were protected by some of the companions because of their loyalty to the treaty during the siege. There are many reports dealing with this, but they cannot be taken as valid evidence. The prisoners were detained in the house of Bint al Harith.

Only one of their women was killed she had killed one of the companions — Khalid ibn Suwayd — by dropping a millstone on him. Boys below the age of puberty were released.

Behold the evidence:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their WARRIORS should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their WARRIORS should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their WARRIORS and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."

Volume 8, Book 74, Number 278:
Narrated Abu Said:

The people of (the tribe of) Quraiza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa'd. The Prophet sent for him (Sa'd) and he came. The Prophet said (to those people), "Get up for your chief or the best among you!" Sa'd sat beside the Prophet and the Prophet said (to him), "These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sa'd said, "So I give my judgment that their WARRIORS should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have judged according to the King's (Allah's) judgment." (See Hadith No. 447, Vol. 5)

As for the others:

The siege continued for twenty-five days, during which the Muslims allowed the Jews who had refused to betray the Prophet (peace be upon him) during the Battle of the Ditch to leave and go wherever they wished as a reward for their faithfulness. (Muhammad Al Ghazali, Fiqh-Us-Seerah: Understanding the Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), International Islamic Publishing House, p346)

The severe punishments were only given because of the acts of high treason which Banu Qurayzah committed when they betrayed the Muslims and broke the treaty, instead of participating with them in defending Madinah, in accordance with the treaty between the two sides. In this day and age, nations still execute traitors who cooperate with the enemy.

The punishment of Banu Qurayzah fitted their crime, because they had exposed the Muslims to the threat of being killed, their wealth to the threat of being seized, and their women and children to the threat of being taken prisoner; therefore, their punishment was a fitting recompense. Fact is Muhammad was not even the one who gave the order for the people to be killed, the decision was made by the arbitrator who the Jews themselves chose. He applied their own law on them, from the torah. There is no need to avoid historical facts or to deny authentic reports.

Summary:

They broke a treaty which was agreed between both parties to defend the state of Medina. They were residents of Medina and they plotted against other residents of Medina, clearly violating the treaty they agreed to. Hence it was treason. They plotted against the defending Muslim forces and formed alliances with the enemy. They accepted the verdict because they were guilty.

In the Battle of the Trenches, the Medinan Jews had made a secret alliance with the superior Meccan forces. They planned a rear attack. When Muhammad found out about this plot, he took the essential action both politically and for the sake of justice to punish the great betrayal. Its quite clear that if someone agrees to defend you but then betray you, this is a crime. They didnt physically attack the Muslims because the Muslims discovered there plan. According to anti islamist logic, action against them would only be justified if there plan worked? bearing in mind they were going to attack the Muslims from the rear, that would mean all the Muslims would be killed and there would be no one left to administer the punishment for the Jews betrayal. The correct action was taken just in the nick of time.

The historical account is recorded by the people who were there at the time, even the hadith used to form attacks on Islam was recorded by someone who was one of the Jews at the time. It is as accurate as you can get, one thing that you cant hold against Islam is the degree to which history has been recorded. People against Islam have been using it for years to base there attacks on Islam, so its abit rich when people now try and claim the historical account is pro Muslim. They think its reliable when they want, and then they claim it aint when it proves there allegations are false

It is certainly more reliable then the evidence presented by anti islamists, which is a mish mash of conjecture and a re hash of historical events from a number of anti islamic sites all of whom i have visited. Half quoting hadiths and not giving the full context is there speciality, and obviously someone who is not exposed to the whole truth will be easily swayed. Its simple, the predetermined agenda of all these sites is that Muhammad was a butcher who wanted power, and Islam is false. They then interpret any hadith, historical incident or Quranic verse to fit this hypothesis. When you get down to the nitty gritty tho and look at each of the incidents which are cited as evidence, you find that they are all twisted and based on falsehoods.

Missing Quran verses on stoning and breastfeeding

2008-07-27T19:52:00.000+01:00

UMAR, GOAT AND LOST VERSES ON STONING?

First of all everyone should read the following on the issue of Quranic variants and abrogation, seeing as a lot of people without any knowledge on the issue use it as a stick to beat the Muslims claiming the Quran has been changed and has some missing verses, when in fact it does not.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/introduction_to_quranic_variants

After reading this it should be clear that the Quran we have today is the Quran we were supposed to have as revealed, and intended from the creator to form the final revelation.

Regarding stoning it is said:

“He will state that this is a lost verse that was originally in the Quran in chapter 33, and there are numerous sources for this fact.”

Yes there are numerous sources, all which definitively disagree with the assertion that there is a lost verse on stoning. Please check out the following for clarity on the matter:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_quranic_verse_on_stoning

After reading this it should be clear that this was not a missing verse, nor a lost verse. In fact, it is no verse. It was abrogated via permission of the prophet and consensus amongst the companions. If it was lost or forgotten, why is it that the hadith clearly record the fact that the Prophet and the companions agreed that it was not part of the Quran. How can they talk about and discuss something which they have supposedly forgotten. Furthermore the law was actually implemented by them, how could they have implemented a law derived from something which they have supposedly forgotten?

Regarding breastfeeding it is said:

“Yes, there was a verse in the Quran that orders muslim women to breast feed men, or allow men to suck on their nipples 10 times as the hadith says so these men would become Mehrem, meaning people they can not marry so they can socialize with them!”

Was there? Really? Seeing as no references are ever provided, I will do all the work, and then answer the query.

Now for the issue raised, where its claimed there is a verse in the Quran that tells women to breast feed men. The hadith being referred to is:

Saheeh Muslim
Book 008, Number 3421:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

You can find a detailed explanation of this at the following:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/quranic_variant__missing_verse_on_suckling_

After reading this you would have realized that this verse was never meant to be in the Quran, and it was abrogated via permission of the prophet and consensus amongst the companions. Hence it cannot be termed a missing verse, because for it to be termed as such the verse should have been somehow overlooked or forgotten by the companions and the prophet, when in actual fact it was considered and scrutinized and then abrogated accordingly with the permission of the prophet and companions, hence the will of the creator was done via his messenger Muhammad.

Now to the claim that the verse which was allegedly missing but actually wasn’t, said women are ordered to breast feed men? Nowhere did the hadith in question say MEN or MAN. If you had read up on the issue with abit more care, you would see that it refers to children. This hadith has to be cross referenced with the primary authority on the issue, which is breastfeeding.

The primary authority is the following:

The breastfeeding must happen within the first two years of the child's life, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling." [al-Baqarah 2:233].

