Who Will Defend Islam From Hate?

(This is a post I failed to publish earlier, for reasons I can't say)

WHAT DO INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT ISLAM?

Should Islam be #banned ?

What about someone like, the UN Special Rapporteur To #Palestine ?
What does he say? Go to his website Transnational.org to find out...
What did he say about the Quran, for example...
Did he say, like these small-minded idiots with their channels, that Islam is evil?
Or that ppl should burn the "Koran" bc that's permitted "free speech"?

Let me ask this: when has free speech (like that) saved anyone, or changed the world for the better?
These haters of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad don't care about saving people.
If they had, they would have already been on Israel to have mercy on the Palestinians who are killed every day over there.
No, its only #Islam they want to stop, not a terrorist state like Israel.
That's too hot for them to handle... they want views not trouble!
They don't want to get #banned on Youtube or social media platforms, they don't want the ire of Zionists. They just wanna get more subscribers, more views and more anger because they can then also make their little "I react to hate comments" videos.

And because (for views) them getting "hate" is important, but Muslims anger is of no consequence.
Muslims anger, when it boils over, however, into violence will be big news. And many people, Muslims and non Muslims included, can be killed or hurt.
That probably gives them more reason to point the accusing finger at Muslims and their #religion but never do they admit their own fault in the madness.
They draw or print caricatures in the paper, then wait and see. They do this with their #stupid protests, too.
They wonder if they should "burn a Koran" or not (the purpose of which is still unclear to me; there are books of other religions that are far less humane, historically accurate  or "scientific".
These books may also tell of killing 'infidels', or promote racism, but hey, we don't see Muslims advocating burning them.
But I think we should realize that there are things which Muslims will never do that the Non believers will do.
Those haters mock Islam unashamedly and with their 'creative' outputs; they think that gives them an advantage!

But the fair minded, intelligent ppl are not fooled by your mean spirited attacks on Islam or your childish games.

There will come a day when Islam will not be the target of hate that it is today, when it can be defended in a court of law, just like the special rapporteur to Palestine wants. Because hate speech against Islam and the "Koran" isn't worth peoples lives or the damage that occurs when some 'nutters' advocate burning a holy book or drawing insults; actions which have no other purpose than to anger Muslims.

A woman like Asia Bibi has bought into the idea that her free speech is so much needed in the world, that she got herself arrested and imprisoned for 8 long years (in solitary).
Does she now realize why what she did was a total loss, and that her free speech has gained herself and the world absolutely NOTHING!?
I hope she has learned that even #freedom has its limits. Yes, you are free to change religions. Maybe not in all countries of the world. Maybe not in your country.
But your country is not going to change just because you think yourself above the law - In your heart you are whatever you believe. So, you are a Christian or a Muslim, or a Hindu or a Sikh...
But the law in #Pakistan doesn't permit hate speech against the prophet of Allah, PBUH. What made you say the things you did, Asia Bibi? Was it God or the devil!? Jesus??
As Muslims we need not react to every time something like this happens. Certainly never with violence. Permitted speech, like video reactions, a blogpost, etc are within our rights.
And why shouldn't we speak out against hate speech? Nothing is accomplished by our own anger at the stupidity of the enemies of Islam or their childish rants, hate speech or incredibly useless protests.
But maybe something will come of speaking out against hate, and the small-minded ppl with tunnel vision who only see Islam as an enemy and Muslims as less fit to rule than they themselves, although they have already proven themselves capable of terrible crimes and even human rights abuses. It is the West that used the A bomb, or bombed Germany to bits. They had no qualms about killing and maiming during the Crusades in Europe before.
Nor did they feel a lot of guilt at killing Iraqis or raping some innocent girls at the time they were in the throes of their insane occupations. Later, when wracked with guilt and PTSD, they did see the
enormity of the violence they had wrought, but too little too late, and only when it was clear that they had hurt themselves far worse (maybe?) in the process than they had hurt the "enemies" they were there to (either kill or) set free.

There will be a day when the haters come to understand that their lives have been, for the most part, an utter waste. They will come to know.

Hitchens is not very much celebrated anywhere. We don't see people embracing the past!
His shoes have been filled by the less capable and laughable, not that I ever liked Hitchens or even thought him extremely intelligent or even gave his many speeches a thorough listen. I have seen more of them over the years than I care to admit but not obsessively or with any compulsion to eradicate his kind, that would be a form of mental illness...
But that other atheists like Abdullah Sameer will now even admit that maybe there is something to redeem the Muslims... well I already know they will not be able to keep saying evil things about Islam as in the past; they have very often ignored the good that Islam brought.

They also have no proofs for what they say about the prophet Muhammad, though they will continue to say those things, thinking that people will always give ear to their obsessive rants and what they believe are very strong and "logical" arguments, that Islam permits rape, or forced marriage! Or the many other insults they hurl at Muslims daily on the internet or other forums of "free speech"!