The hadith is referring to a child NOT a man. In Islam, you are not allowed to marry the following category of people as clarified by the creator himself in his final revelation:

Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who suckled you), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 004.023

Note: It refers to foster mothers who suckled you. Now lets look again at the hadith in question:

Saheeh Muslim
Book 008, Number 3421:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

And the following hadith:

Book 008, Number 3422:
'Amra reported that she heard 'A'isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she ('A'isha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings).

The hadith is not referring to men at all in any shape or form, people have misunderstood the whole thing. It was talking about when a woman fosters a child or wishes to, in order for that child to be categorized as a her son, he/she would have to meet the requirements on breastfeeding, and breastfeed that child in a certain way. Thus a clear guideline was provided on how a woman can foster a child as her own, be it a boy OR a girl so that there is not any confusion amongst people regarding the issue. No mention of a man.

These children, once they have been breastfed in the manner prescribed would become foster children of that mother. In the case of the male child, he would become a mehrem meaning someone the mother cannot marry, but can freely socialize with as you put it, as he is her son.
So just to summarise:

1) There is no ‘lost verse’ on stoning in the Quran as claimed
2) There is no ‘missing verse’ in the Quran on breast feeding as claimed
3) There is nowhere in the Quran where women were/are told to breast feed men as claimed
4) Goat or no goat it is irrelevant, as the relevant verses were abrogated

There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions from some anti-Islamics. The situation in the Hadiths above was not a corruption as it might appear to you. It is a problem with dialects. For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".

Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".

Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".
The point is that there were 7 different dialects. The Noble Quran was originally recited with the "Quraishi" dialect, which is the dialect that our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him spoke.

The other dialects were later prohibited by our Prophet's disciple Uthman to keep the recitation of the Noble Quran consistent. The words were the SAME. But the pronunciation and the reading of them was different for the reasons I explained above and several others, such as the punctuations in Arabic.

When Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran, he did not determine the numerical order of the Noble Chapters and the Noble Verses. The entire Noble Quran as I said was already documented and memorized. Chapters from the Noble Quran were recited by our Prophet peace be upon him at least 5 times a day during the Muslims' five-daily prayers. Also, the Noble Quran was all recited during the month of Ramadan, as it is still done today. There are other daily and weekly religious occasions, festivals and holidays where the Noble Quran back then and still today was recited either partially or wholly. The Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran back then continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others: Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

CONCLUSION:

The Noble Quran today is One True Perfect Divine Holy Book. It survived man's alterations and corruptions. The Noble Quran was all documented on the spot during Prophet Muhammad's times. The Noble Quran's numerical ordering of the Noble Verses and Chapters were also determined Prophet Muhammad through the inspirations of Allah Almighty. The Noble Quran was memorized and recited over and over again through the Muslims' five-daily prayers, the Holy Month of Ramadan, and other events and occasions where Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

The authenticity of the Qur'an is a major proof that it is from Allah, the Lord of all Being. Allah has Himself said in the Qur'an that He will guard it from corruption (we seen here how Allah's Book survived 1400 years with out a single change, which proves that Allah has Guarded His Book). Therefore, we quote the following statement to all non-Muslims who attack the Holy Qur'an:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from what is error." (al-Qur'an (2):256)

Allegation that the Quran has been changed

2008-07-27T19:46:00.000+01:00

The verses of the Qur'an weren't written by Muhammad (may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him), but they were written down during his lifetime and verified by him in it's pieces. He couldn't read or write, but when those who witnessed him reciting a new revelation, some would write it and verify it with him, others would come to him and he would repeat the new verses and some of them would write them down, and verify them with him. Several companions memorized the entire Qur'an beforethe Prophet Muhammad's death. (The verses were revealed little by little over 23 years).

Each year during the month of Ramadhan, the Angel Jibril (Gabriel) would sit with Muhammad and recite what had been revealed thus far. This happened in a particular order twice in the month of Ramadhan in the last year of the Prophet Muhammad's life.

Within one year after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, due to the Battle of Yamamah that saw the loss of about 70 companions, Abu Bakr, (the closest and trusted friend of Muhammad, the first Khalifah), fearing the loss of the memory of the recitation in future battles, had the pieces collected by Zaid bin Thabit who was hafiz, (had memorized the entire Qur'an during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad), and placed in the order the Prophet Muhammad recited the entire Qur'an in twice during that last Ramadhan, (Zaid was himself one of the witnesses to these two final recitaions).

Zaid bin Thabit was the primary scribe among many who would write the new revelations at the request of the Prophet Muhammad, as he was a neighbor whom he would call upon easily. When the Prophet would tell him to write the new verses, he would also tell him where (in which Surah or chapter) to insert them. Zaid bin Thabit was the most knowledgable among the companions with regards to the recitation of the Qur'an. He was appointed by each of the 3 succeeding Khalifs as a Judge,(he was a Uloom or scholar in Qir'aat, Shari'ah and Inheritance).

After the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Khalif Abu Bakr asked Zaid to collect all of the writings and bind them into one collection. He told Zaid to only accept a verse if it had two trustworthy companions (known for their piety, honesty and reliable memory) who had memorized and verified with the Prophet their recitation of that verse (two besides himself ).

After this monumentous task, the collection was left in the care of one of the Prophet's surviving wives, Hafsa, the daughter of the second Khalif 'Umar, (another close, trusted friend of the Prophet Muhamad).

It is reported that Zaid bin Thabit said of this task, "It would have been easier for me to move a mountain than to do that which they told me to do", because he appreciated the responsibility in such a trust. Any mistake or omission could cause confusion in the generations to come until the end of time.

Only a few years later, the successor to Umar, the third Khalif Uthmaan, (also a very close and trusted companion to the Prophet), again requested Zaid bin Thabit to take the collection of verses which were written on many mediums such as leather, papyrus, cloth, shoulder bones of animals, etc, and write them in the order the Prophet recited them twice in his last year of life under the instruction of the Angel Jibril, (as I mentioned, Zaid had personally witnessed these two recitations).

This written book is called the Uthmaani manuscript or mus-haf. Several copies were commissioned by Uthmaan and sent to several major cities.

One of these original copies is still held in the Topkapi Museum in Turkey. In fact it is referred to in Article 246 of the Treaty of Versailles that Germany had to return it to the King of Hedjaz (as it had been taken from Medinah by the Turkish authorities and presented to Emperor William II).

Another original (or a copy of an original) was taken by the Ummayads from Medinah to Morrocco, and it travelled to Samarkand in 1485, remaining there until 1869 when the Russians took it to St. Petersburg. They returned it to Samarkand in 1924.

It is known as the Tashkent copy (a town close to St. Petersburg). The Russians have given facimilies from the pages of this Qur'an to visiting dignitaries through the years.