The Ex Muslims of North America comes to mind. Please see my videos exposing the EXMNA, to know more!

Let the courts decide, I say. As we see, Muslims like the judges in Pakistan are quite capable of independent thought, and also mercy. If anything has come out of Asia Bibi's long ordeal, it isn't that Christians are victims of Islamic fundamentalists, because Muslims are also the victims of hate every day, but that some Christians are extremists! They even enjoy suffering for their religion, apparently!
Most Muslims are not evil monsters and misogynistic haters, who a minority of youtubers with their freespeech want banned from their countries, or to change, sometimes by force - such as when they demand us to change what the Quran teaches, which would mean changing the book of Allah (which is a thought/hate crime in our view).

They know they have tried, Islam has already been challenged many times, different sects popped up, and with disastrous and violent results.

It's only 'true' Islam that can stop violence and hate.

The Muslims who react violently are not the example of independent thought and mercy, but they are mobs of angry protestors and sometimes extremely violent reactionaries.
They may even kill in the name of Islam, but they are not sanctioned to do that by God!

It is up to the mullahs/imams/scholars now to preside over their own flocks and tell them what's what. Muslims for the most part will not listen to non Muslims, "the infidels", or to the people who obviously hate Islam anyway!

They need to learn Islam at the feet of their own respected teachers. Believers who will explain why violence is not a way! Islam is the middle way.
But we know that banning Islam is not going to work. Islam is not going to change to appease Islam's enemies. Those ppl who do not understand true Islam have no right to tell Muslims that Islam must change.

Like a drug addict or anyone who is 'different' or has different 'needs', Christians in Muslim societies may also find themselves feeling 'frustrated' or even 'angry' about Islam.
They are at odds with some of the societal norms, culture or religious teachings. That's life, though, isn't it, for all of us. Nowhere do all the people in society feel they are given a fair shake, or perhaps equal rights.

But those feelings do not entitle them to anything!
The fact that some people feel constrained by the system or society where they live, doesn't mean they are right to do or say what they do.

Asia Bibi is, in fact, an extremist herself. Once we realize this, the context of her 'free speech' is understood better. It is the context that is then blamed for her plight, instead of her own outward and obvious hate and religious fanaticism! Yes, Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, yes it has Sharia laws, and scholars judged her according to her vile speech, which is not freedom!
She was the cause of her own problems, when she blurted out unnecessary and wrong things, which are just her fanciful claims. Whatever hate she harbours towards Islam and Prophet Muhammad, who is not here to defend himself against vile accusations, those things we are always coming up against.
(I do not even want to know what she said, but I can imagine a few things which we are always hearing in the "conversations" online).

Ironically, Muslims are told by Apostates that we can't love someone we have never met, then it also would be (according to their logic) true that someone can't hate someone they have never met!
So why the constant attacks on the person of the prophet, his morality or his character, PBUH??
Oh, because those ppl have nothing better to do with their time than hate on Islam and Prophet Muhammad. :((

Trying to have real conversations with Muslims isn't even on their list of possibilities, though they are always promoting the lie about wanting a dialogue with Muslims, lol.
We won't catch this type of bully apologizing for their behaviour online, their Muslim baiting, etc. but we will find them creating excuses for why they should continue to bait Muslims and hate on Islam.

They say they are merely 'criticizing' Islam (lol, or critiquing the Quran, etc) but what they are doing is hate propaganda, pure and simple. We know the difference between hate and criticism.
If you criticize, you want that person to perhaps reflect, but baiting Muslims is about causing anger not having a constructive conversation.

Anyway, Islam teaches us to steer clear of their 'conversations' which are hate speech. So, maybe we should ban such people and stay away from their toxic channels and videos.

Have a different view or just an opinion you'd like to share, let me know in #comments below!

Have a nice day/evening :)

Who Expanded the Universe?

Proof that the Universe is expanding existed long before the Hubble telescope.

Intro:

I will do one short series of articles about scientific topics; soon I will be blogging about entirely different subjects that are of interest to me as well.

 

The Quran is an Arabic book, however we try to explain it as best we can; many Muslims don't

have the knowledge to do so, as I know from personal experience is frustrating.

 

The Quran cannot be 'translated', the best we can do as non Arabs, towards understanding the meanings, which even many ignorant Arabs or Arab Muslims without a good foundation in classical Arabic, can't always manage either. No wonder there hasn't been as much progress over the centuries [as Muslims would like] trying to get the Islamic message across and the meanings  'published' in English or other languages.

 

There is still a big gap in terms of the Arabic material that needs translation and publication.

 

The Expanding Universe:

 

 

"Prophet Muhammad used to recite a verse of the Quran to his companions that ultimately stated that the universe is expanding.