A third Qur'an is held in the Al-Hussain Mosque in Egypt. It is believed that this is the Qur'an that all other Qur'ans are copied from. Some say this is the first mus-haf that Zaid bin Thabit wrote and he copied the other mushafs that were sent to other cities and this one remained in the possession of Uthmaan, and that this is the Qur'an over which Uthmaan was marytered over, as it has blood spattered on the leather pages.

Ancient copies of the Quran still unchanged till this day

Al-Hussein Mus-haf:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/hussein.html

Tashkent Mus-haf:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html

Topkapi Mus-haf:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html

THE WRITTEN QUR'AN IN THE TIMES OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH)

A large number of missionaries and the self-styled "critics" have been quoting Islamic traditions, or reports (Hadith), which support their claim, that the Qur'an was not written at the time of its Revelation. Are all these claims true? They are not, if we re-examine them.

EVIDENCE FROM THE QUR'AN

The Qur'an itself contains many passages which refer to its written form. There appear to be four chapters (Sura's) of the Qur'an which refer to the Qur'an's written form explicitly. I'll quote them:
"By no means! Indeed it is a message of Instruction
Therefore, whoever wills, should remember
On leaves held in honour
Exalted, purified
In the hands of scribes
Noble and pious"
Sura' 80: 11-16

Here we have a reference to those scribes who wrote the Qur'an, on leaves. Minister Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his commentary wrote that at the time of the Revelation of this Surah, forty-two or forty-five others (Surahs) had been written and were kept by Muslims in Makkah (out of the total 114 Surahs).

"Nay, this is the glorious Qur'an, on a Tablet preserved"
Sura' 85: 21-22

The above verse is the ultimate proof on the written preservation of the Qur'an even before the migration of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

"This is a glorious Reading, In a book well-kept,
Which none but the purified teach
This is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds"
Sura' 56: 77-80

The above verse refers to a "book well-kept," which can be no other than the Qur'an.

"They said: Tales of the ancients which he had caused to be written and they are dictated to him morning and evening"
25: 5

A reference to the enemies of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when they accused him of plagiarising and retelling stories from the past. Still, we see words referring to the Qur'an in its written form.

EVIDENCE FROM HADITH

Besides the above verses which refer to the Qur'an's written form, there are also a number of Hadith which agree with the above verses:
Zayd (ra) is reported to have said:

We used to compile the Qur’an from small scraps in the presence of the Messenger. (Hakim, Mustadrak)

The above Hadith also tells us that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was not unaware of the condition of the Qur'an with his companions and that he used to guide them while compiling it. Also, it tells us that the Qur'an also used to be compiled for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), meaning that he had a personal copy.

Malik said that no one should carry the Mushaf by its strap, nor on a pillow, unless he is clean… (Mu’atta, Kitab Al-Nida’ Li’l-Salah)

It is clear that the Qur'an was available in a book form at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Narrated Qatadah: I asked Anas Ibn Malik: ‘Who collected the Qur’an at the time of Prophet?’ He replied: ‘Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubay Ibn Ka‘ab, Mu‘adh Ibn Jabal, Zayd Ibn Thabit and Abu Zayd.’ (Bukhari, Kitab Fada’ilu’l-Qur’an)

It is very clear that the complete Qur'an was available in the form of a book even at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This proof is inescapable, and any Hadith which contradicts the facts presented here is a fabrication.

CONCLUSION

The claim that the Qur'an was not written at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is incorrect. Some admit that it was written, but not all. This too is incorrect. The truth stands out clear, the whole Qur'an was written at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

AFTER THE DEATH OF OUR BELOVED PROPHET PEACE BE UPON HIM:

When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him died, Islam was still small geographically. The Muslims mostly existed in the two cities of Mecca and Madina. Comparing those two cities' size to the Middle East region's size, they would not even be 0.0001% in comparison.

After the death of our beloved Prophet, Islam started to expand in the Middle East region. Not only the People of the entire region didn't have the same dialect, but also they had different languages. The languages that were spoken in the region at that time were Arabic (with its 7 dialects), Persian, Assyrian, Hebrew and some Greek. All of these languages are quite different from each others. You would need a translator to translate almost 100% of the conversation if you were to pick two languages and have two people converse with them, each person with one language.

As the Muslims expanded through the entire region, which is thousands of squared miles in area, the Noble Quran was documented at different places with sometimes different languages and Arabic dialects as well.

Islam mostly spread throughout the region during the first two Caliphs (our Prophet's disciples); may Allah Almighty be pleased with them, Abu-Baker Al-Siddeeq, and Omar bin Al-Khattab. They were mostly concerned with spreading Islam to the people of the entire region and never had the time, nor the rulership (since Islam wasn't quite spread throughout the entire region until toward the end of the second disciple's time) to unify the Noble Quran or the teaching of the Noble Quran with one dialect in recitation and spelling.

When Uthman bin Aaffan (the third disciple) came, Islam was pretty stable in the region, and he had rulership to implement the Quraishi dialect among all the Arabic speaking people in the entire region, and to teach them the Noble Quran through that dialect only.

Important Note: If the Noble Quran is recited in a different dialect than the Quraishi one, and if one tries to write down what he is reciting, he could and would end up with different words in spelling and in some cases in meaning as well than the original copy of the Noble Quran.

When Uthman got hold of all of the Qurans that were written in different dialects, and in some cases were altered to sound exactly like the other dialects, he ordered for them to get burnt because they did not use the proper Arabic that was revealed unto our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and in some cases their words were different because of this dialect difference. He then compiled all of the Noble Surahs (Chapters) of the Noble Quran that were already written during the time of Prophet Muhammad in the city of Madina and formed what we call today the one true copy of the "Noble Quran".

Important Note: As I mentioned above, when Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran, he did not determine the numerical order of the Noble Chapters and the Noble Verses. The entire Noble Quran as I said was already documented and memorized. Chapters from the Noble Quran were recited by our Prophet peace be upon him at least 5 times a day during the Muslims' five-daily prayers. Also, the Noble Quran was all recited during the month of Ramadan, as it is still done today. There are other daily and weekly religious occasions, festivals and holidays where the Noble Quran back then and still today was recited either partially or wholly. The Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran back then continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others: Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

Ever since then and till today, the Arabic Noble Quran is taught with one Arabic dialect, and that is the Quraishi dialect. Also, the proper Arabic language as I mentioned above that is taught in schools and books today is also in the Quraishi dialect.

Now let’s break it down further and look at it in more detail…

THE COLLECTION DONE UNDER THE KHALIFAH (CALIPH) ABU BAKR (RA)

Abu Bakr (ra) was a very close friend of the Prophet (pbuh). He was also his successor, not in Prophethood, but he became the Commander of the Muslims (Amirul Mukminin) after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). During his Caliphate, a battle took place, known as the "Battle of Yamamah." In this battle, many people had memorized the Qur'an, were martyred. Abu Bakr (ra) feared that the Qur'an might not be lost. So he ordered Zayd Ibn Thabit (ra), the personal scribe of the Prophet (pbuh), to compile it. Zayd (ra) finished the job successfully.

It must be noted that even if many companions who had memorized the Qur'an were martyred, the complete Qur'an in writing already existed.

HADITH WHICH MENTIONS IT

The following is the Hadith which mentions the collection of the Qur'an: under Abu Bakr's Caliphate:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari, one of the scribes of the Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said: "Umar has come to me and said, the People have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be some casualties among the Qurra (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other places, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Qur'an.' Abu Bakr added, 'I said to 'Umar, "How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done?" 'Umar said (to me) "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing". So 'Umar kept on pressing trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as 'Umar'. (Zaid bin Thabit added:) 'Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking. Abu Bakr said (to me), 'You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness); and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript)'. By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, 'How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?' Abu Bakr said, 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two verses of Surah Tauba which I had not found with anybody else (and they were): 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from among yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He (Muhammad) is ardently anxious over you (to be rightly guided)' (9:128). Bukhari, VI, No. 201

The words of Zaid may raise some confusion: How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done? This doen't mean that the Qur'an was not written in the Prophet's time, but it means that that the Qur'anic was scattered and not collected into one volume. The Prophet (pbuh) didn't leave the complete Qur'an in a single volume for all the Ummah, because most of his companions had memorized it and some had their own copies. So Abu Bakr (ra) feared that the Qur'an could have been lost, and that's why he ordered for a copy to be prepared.

Even though when the whole Qur'an was available in writing, the Caliph took great care that it still would not be lost and that's why he ordered Zaid to collect it. This also means that the Caliph greatly cared for the Qur'an

THE COLLECTION DONE UNDER THE KHALIFAH (CALIPH) UTHMAN (RA)

After Abu Bakr (ra), the Caliph Umar ruled, and after the Caliph Umar, Uthman Ibn Affan was elected as Caliph. During the period of the Caliph Uthman, Islam spread to many areas. The Muslims who were not Arabs, couldn't read the Qur'an as it should have been read. They changed the meanings of the verses, and many variant readings sprung out, because the people were ignorant of Arabic.

Old Arabic was written as lines, and now one can distinguish such and such alphabets easily by marks. But this was not the case in older times. That's why, the Caliph Uthman immediately told a committee of scribes to write the Qur'an in the dialect of the Quraysh, because that was how the Qur'an was revealed. When the scribes had prepared many copies from the one which Abu Bakr (ra) had compiled, each copy was sent to each city under Muslim rule. Other copies which were not from Uthman were burned. Then, from the standard copies, more copies were made and this time there were also teachers of the people to teach them how to recite the Qur'an.

ACCEPTANCE OF VARIANT READINGS

Variant Readings can be accepted if they meet the following criteria for acceptance:

1. A reading with correct Arabic grammar
2. Traced back to the Prophet (pbuh)
3. Agreement with the Uthmanic text
Further more, the variant readings should also meet the following criteria for preference:
1. A reading with correct Arabic grammar
2. Agreement with the Uthmanic text
3. Reported/preferred by the majority

Further more, the variant readings can be divided as follows (taken from von Denffer's "Ulum al Qur'an"):

1. The mutawatir (transmitted by many; they include the seven well-known readings)
2. The ahad (transmitted by one, they number three, going back to the sahaba and together with the seven make up ten).
3. The shadh (exceptional; they go back to the tabi'un only)

From the above, the current text of the Qur'an (Uthmanic), is mutawatir.

Variants readings may be accepted if they meet what is required. But, the greatest care must be taken. Von Denffer aptly concludes in his book about the Uthmanic mushaf that:

The wide distribution of this text and its undisputed authority can also be deduced from the reports on the battle of Siffin (A.H. 37) 27 years after the death of the Prophet , and five years after 'Uthman's copies were distributed, Mu`awiya's troops fixed sheets from the Qur'an on their spears to interrupt the battle. However nobody accused anyone else of using a partisan version of the text, which would have made a splendid accusation against the enemy. (pg 56)

HADITH WHICH MENTIONS IT

The following is the report which mentions the above described event:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to 'Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthmfin, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an), as Jews and the Christians did before'. So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur Rahman bin Hari-bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Zaid bin Thabit added, 'A verse from Sura al-Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari'. (That verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their convenant xwith Allah' (33: 23). Bukhari, VI, No. 510

REASONS FOR THE BURNING

The anti islamists have been openly making the allegation that Uthman (ra) ordered all copies of the Qur'an to be burnt because of the varying content. This is not true. We quote Dr. Ahmad Shafaat on this issue:

Now suppose that there were at any time any variations in the Qur'an other than those caused by scribal errors or failure of memory or due to some minor differences in script. That is, suppose that some individuals or groups deliberately held onto a text of the Qur'an that they knew was different from the one followed by others and that was closer to the original text than the one we possess. How could it then happen that from century to century and from country to country we find the same text of the Qur'an? It is said that 'Uthman, the third leader succeeding the Prophet, ordered people to burn all the texts of the Qur'an which were different from a certain text. But is it conceivable that people will submit to this order even if they thought 'Uthman's text was not the authentic text?

Westerners may have the tendency to think that Muslim rulers must have always been tyrant dictators who could force the people to do anything. This is certainly not true of the early leaders of Muslims. But even if we assume that people lived in terror of their leaders, it was logistically impossible for 'Uthman to control every home. People could easily hide their various copies of the Qur'an and secretly pass them on to their descendants and through them on to us. It is self-evident and is also required by the teachings of the Qur'an that every Muslim should do his utmost to prevent the alteration or suppression of the word of God. For in passages where there are no variations alleged the Qur'an had condemned earlier nations for altering or fabricating the "divine" scripture. Thus in one such passage we read:

And woe unto those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say, "This is from God," that they may in this way obtain a small gain. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they gain thereby! (2:79).

In the following passage condemns even hiding any part of the revelation, much less altering it:

[God says:] Those who hide what We have revealed of the clear matters and of the guidance, after We have made it clear for the people, are accursed of God and accursed of those who (are entitled to) curse - except such of them as repent and amend and make manifest the truth. These it is to whom I turn in forgiveness. And I am the forgiving, the merciful (2:159-160).