 

'And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander.' (Quran 51:47)"

 

'At the time of the revelation of the Quran, the word “space” was not known, and people used the word “heaven” to refer to what lies above the Earth.  In the above verse, the word “heaven” is referring to space and the known universe.  The verse points out that space, and thus the universe, happens to be expanding, just as Hubble’s Law states.' And

'That the Quran mentioned such a fact centuries before the invention of the first telescope, at a time when there was primitive knowledge in science, is considered remarkable.  This is more so considering that, like many people in his time, Prophet Muhammad happened to be illiterate and simply could not have been aware of such facts by himself.'

 

Did the Arabs get this knowledge by some other means? That is conjecture that cannot be

considered reasonable to an honest person.

 

If the fact had been known then, why wasn't it published in other scholars' works, like those of the European Christians, or so forth? The fact is the Europeans should have had a head start, being that they are considered far more advanced than Muslims, according to the prevalent view of ordinary people today, who claim Islam is a backwards and tribal religion with no merits. But they are convinced that Christians were far more educated than the 'desert dwellers'. They even considered themselves superior in terms of race. Much the way the Chinese might've thought themselves superior too.

 

The reason why the Christians, or anyone else, didn't have this information is that they had fallen out of favor with God, and He chose to bestow revelation on the Arab nation, and chose Muhammad from the best of the Arabs, as he was an upright and virtuous person, with all the noble and good qualities; he was also considered intelligent and truthful.

 

3,000 Angels Is Sufficient (Part One)

 RE: Vegan Atheist RE: How many angels? Is it a contradiction?

Ayah, 124-25, Chapter A’ali Imran (Ch.: 3)

Ayah, 9, Chapter Al-Anfal (Ch.: 8)

The explanation on the internet is easier to understand (apparently) - a link follows (only in Arabic).

(See P.293, “the Gracious Quran” by Ahmad Zaki Hammad, for a clear explanation of the verses.)

The book P.179, and/or P.67, “Al Mawsua al Qurania al Muwyaisara”,

Allah, SWT, tells the Prophet, SWS, to remember, when he told the Muslims when they prayed for help, “Behold, O Prophet! You said to the believers: Will it not suffice you that your Lord shall reinforce you with three thousand forces from the angels sent down to help you?”

The next ayah (and the arabic tafsir is explained) says,” Most certainly, if you are patient and God-fearing and the enemy forces come upon you suddenly your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand forces from the angels…” Allah is speaking; answering the question above (or what the Prophet had asked) as instruction only, because He is all-Aware. He promises even to send as many angels as there are enemies; “ and the enemy forces suddenly come upon you” is another exacerbating condition, requiring more divine assistance, but will come only “if you remain patient and God-fearing” despite the strength of the enemy.

Therefore, there is no contradiction; Allah would send more angels to strengthen the Muslims in certain conditions (as He wills). It is apparent that some pagans arrived, so even 3,000 angels were sent, but the Muslims were strong enough to defeat them (with 3,000 angels present) and 5,000 (or 2,000 additional angels) did not come (according to the opinion of scholars).

The Sahaba (on the internet, an Arabic site I will provide the link for, mentions his name) tells that when the Muslims heard that Karaz bin Jabber Fahri was going to assist the non-believers, the ayah to send 3,000 angels, and that 5,000 would be sent if they were needed (and the Muslims in that case would have showed patience, or would not get the greater assistance of 5,000 additional angels) was revealed. This teaches that they Mujahedeen should always have patience if they want the assistance, whether or not they can see the angels, they still believe in Allah’s promise, etc.

About Surah Al-Anfal, the explanation for it, says, that Allah sent them one thousand angels, "Murdifeen", one after the other/consecutively (also) at the Battle of Badr. This means that both instances, some angels were sent, that it is in fact NOT the same battle (of Badr) but that the troops of angels came consecutively (is what happened). This occasion was at Badr (a location), and is simply referred to as Badr (known as the first major battle in Islam). Badr II happens much later after the Battle of Uhud (it is the appointment (mentioned) which is to take place, for fighting, one year after the battle of Uhud.)

Both, 124,125 of Chapter 3 and verse 9 of Chapter 8, were revealed about battles at Badr. (Or one is at Badr I, mentioned in the verse in Sura Al-Anfal [Ch:8, V:9] the other at Uhud (or possilbly) another battle or a skirmish after the battle of Uhud; there were many of them over the course of 23 years or so – It isn’t clear to me where the battle (in connection with Chapter 3, Verse 125) took place, but I will provide all the references, from Quran (The Gracious Quran, by Hammad Zaki Hammad) translation (of the meanings), and the Seera of the Prophet Muhammad, in English, by Al-Mubarakpuri. This will be in the next post, with my comments, which are largely my own thoughts, but which could also be the opinion of others, as I have read. - Revised)

www.burhanukum.com (Arabic site)

www.Islamweb.net (Arabic site)

The Explanation with Proofs:

3:121 “Remember, O Muhammad, when you went forth in the morning from your household to settle the believers in positions for fighting at the Battle of Uhud…”

3:122 “Then two groups among you were about to become faint-hearted…”

Is speaking about the famous “Battle of Uhud”. (checking the details, revise)

3:123 is (obviously) speaking about the Battle of Badr (Badr I, is meant, because it was the only battle taking place at Badr before the battle of Uhud).