Many early Muslims are expected to live up to the obligation implied in these verses even if it meant loosing their lives. For, there has never been a shortage of Muslims who have been willing to give their lives for the sake of Islam. Hence any attempt by 'Uthman or anyone else would have been met with the stiffest resistance on the part of many Muslims. But we hear of no such resistance.

And what about the text that 'Uthman promulgated? How did he arrive at that text? On the basis of what text did the first two leaders, Abu Bakr and 'Umar governed the Muslim lands before him ? What text people had been using in their daily prayers in Medina, the city of the Prophet, which consisted almost entirely of Muslims, most having seen and heard the Prophet? What text was used throughout the land during sermons before the Friday congregational prayers? How could 'Uthman change the text that had been used for twelve years before him in the presence of hundreds of companions of the Prophet who could easily detect any change to the original text and were obligated by religious principles to prevent alterations in the word of God? And why at all would he want to change it, considering that the extant text says nothing in his favor? It is also important to keep in mind that the vast Muslim world was not homogeneous.
There was as much diversity of opinion as one expects from any group of people. There were even conflicts, some of them armed. 'Uthman himself had opposition from some groups, one of which actually martyred him. Had the text he promulgated been less than 100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing the word of God. But the fact is that these opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not an early reliable one, in which they accuse him of changing the word of God.

It is indeed possible that 'Uthman did promulgate one particular text and ordered others to be burnt. For differences in script and copying errors during a period of fast conversion might have resulted in many manuscripts with errors. If these manuscripts were then used to make further copies, the errors would have multiplied. The best solution was that certain authenticated copies be sent to various centers of the Muslim world and all others destroyed.

The very fact that the text whose copies were sent by 'Uthman was accepted throughout the Muslim world, by both his friends and foes, and the fact that no other text has ever been put forward as an alternative to the existing text proves that the text sent by 'Uthman was the authentic one.

In addition to the multiplying number of copying errors, there was probably another reason for promulgating a standard text. Earlier we noticed two peculiarities of the Arabic language: differences in script and absence of the vowel. These also could have resulted in confusion. Steps taken by 'Uthman effectively solved the problem caused by the first peculiarity: the differences in script. His solution to the second peculiarity -- the absence of vowels -- was to send a Qari along with the copy of the Qur'an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet. This was clearly not a satisfactory solution. Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters that were in some words looked the same.
(Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, "Journal of the Muslim Research Institute", Canada)

Additional reasons:

1) Non arabs would not understand or be able to read/recite properly without the vowels, arabs could just as me being english - i cant understand words in a sentence i.e. he lay down on the bd - due to my knowledge i insert 'e' to make bed. There were copies circulating without the vowels once Islam spread to non arab speaking areas, thus the caliph decided to make one standard copy with vowels and it was only natural to remove all others to avoid confusion or deviation in recitation or understanding

2) Many people would listen to what was being recited by the prophet and would make their own shorthand notes, thus compiling their own personal Quran. However the job of compilation would be down to the offical recorders, and thus any shorthand copies would also have to be removed to avoid confusion in case of error. Its simple, 100 people listen to a lecture and all make notes. No one will have the exact same notes as anyone else, it depends on the persons understanding and writing speed. The official recorders had copies which were checked and maintained in agreement with the prophet - this was the official master copy. This is what was standerdised by the caliph. All other shorthand notes, copies had to be destroyed.

THE REACTION OF THE SAHABA' OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH)

Some of the missionaries, without proof, proclaim that many people didn't like the act of burning. This is wrong as proven by the following:

Zaid is reported to have said, "I saw the companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, "By Allah, Uthman has done well! By Allah, Uthman has done well!" [Nisaburi]

Ibn Abi Dawud records Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas to have testified: "I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the proscribed copies; not a one spoke out against him." Ali commented, "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same." [Zarkashi]

Almost every companion of the Prophet (pbuh) clealy approved the action of Uthman (ra).

THE REACTION OF ABDULLAH IBN MAS`UD AND REASONS FOR IT

Abdullah Ibn Mas`ud was a very close companion of the Prophet (pbuh). When Uthman (ra) ordered all personal and other codices to be destroyed other than the standard, Ibn Mas'ud (ra) refused to hand over his copy. Often it is asked; why did Abdullah Ibn Mas`ud react this way? When we study his background, a very clear, vivid answer is found. We have reproduced the text from Akbarally Meherally's article explaining the reason for Abdullah Ibn Mas`ud's reaction.

His article can be found at http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm. We quote the text as follows:

A brief bio-data of this early companion of the Prophet (s.a.s.) would help us to understand the entire situation. His name was Abdullah. He was son of Ma'sud. During his childhood he was also called "ibn Umm Abd" (the son of the mother of a slave). At an early age he joined the Prophet in his mission and stayed very close to him. He received the training in the household of the Prophet and had learnt the Qirat of the Qur'an (the accepted method of the recitation of the Qur'an) from the Prophet himself. He was a leading reputable Qari (reciter of the Qur'an) and used to recite loudly and clearly. Ibn Ma'sud was recommended by the Prophet to those who wished to learn the Qirat. He was very knowledgeable on the Shariah and followed the Sunnah of the Prophet closely.

When he was sent to Kufa in Iraq, the people of Kufa highly respected him. They not only used to learn from ibn Ma'sud the verses of the Qur'an but also used to consult him on the subject.

In Jam' Al-Qu'ran chapter 3, cited by the Critic which can be found on their web page;http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap3.html, under the sub-heading: IBN MAS'UD'S REACTION TO UTHMAN'S DECREE, the opening paragraph reads:

When Uthman sent out the order that all codices of the Qur'an other than the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit should be destroyed, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud refused to hand over his copy. Desai openly speaks of "Hadhrat Ibn Mas'ud's initial refusal to hand over the compilation" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.44)

Please note the quoted text from page 44 speaks of Hadhrat Ibn Mas'ud's "initial" refusal. The critic has in his opening sentence very conveniently ignored this important fact about this initial reaction by Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud. Here is the reason for this initial or early reaction. Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud had with him a personal copy of the Qur'an (Musaf) which was his precious personal possession. We also learn from the said chapter-3 that Ibn Ma'sud had made some notes on his copy. It is quite understandable that any religious teacher or missionary would develop a kind of sentiment for his personal copy of the Divine Scripture which he has been using over a period of time and more so, if there were his personal notes on that copy. Such early reactions are but normal under the most normal circumstances. The Critic questions the issue of "personal notes" on the ground that no documentary evidence has been provided.

The critic had better ask himself a question; "Does my own personal copy of the Holy Bible, which I have been using over a period of time, has any personal notes or underlined text?" It is inconceivable that any Bible scholar/teacher would have a copy of his personal Bible without his/her personal notes.