Reads, “And truly God gave you victory at the Battle of Badr before this, though you were humble in number. “

Only fourteen Muslims died in this battle, as the sheikh writes, in the biography of the Prophet, on page 270. (Al-Mubarakpuri)

3:124 “Behold, O Prophet! You said to the believers: Will it not suffice you that your Lord shall reinforce you with three thousand forces from the angels sent down to help you?

Allah is reminding the Prophet, SAWS,  of what he said previously, or before the battle, meaning either at Uhud, or possibly at some skirmish before Uhud. More than likely this verse is revealed during the battle or just when it was about to start, and in response to the Prophet's supplications which he made every time the Muslims fought - Even during the 'fear prayer' in the thick of the war with the different enemies of Islam, throughout his prophethood. He was then informed of the guarantee of the angels (3,000 of them was the actual number.) Because it was a tougher battle, the divine assistance was greater than at Badr I. (Revised, Mar. 31st)

In comparison to Badr I, at Uhud 70 Muslims were killed/martyred.

3:125 “Most certainly, if you remain patient and God-fearing and the enemy forces come upon you suddenly, your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand forces from the angels of marked distinction.”

This verse is (probably) about the Battle of Uhud. But can be also used generally for any occasion when the number of Muslims is much less than the numbers of the non-Muslims, requiring that angels be sent, e.g. three thousand, or five thousand.

This is Allah reassuring the believers, that whatever the obstacles, He will help them, and if the non-believers are many, they only need remain constant and have firm belief, and He will assist them. (it doesn’t matter if the assistance is three or five thousand, and Allah knows and we don’t know, how many angels He will send, in such circumstances.)

The Quran is not only for the believers during Muhammad’s time, but for all believers, therefore, it is only to reassure the believers, no matter what the situation, whether the believers are slightly outnumbered, greatly outnumbered, or impossibly outnumbered. Since it is for all time, the Quran must be easy for the Muslims to understand, the fact that some non-believers argue against it, without sufficient knowledge, doesn’t detract from the message, which Muslims in all cases should believe in.

3:123 “…Thus be ever God-fearing and be conscious of His help, so that you may give thanks to Him.”

3:125 is clearly about a battle (Uhud, or another battle after the Battle of Uhud) where the numbers are greatly in favor of the non-believers, but also, after the first battle of the Muslims (Badr I).

It is possible, and I haven’t been able to identify, for sure, which battle it was , if it is Uhud, only, which this verse (#125) is about, or after that, e.g. Tabuk. In any case, it isn’t the same battle where 1,000 angels are sent.

Badr II is also called "the Appointment".

So, this is not a contradiction.

That the verse has 3,000 or 5,000 is not a contradiction, it is just Allah promising more “troops” if they are required, “and [if the] enemy forces come upon you suddenly”.

In human terms we would call this “upping the ante” or “reinforcements” in military lingo. Allah promises 2,000 reinforcements, e.g. 3,000 + 2,000 = 5,000, or it could mean, either 3,000 or 5,000 during the battle, (at the beginning, or during, isn’t mentioned), which is probably the correct interpretation (This is my analysis, not a scholar’s, so that’s why I am giving two different “interpretations”, but from the language it seem to be that either 3,000 or 5,000 "in quick succession" (only) is meant, not 3,000 and later 2,000 additional angels. God knows Best.)

It is the fault of the non-Muslims, whether atheist, or Christian, or other, who do not hesitate to jump to conclusions about the nature of the Quran, assuming it is replete with errors, or contradictions, when in fact that isn’t the case.

I hope I’ve explained this particular case sufficiently so that there isn’t a question about any contradiction or human effort about these verses. (in Surah Al’ Imran, and Surah Al-Anfal)

Some non-Muslims ask me why I say there are different "interpretations"? I assume they are asking why we don’t know the meaning of the verse, but it is obvious that the interpretations are either correct or incorrect, and that they rely on the writer’s own assumptions or misunderstandings, if they are not correct, and rely on correct views of scholars, with proofs, if they are correct. It is that simple. Of course, in that light, there are many interpretations, some will be correct, some will be wrong and others will be “close” or “almost right”.

If I’m interpreting a verse, with my imperfect knowledge and I haven’t asked a scholar for his opinion, then of course there might be a flaw in my understanding and interpretation. It is not necessarily my own “opinion” only, but it might not be the correct view of a majority of the knowledgeable people (e.g. scholars or according to the earlier Muslims views). Sometimes, what I write is my own opinion only, so then I should tell the reader this, as in the example above. But it is much better to avoid speculation, and to give proper sources and quote knowledge from people or sources which are reliable.

Some Advice:

When reading the Quran, please keep in mind that the verses throughout the book were revealed piecemeal, or little by little, over the course of 23 years. Also, some chapters are revealed before the Hijra (in Mecca) and others are revealed after the Hijra (when the Muslims had travelled to their new home in Medina). Actually, some Meccan verses will probably have been revealed at other places, but during the Meccan period. I.E., the prophet, pbuh, travelled to Taif to invite people to Islam and to other places, and was either rejected or assisted, or some people accepted Islam. There are probably some verses, but definitely hadiths connected with some of these times, which were revealed outside of Mecca, during the Prophets call to Islam. The same can be said about some of the verses (called Medina verses) revealed after the Hijra. They may have been revealed at locations outside of Medina.

It isn’t much easier to tell when hadiths/narrations were on occasions outside of Mecca and Medina; some details will mention the name of the place, or who was spoken to, but that isn’t always the case. For this particular exercise, I compared the hadiths, the verses (The Gracious Quran) and the book of seera (biography of the Prophet) to determine, as best I could where the verses about certain battles or skirmishes, and invasions were revealed.

The Arrangement:

It is obvious that verses are interspersed, some dealing with different battles, even in the same chapter. This is why there is much commentary about how the verses and chapters have been arranged. Allah, the Wise, revealed and arranged the verses, and instructed Muhammad, pbuh, about the arrangement (also by a kind of revelation – e.g. He spoke to or inspired him, or the Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Muhammad about these things).Of course, the Quran was arranged once all the verses had been revealed (into its final form).

The verse, "itha ja al-nasr...", or Sura/Chapter Al -Nasr (The Assistance) revealed in Mecca when the Muslims were a small band of believers, before they were permitted to defend themselves, which caused hardship, and the non-believers used to defend some of them, or some wealthy Muslims would buy their freedom. In fact, without the assistance of some of the non-believers, it is likely more of the Muslims would have died, and Muhammad himself was put to some trials (though the Muslims know he was not going to be killed, and those occasions were trials for him, to purify him and to elevate his status) When this verse was revealed the pagans laughed at the revelation and ridiculed the Muslims, who were unable even to fight back - they laughed that the Muslims could be confident that they would some day attain a great victory in a battle, or that would even imagine supremacy over the pagans in the future.

The first ayah/verse revealed was "Read in the name of your lord..." in Mecca.

The final ayah/verse, revealed in Medina, was, "This day have I perfected your religion for you...". 

The seera (biography) tells how, on the occasion of his visit to Taif, when the non-Muslims rejected his invitation to Islam, and they abused him, the arch angel Gabriel, AS, came to him and said, “here is the angel of the mountain…”, and he was given the option for the city to be destroyed, but he didn’t want that. There is no verse connected with this event (but I could be wrong about this point.)

The fact is, many ordinary Muslims know these verses and have learned the context of their revelation, and also know that the Quran was not sent down or revealed in one Book, before it’s arrangement, so it is even more miraculous, that verses revealed over twenty-three years, were then organized into the Book, in such a way that it is easy to memorize, melodious, beautiful and inspiring, etc. and also proves that it was not the work of a man, but divine inspiration. The Quran is in the “Preserved Tablet” where it was before it was revealed to mankind.

Caution:

As for comments by non-Muslims who cannot even read Arabic, or don’t have any books of tafsir, including the works of Muslim scholars, there is a fitting verse in Sura Al’ Imran which says,

“O you who believe! Do not take anyone as a confident, apart from those who believe in your own faith. And beware! Those who disbelieve will spare nothing to corrupt you. They love that which overburdens you. Already, bitter hatred has become apparent from their own mouths. And what their hearts conceal is greater still. We have, indeed, made clear to you the revealed signs, if you but use your reason to understand His admonitions.”

(Ch: 3, V: 118, The Quran)

There are other things still to be said about these two chapters in particular (regarding the battles). For example, that the number of angels sent matches the number of enemy fighters, etc. for which I will provide more proof, in an upcoming post. The best book to read for a true picture of the history connected with Quran, is my favorite book of seera, "The Sealed Nectar", which I reference often in my writing.

Ya Tayba (Al-Afasy)

يا طيبة للمنشد مشاري العفاسي


This is "OH Taiba" a song about Medina, the Prophet's city. It is not the song about the Hijra, immigration of Muhammad, pbuh, to Medina, however. 

Islam, the Quran, and the Five Pillars All Without a Flamewar

This  video has over 6,000 likes and is recommended on my channel, too.