CONCLUSION

The truth is clear from what the missionaries would like to allege. Caliph Uthman (ra) didn't destroy the Qur'an, instead, he took the best action ever possible

A FEW EXAMPLES OF VARIANCES

We have quoted a few variant readings. The Qur'an copy of Abdullah Ibn Mas`ud, as seen by me, was the the most different (in variant readings) from almost all other copies. I'll quote some examples.

An example of different pronunciation in Surah Al Baqarah:
2: 70 Ibn Mas'ud reads al-baqira in place of al-baqara
An example of different spellings in Surah Al Baqarah:
2: 19 He reads kulla ma in place of kullama
An example of use of different synonyms in Surah Al Baqarah:
2: 98 He reads sal in place of ud'u

Many other companions of the Prophet had variant readings in their Qur'an copies. But, they did not concern variances in the size of the content of the Qur'an, they were only differences in spellings, synonyms, pronunciations, etc.

TWO ADDITIONAL SURAHS IN UBBAY'S AND ABU MUSA'S CODEX?

Often, it is said that Abu Musa's and Ubbay bin Kaab's (two companions of the Prophet) had 116 Surahs, instead of 114 Surahs. But is this true?

The first so-called additional sura` was named "al-khal" and the other was named "al-hadf." Their translation is as follows:

1. O Allah, we seek your help and ask your forgiveness, and we praise you and we don't disbelieve in you. We separate from and leave who sins against you.
2. O Allah we worship you and to you we pray and prostrate and to you we run and hasten to serve you. We hope for your mercy and fear your punishment. Your punishment will surely reach the disbelievers.

On further study, we get to know that this was not a part of the Qur'an, rather these were two pieces of "qunut", supplications that the Prophet (pbuh) sometimes says in the morning prayer or "witr" prayer after recitation of Surahs from the Qur'an. (Ahmad von Denffer, "Ulum al Qur'an")

Sometimes, it is said that there was also an additional verse in the copy of Abu Musa and Ubbay bin Kaab. It is said that it was as follows (translation):

If the son of Adam was given a valley full of riches, he would wish for a second one, and if he was given two valley of riches, he would would surely ask for a third one. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam except dust, and Allah is forgiving to him who is repentant.

Again, on further investigation, we come to realize that this is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, and not a part of the Qur'an (Ahmad von Denffer, "Ulum al Qur'an").

There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions from some anti-Islamics. The situation in the Hadiths above was not a corruption as it might appear to you. It is a problem with dialects. For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".

Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".

Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".
The point is that there were 7 different dialects. The Noble Quran was originally recited with the "Quraishi" dialect, which is the dialect that our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him spoke.

The other dialects were later prohibited by our Prophet's disciple Uthman to keep the recitation of the Noble Quran consistent. The words were the SAME. But the pronunciation and the reading of them was different for the reasons I explained above and several others, such as the punctuations in Arabic.

When Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran, he did not determine the numerical order of the Noble Chapters and the Noble Verses. The entire Noble Quran as I said was already documented and memorized. Chapters from the Noble Quran were recited by our Prophet peace be upon him at least 5 times a day during the Muslims' five-daily prayers. Also, the Noble Quran was all recited during the month of Ramadan, as it is still done today. There are other daily and weekly religious occasions, festivals and holidays where the Noble Quran back then and still today was recited either partially or wholly. The Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran back then continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others: Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

CONCLUSION:

The Noble Quran today is One True Perfect Divine Holy Book. It survived man's alterations and corruptions. The Noble Quran was all documented on the spot during Prophet Muhammad's times. The Noble Quran's numerical ordering of the Noble Verses and Chapters were also determined Prophet Muhammad through the inspirations of Allah Almighty. The Noble Quran was memorized and recited over and over again through the Muslims' five-daily prayers, the Holy Month of Ramadan, and other events and occasions where Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

The authenticity of the Qur'an is a major proof that it is from Allah, the Lord of all Being. Allah has Himself said in the Qur'an that He will guard it from corruption (we seen here how Allah's Book survived 1400 years with out a single change, which proves that Allah has Guarded His Book). Therefore, we quote the following statement to all non-Muslims who attack the Holy Qur'an:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from what is error." (al-Qur'an (2):256)

Allegations concerning Muhammad's marriages

2008-07-27T19:40:00.000+01:00

Women are often brought into the picture when discussing Islam because their status — if not studied thoroughly and objectively — is severely misunderstood. Under those inaccurate assumptions, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is often accused of practicing and encouraging unjust treatment of women, while the truth is actually the opposite — as I hope you will see after reading this answer.

Let's take an objective peek into his life, to examine whether or not Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is that repelling womanizer.

Stages of the Prophet's Married Life

First, let's remember that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) led a life supported only by the bare minimum of necessities. His wives were not idly wasting away the hours in a luxurious harem but led a life of labor and sacrifice, while he was mostly busy away from home overseeing his numerous duties as a Prophet. So, obviously, lust was not a factor, as he wasn't even at home most of the time. Further, most of his marriages occurred at an age when lust is not a major factor in any man's life:

1. He remained single until age 25.

2. From age 25 to 50 he was faithful to only one wife, Khadijah, who bore all his children except one. She was 15 years older than him, with children from two previous marriages. She was his greatest ally when he received the Call at age 40 until she died when he was 50 years old. He remained in love with her until he died and often talked of his life with her with great nostalgia.

3. Between ages 50 and 52 he remained unmarried and mourning his late beloved wife. He lived alone with his daughters.

4. Between ages 53 and 60 he married all his other wives for many noble reasons detailed below. It's unimaginable for a man to suddenly turn lustful at this age, especially as he was constantly traveling, with bloodthirsty enemies on his heels.

5. At age 60, Allah revealed to him verse preventing him from marrying any more until he died, which was at age 63. The Qur'an says what means:
*{It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives.}* (Al-Ahzab 33:52)

Reasons for the Prophet's Marriages

We can categorize all his marriages under two aspects of his personality:
- Muhammad the man who needed a loving wife, children, and a stable home, so he married Khadijah and remained with only her for 20 years until she died.

- Muhammad the Prophet who married the other wives for reasons pertaining to his duty to deliver the Message to the world. Those particular women were carefully selected, not just haphazardly "acquired" for carnal reasons, as suggested. Here are some of the reasons for which Muhammad married:

1. To pass on Islam to the next generations as a practical legacy
Prophet Muhammad is the only prophet without any privacy, and with a meticulously preserved tradition in speech and actions in all minute details of his public and private life. Preserved in the sharp minds of his wives and his Companions, those narrations comprise the "daily life manual" for Muslims to follow until the end of time. The fact that Islam was spread on the shoulders of women and preserved in their hearts is a great honor to the females of this Ummah. The books of authentic Hadith attribute more than 3,000 narrations and Prophetic traditions to his wives alone.