Know What's Important

I want to address an important question, which is why I don't answer all of people's emails, or certain questions. The truth is, I don't have time to answer a lot of emails every day, especially from people who keep sending a lot at once. I have limited patience, just like everyone else.
One of the main reasons for not answering some people's emails is that they don't know how to phrase a question; accusing Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah upon him, won't mean that I will feel obliged to respond, in fact the opposite might happen (depending on my mood); also, I will respond the way that I want, depending on how I feel at the time, so it doesn't mean a person will get a fight from me; sometimes I don't feel like it, other times I want to check something, or I don't know something. This doesn't mean that I don't believe Islam is the Truth.

Some emails are very obnoxious, the person emailing me has a bias and I don't believe they are interested in what I have to say a lot of the time, but just want to annoy me, or think they know soemthing about Islam which I am unaware of, and are trying to help me. I don't need or ask anyone to help me learn Islam, or Arabic, or want anyone to guide me. Allah is the guide; even if everyone on earth was praying for me to leave Islam, that's not going to happen. I hope I will always remain a believer, and that's what I want. I ask Allah to guide me and all Muslims to remain steadfast.

Sometimes, I have not been careful when responding to comments on the internet, and have regreted that, because we all make mistakes, but being in a hurry or not taking time to consider wording or thoughts, before publishing is unwise and does lead to some errors. It is better to keep explanations simple, whenever possible, because many people who don't understand English very well are also reading.


I had someone say he would not "debunk" me on my blog. I never asked anyone anywhere to debunk me. I have said "I debunked you", or "I debunked [him]", but I am not really here to have an argument with anyone. I am not interested in tit for tat debates about Islam. If people accept what I'm saying, that's great. If anyone has soemthing I should read, worth my time, or somehting I don't know, they can send it to me or comment. But I am not trolling others, and am not interested in responding to trolls either.

I am not trying to convert anyone.
What anyone believes, or wants to beleive is their own business.
If they want to know what I believe, that's a different story. Anyone is welcome to read my blog or comments and send me a question, reply or informaiton; but I have warned people not to be disrespectful, or they might not get any response from me at all, not even "F U".
Rarely, I do use some bad language, or *&^%(&*0 (something like this), but it doesn't happen all the time.

1 - To M.Serpicio, I think that was his name (Mark?) I already sent a reply, which was in response to his accusation that the Prophet, pbuh, gave permission to rape women. I then also posted a blog post, which I will give a link to later. Maybe, I will add the name as a tag or label, whatever.

2 - To another guy that sent me a lot of email, I have one thing to say after I happened recently opened one of his emails to me, and that is that it seems as though he has some kind of emotional or other problems, or is a troll, because he asks me how I can live with the fact that my parents are going to burn in hellfire, "roasting in hell for an eternity" or some such thing, he said, to which I can only respond, that it isn't any of his concern what I believe about my parents, or how I feel. I have explained that I have had good relations with my family after my conversion (since over two decades ago). I don't know what will happen to my parents, maybe they will eventually accept Islam. But I am convinced that Islam is the correct religion; if anyone doesn't believe that, is not my problem, even if they are my closest of kin.
You could say I am a 'tough cookie', or you could say that Allah has put faith in my heart and I have never thought about leaving Islam since my conversion.

3 - To Proudfemale1, I will blog and answer her question (again) about how women and men are equal before God, and that even men have periods of uncleanliness, which is a temporary condition, such as happens after ejaculation, after sexual relations or wet dreams, and this is natural; women's periods don't make them "unclean" in any way which is detrimental to their religion, it is just a temporary condition women (and girls) experience as part of their cycles, and so on. Women don't pray or read quran (there are different opinions about whether women can read or hold quran with gloves on, during their periods), but this is a matter for Muslim women, and doesn't concern non-Muslims. As for non-believers interested in Islam, they should read a translated copy of the Quran, if possible. The "ceremonial impurity" is temporary, but "spiritual impurity" is something else.
(I would like to edit this, but am in a hurry. Next time,I will try to give better answers or explanations about some of this)

I have some advice, which is that people should read to understand, not understnad to read, which means, don't bring your bias to reading, but try to be impartial, leave your "baggage" outside of the discussion and in your search for the truth.

David Wood doesn't read with an open mind, so you see that he doesn't even get any benefit from reading in his own mother tongue. He says two chapters of the Quran are lost, and they are not. You can see the label or tag (I don't know the difference) "David Wood" to read more about this; I realize sometimes I am too long winded, or go on and on, I'm sorry about that; I will try to not do that in future. It is better for the reader if I get to the point, I know. And that would facilitate their understanding of what I'm trying to say.

Thanks to people for reading and sharing my blog, I appreciate that I have been able to share with you.
That's it for now, take care.

DD

Abraham Lincoln - Reformer, Not Vampire Slayer (Part 1 - full version )

Religion and Freedom – are they dichotomously opposed?

Part One a) – Islam’s legacy

Zaid Ibn Thabit said, who reported it is known, and I could reference it, (in the notes, or in revisions), before Islam, he was the only monotheist (alive at the time), “I am the only person (amongst you) on the religion of Abraham”. (Sahih Bukhari)

Muhammad had not been commissioned with his dawa at the time when Zaid was in search of a religion like that of Abraham. Nonetheless, there were some people in addition to Zaid, such as the Prophet, who used to worship Allah with sincere devotion. The Prophet Muhammad himself didn’t used to prostrate himself to idols. Zaid said of himself, he would not eat the meat (slaughtered on the nusuub of idols) of the Meccans (or pagans). Zaid excelled in Tawheed as one of the first of the monotheists in Arabia at that time. (Sahih Bukhari)

There were few people who did not commit sins like fornication or adultery (Al-Mubarakpuri, 2002).

Important lessons –

 

Allah’s wisdom can be discerned by people; Worship of the Creator (Allah) can be discerned, furthermore, it is an innate desire to worship God as one, who is without partner or son or any need.

In this present age, an “Islamic revival” is the hope of many Muslims. They hope for better things –health, happiness, livelihood, for their children and children’s children. But they are a “minority” in a wider society often hostile to Islam and their dearly held beliefs.

It has become very important that each Muslim should know his religion and the Ummah (community) must strive harder to defend its religion and community of believers. This means a proper Islamic education, as well. Of course, they should be foremost in morals and manners.

Allah’s knowledge is all encompassing.

Islam is a complete way of life. Also, it is complete and perfect since the time of Muhammad, pbuh. Therefore, one must seek answers in the past to questions or problems of the present and future.

Specific questions:

1 – Why was slavery not finally forbidden in Islam?

2 – Why was marriage to “minors” (as people today see the situation of marriage to a girl of 9 or 10) permitted before and not forbidden in Islam? Why was it permitted for the former peoples and how should we understand this in terms of the practice of Muslims forever? E.g. Can Muslims marry young girls or not?

An anecdote -

The fact is that many Muslims today still live in societies which are “cut off” from the world in terms of their ways/beliefs. After Islam’s “Golden Age”, it regressed. Allah as the Lord of the Universe knew that in some Muslim-majority states, Muslims would largely remain poor, until the end of time, when wealth will become so abundant that no poor will be found to accept the Zakat. (We assume this will be a worldwide event or phenomenon, but it could just be a regional one (e.g. like the flood of Noah.) Assuming it is a worldwide happening, it will be difficult to find anyone to receive charity. Muslims will not be able to expiate sins by charity, as a result of this spread of wealth to all corners. However, knowledge will remain, until finally before the Day of Judgment is near, it will be removed from the hearts. Then many sinful people will prevail. The good will die by a “cool wind” (or “cold wind”). (Sahih Bukhari) Qur’an will be removed in one night from the hearts and all books or other forms of written material (or storage) (Sahih Bukhari).

It appears to be a blemish on Islam that Allah, the ‘author’ of the Quran did not abolish slavery outright.

I have stated before that slavery is not a race issue but a “justice” issue.

As for Islam, it is about justice of a supreme nature. Compared to other religions and some belief systems, such as communism, Islam is just and gave minorities rights. Communism or socialism seeks to limit people’s creative purpose, by restricting the ownership of personal wealth and the use of personal wealth to make more wealth. It insists on communal holdings and community sharing of everything materially valuable. This is the reason Capitalists are the furthest from Communism.

How did Islam encourage “freedom” and “justice” for slaves?

Complete Freedom is dichotomously opposed to Islam, because Islam can never accept that there is more justice (and it is right) in people choosing their government, laws, based on personal preferences, the times, etc. than that a system revealed by God and its implementation according to the Prophet Muhammad and early generations of Muslims, should be the only law; Islamic sharia doesn’t change, even as time passes and situations change, it is a bedrock of constancy.

Allah didn’t permit people to decide against the sharia, decisions must reflect the basic principles of sharia.

These basic principles are sufficient for Muslims to discern the best course of action in a situation. By Ijtihad or Ijma, cases without clear examples and references to the past, verdicts may be “agreed” by scholars (which is consensus), or “inferred” (logically deduced by “conjecture”) from the available evidence, but nothing circumstantial is permitted to enter as evidence.

********

Abraham Lincoln – Reformer, Not Vampire Slayer

Religion and Freedom – are they dichotomously opposed?

Part One b) – Justice for All

“Allah didn’t permit people to decide against the sharia, decisions must reflect the basic principles of sharia.”