2. To cement the relations of the budding nation
In a tribal society, it was customary to seal treaties through marrying into tribes. Muhammad's closest Companions later became the four caliphs who led Islam at the critical stage after his death. Two of them were the fathers of his wives `A'ishah (daughter of Abu Bakr) and Hafsa (daughter of `Umar); the other two married his daughters (`Uthman married Ruqayyah and Zainab in succession, and `Ali married Fatimah).

3. To teach Muslims compassion with women
He taught them to be compassionate not just to the young and beautiful maidens, but more so to the weak and destitute widows, divorcees, orphans, and elderly women. Islam teaches that women are to be respected, protected, and cared for by their men folk. They're not to be cast out to face a harsh life alone while able men around them just pity them and do nothing to help, or worse, use their weakness to take them as mistresses!

4. To offer a practical role model to Muslims until the end of time
Although many believing women often approached Muhammad offering him themselves in marriage, he politely turned down their offers. Most of his wives after the death of Khadijah were old, devoid of beauty, and previously married, except `A'ishah, who was the only young virgin. He married from other nations and religions; some were the daughters of his worst enemies, and his marriage to one woman won all her people into Islam. Regardless of his neutral feelings towards many of them, he was a model example of equal justice and kindness to them all, and he would never discriminate among them.

Who Were the Prophet's Wives?

Prophet Muhammad married 12 wives in his life. When he died he had 9 wives. They have a very special status in the hearts of Muslims as the "Mothers of the Believers," as the Qur'an instructs, and they are the source of a great amount of wisdom which they learned while living close to such a great man. Perhaps you'd like to research a bit to find their beautiful stories, so here are their names: Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Sawdah bint Zam'ah, `A'ishah bint Abi Bakr, Hafsah bint `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, Umm Salama, Zaynab bint Jahsh, Juwayriah bint Al-Harith, Umm Habibah, Safiyah bint Huyay ibn Akhtab, Maymunah bint Al-Harith, Maria.

Can We Consider His Marriage to `A'ishah a Case of Child Molestation?

To answer your speculation, let's continue our objective trip into the past. Obviously, when traveling back in time 1400 years to examine a lifestyle we never witnessed, it is unfair to apply our present day standards, so let's listen to the experts. Authentic historical records prove that the social traditions of the time and place—regardless of religion—considered Arab females as women as soon as their menstrual cycles began. The custom was to give daughters in marriage at that age. This was practiced by all dwellers in Arabia before Islam: pagans, disbelievers, Jews, and others. It's a fact that female menstruation in hot climates starts much earlier than in cold climates, so females in Arabia matured as early as 8 or 9; they also aged earlier than other women.

It's a neglected fact that before she was married to Muhammad, `A'ishah had been engaged to an infidel, Jubair ibn Mus'ab ibn Ady. Her fiancé broke the engagement on the basis of religious difference. So her father, Abu Bakr, agreed to give her hand in marriage to the Prophet.

The Great Wisdom in Selecting `A'ishah in Particular as a Young Wife

`A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) came from a house famous for learning and memorizing great quantities of knowledge; her father was a live encyclopedia of Arab tribal pedigrees and poetry. She inherited his ability, and in her young, intelligent, receptive mind, she preserved a precious portion of Islam she learned during seven years of marriage, for 47 years after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and she taught thousands of men worldwide their religion as she had learned it firsthand from the Prophet. To our present day, she is considered among the most prominent Islamic scholars, and she holds extremely high esteem in the hearts of all Muslims as such and as "the beloved of the Prophet," who often mentioned her as the human he loved the most on the face of this earth. With her, he built a model Muslim home for Muslims to strive to imitate forever.

Also click HERE for further discussion of the marriage to Aisha

Was Maria the Copt a Slave, a Concubine, or a Wife of the Prophet?

Slavery already existed long before Islam. It was a system whereby a human captured in wars or kidnapped could be sold as a "possession." That term applied to both sexes, not to women only. In some cultures slaves were considered subhuman and treated brutally. In Europe, for example, Romans threw Christian slaves to the lions while the public cheered; female slaves were thought to have no souls and were tortured mercilessly; slaves lived in degrading conditions; both sexes were forced to offer sexual favors to their masters; and as "possessions" they had no choice, no will, and no rights.

Islam recognized the human rights of slaves and encouraged Muslims to set slaves free. Islam prohibited adultery and homosexuality, and prevented forcing female slaves into sexual acts against their will. Islam encouraged educating them, setting them free, then legally marrying them and giving them their moral and financial rights. The reward for this—as mentioned in Prophetic Hadith—is eternal residence in Paradise.

Maria was not a concubine; she was a slave owned by Egypt's Christian governor, who offered her and her sister Serine—among other presents—as a "gift of good will" to the Prophet in reply to his envoys inviting him to Islam. On her way from Egypt to Madinah, she was curious to learn about "her new master" and listened to his Companions talk about him. As a result, she became Muslim before meeting Muhammad. Scholars' opinions vary of her status afterwards; here is the opinion I support:

One of the prominent Al-Azhar scholars, Sheikh Abdul Majid Subh, states:
"Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), instead of taking concubines, entered into lawful marriages based on reason and wisdom. Maria was given to him as a present, but rather than taking her as a concubine, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married her, thus elevating her status by marriage."

Women's Rights in Islam Surpass Modern Systems

If women in the Muslim World today don't have their rights, it is not because Islam didn't give them rights. Alien traditions have overshadowed the teachings of Islam, either through ignorance or the impact of colonialism. Most of the so-called modern reforms in the status of women appeared after the West abandoned religion for secularism. Those in the West who claim to follow the Judeo-Christian tradition really follow the values of Western liberalism.

In England and America less than fifty years ago, a woman could not buy a house or car without the co-signature of a male "guardian"! In Contrast, Islamic Law guaranteed rights to women over 1400 years ago that were unheard of in the West until the 1900s.

Numerous verses of the Qur'an state that men and women are equal in the site of Allah; the only thing that distinguishes people in His site is their level of God-consciousness.

Islam teaches that a woman is a full person under the law, and is the spiritual equal of a male. Women have the right to own property, to operate a business, and to receive equal pay for equal work. Women are allowed total control of their wealth. They cannot be married against their will, and they are allowed to keep their own name when married. They have the right to inherit property and to have their marriage dissolved in the case of neglect or mistreatment. Islam does not consider woman an "evil temptress," and thus does not blame woman for Original Sin (a doctrine that Islam rejects). Women in Islam participate in all forms of worship that men participate in.

Prophet Muhammad's mission stopped many of the horrible practices against women that were present in the society of his time. He actually harnessed the unrestricted polygamy of the Arabs of the time, and put many laws in place to protect the well-being of women. In his Farewell Sermon just weeks before his death, he summarized the teachings of Islam to the believers in a final farewell. His last words were "Be kind to women!"

The wives in more detail

We have looked at why the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) married many wives, and who they were briefly. Now we will look at the issue in more detail with their names and brief background on each one of them (may Allah bless them all).

As mentioned, when people hear that the prophet had many wives they conclude without much thought that the prophet was a sensuous man. However, a quick historical review of his marriages, proves otherwise.

When he was twenty-five years old he married for the first time. His wife, Khadijah, was fifteen years older than he. She remained the only wife of the prophet for the next twenty-five years, until she died (may Allah be pleased with her).

Only after her death, did the prophet marry other women. Now, it is obvious that if the prophet was after physical pleasure he did not have to wait until he was more than fifty years old to start marrying more wives. He lived in a society in which it was quite acceptable to have many wives. But the prophet remained devoted to his only wife for twenty-five years. When she died she was sixty-five years old.

Recent non-Muslim writers who had the opportunity to study the life of the prophet first-hand reach a similar conclusion about his plural marriages.

John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and Director of the Centre for International Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, says that most of these marriages had "political and social motives" (Islam: The Straight Path, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 19). This he explained as follows: "As was customary for Arab chiefs, many were political marriages to cement alliances. Others were marriages to the widows of his companions who had fallen in combat and were in need of protection" (John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, pp. 19-20). Esposito reminds us of the following historical fact: "Though less common, polygyny was also permitted in biblical and even in postbiblical Judaism. From Abraham, David, and Solomon down to the reformation period, polygyny was practiced" (p. 19).

Another non-Muslim Caesar E. Farah writes as follows: "In the prime of his youth and adult years Muhammad remained thoroughly devoted to Khadijah and would have none other for consort. This was an age that looked upon plural marriages with favor and in a society that in pre-Biblical and post-Biblical days considered polygamy an essential feature of social existence. David had six wives and numerous concubines (2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3) and Solomon was said to have had as many as 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21). The New Testament contains no specific injunction against plural marriages. It was commonplace for the nobility among the Christians and Jews to contract plural marriages. Luther spoke of it with toleration" (Caesar E. Farah, Islam: Beliefs and Observances, 4th edition, Barron's, U.S. 1987, p. 69). Caesar Farah then concluded that Muhammad's plural marriages were due "partly to political reasons and partly to his concern for the wives of his companions who had fallen in battle defending the nascent Islamic community" (p. 69).

KHADIJAH: She was 40 years old when she proposed to marry the Prophet when he was 25 years old. After 15years of their marriage he became a prophet. She had been married twice before she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Aby Haleh Al Tamemy and her second husband was Oteaq Almakzomy. They had both died leaving Khadijah a widower. Khadijah died in 621A.D. This was the same year the Prophet ascended into heaven (Meraj).

SAWDA BINT ZAM'A: Her first husband was Al Sakran Ibn Omro Ibn Abed Shamz. He died within a few days after his return from Ethiopia. She was 65 years old, poor, and had no one to care for her. This was why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her.

AISHA SIDDIQA: A woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) marry Aishah, the daughter of Aby Bakr, to form a close relationship with Aby Bakr's family. She was already engaged to Jober Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday. At this time Jober was not yet a Muslim. The people of Makkah did not object to Aishah becoming married because although she was young, she was mature enough to understand the responsibility of marriage. Prophet Muhammad (bpuh) was engaged to Aishah for 2 years before he married her. Aby Bakr was the first leader after Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) death.

HAFSAH BINT U'MAR: She was the daughter of Omar, the second Calipha. Omar asked Othman to marry Hafsah. Othman refused because his wife had recently died and Othman did not want to remarry. Omar then went to Aby Bakr but he also refused to marry Hafsah. Aby Bakr knew that the Prophet had already considered marrying Hafsah. Omar then went to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and complained that Othman and Aby Bakr did not want to marry his daughter. The Prophet told Omar that his daughter will marry and Othman will also remarry. Othman married the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Om Kolthoom, and Hafsah married the Prophet. This made Omar and Othman both happy.

ZAYNAB BINT KHUZAYMA: Her husband died in the battle of Uhud, leaving her poor and with several children. She was old when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her. She died 3 months after she married the Prophet 625 A.D.

SALAMA BINT UMAYYA: Her husband, Abud Allah Abud Al Assad Ibn Al Mogherah, died leaving Hend poor and with many children. Hend was at least 65 years old at the time. Aby Bakr and several others asked her to marry them, but because she loved her husband very much, she refused the marriage's offers. But finally she accepted Prophet mohammad's offer to marry her and take care of her children.

ZAYNAB BINT JAHSH: She was the daughter of Prophet Muhammad's aunt, Omameh Bint Abud Almutaleb. The Prophet arranged for Zaynab to marry Zayed Ibn Hareathah Al Kalby. This marriage did not last and the Prophet received a verse in the Quran which stated that if they became divorced, then the Prophet must marry Zaynab (Sura 33:37).

JUWAYRIYA BINT AL-HARITH: Her first husband's name was Masafeah Ibn Safuan. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wanted Juayreah's tribe (Beni Al Mostalag)to convert to Islam. Juayreah became a prisoner after the Muslims won the Battle of Al Mostalaq. Juayreah's father came to the Prophet and offered a payment for her return. The Prophet asked her father to give her a choice. When she was given a choice she said she accepted Islam and Prophet Muhammad as the last God's Messenger. The Prophet then married her. Her tribe of Beni Almostalag accepted Islam.

SAFIYYA BINT HUYAYY: She was from the tribe of Beni Nadir, who were from the children of Levi (Israel). She was married twice before, then she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband Salam Ibn Moshkem, and her second husband was Kenanah Ibn Al Rabeeah.

UMMU HABIBA BINT SUFYAN: Her first husband was Aubed Allah Jahish. He was the son of the aunt of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Aubed Allah died in Ethiopia. The king of Ethiopia arranged the marriage of Ramelah to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

MAYAMUNA BINT AL-HARITH: She was 26years old when she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Abu Rahma Ibn Abed Alzey. When the Prophet opened Makkah in 630 AD , she came to the Prophet, accepted Islam and proposed to marry him. Her actions encouraged Many Makkahans to accept Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
MARIA AL-QABTIYYA: She was sent to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a hand maid servant from the king of Egypt. Maria had a son from the Prophet. His name was Ibrahim.