These basic principles are sufficient for Muslims to discern the best course of action in a situation. By Ijma or Ijtihad, cases without clear examples and references to the past, verdicts may be “agreed” by scholars (which is consensus), or “inferred” (logically deduced by “conjecture”) from the available evidence, but nothing circumstantial is permitted to enter as evidence.

Principles of fairness

Not all slaves were black in Arabia. Slavery was viewed as a social necessity (and that’s what it likely was to some extent, after Islam arrived). Women and slaves could however own property in early Islam, unlike in Christian and English or European law. Slaves were permitted to buy their freedom, which gave them more rights than women in Europe had, to force the hand of another to free them; women in Europe could not seek divorce. Someone could buy the slave’s freedom. This made it easier for strong slaves to buy their freedom, than weak or old slaves, or female slaves. The person, who buys the slave his freedom, receives the inheritance of that slave when he dies. This would be an additional incentive to buy and release good slaves who would work hard to earn wealth for themselves. Female slaves and others of less value would be freed by the generosity of their owner or another wealthy person (e.g. a philanthropist).

A slave with intelligence and talent, or brute strength, and who was resourceful would be the most capable of returning the best wealth (inheritance right of the person who buys his freedom), in the future, and would be the most sought after slave, in any case. The price of slaves varied greatly, but it was not a factor in whether or not people would release them from bondage, in fact, as I’ve delineated, the facts suggest otherwise, and perceive that most of the free slaves were men who were at the proper age for starting families, who’s owners or other generous people look upon with generosity and even admiration (if it wasn’t mere pity), therefore released them as an act of goodness.

(A book I can highly recommend here, for the story of how to create wealth, referred to interchangeably as “gold” or “wealth”, etc. is the well-known one, who’s ‘imagined’ authors are ‘unknown narrators of the story’, published by Penguin books, USA, “The Richest Man in Babylon” by George S. Clason, which has had a new heyday in this part of the world.)

The situation for women in Islam was much better than for slaves in any country and better than women’s lives in Europe during the same era. Women and slaves could own property. Muslim women had the right to make contracts. For slaves, there were several ways out of slavery, some of which I have already explained.

Additional reasons of release:

People often released their slave to expiate sins.

People also released slaves to seek the pleasure of Allah, His Mercy and Forgiveness, as well as reward in the Hereafter; the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, said, “any person who released a slave form the descendants of the Prophet Ishmael, will be forgiven his sins (revise – direct quote needs to be referenced for accuracy).

If Heaven wasn’t enough of a motivating factor inheritance money could be. This was also dependent on some level of altruism.

Female slaves who bore children for their "sayyid" or master were released automatically from bondage at the death of their master, and their children could not be taken as slaves or inheritance; this is in contrast to the extraordinary lenghts the slavemasters in America had in the legal system to take slaves of the children or even grandchildren of their slaves. Whole families lived as slaves in a common household, farmland as free labor with no recourse to emancipation except if they were permitted to buy their freedom. It was a level of bondage much more inhumane and permanent-seeming than that of slavery as practiced in Arabia during Muhammad's time.

Towards Abolition:

As I believe that slavery is almost “irrelevant” today, it is on the way out, but it is still an important topic and very controversial in some settings; e.g. debates, women’s rights discussions, and so on.

Like anything which is a potential call for suspicion or sense of mortification, slavery is a topic of much debate when we speak specifically about Islam. No one believes that Christians today own slaves, but it could well be that there are Christians in some African countries who like their Muslim brothers, own slaves until this day.

But is slavery a purely or more obviously Islamic cultural and religious practice?

To know this, let’s examine some positive statements which prove that Islam is not “in favor” of slavery; Islam doesn’t approve of slavery more than it approves of putting people in prison for life.

The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, said: “a man, who educates his slave girl, then frees and marries her…” [To the end] (Ref. is found in Sahih Bukhari, among others.)

Fadel Solaiman is a popular modern Muslim speaker, founder of Bridges foundation (website url http://www.bridgesfoundation.org/) he tours primarily in Muslim circles and religious/ educational workshops, who speaks also to the rights of Muslims, the relevance of Quran in Muslims’ life and proofs of the existence of God and other topics.

He has successfully taught many Muslims about the Islamic teachings regarding slavery and emancipation. Some of his material, specifically the kind of emancipation (or roads to freedom) advocated by Islam, which were implemented and successful on a grand scale in ancient Muslim civilization, and continued, until the fall of the Caliphate; again we see the free people enslaved by their enemies in religious wars and as well pogroms, even many Muslims, were again made slaves in large numbers, during the religious wars between the Muslims and the Christian Crusaders. One famous slave from Africa was Prince Abdurrahman, who was captured on a desolate beach and shipped to America. Another more famous, was the royal son-in-law of the Emir al Moumineen, who became known as Qutuz after his enslavement in Egypt. His father was a Prince, the cousin of the powerful Emir; Qutuz and his wife Jolanar had both been enslaved and eventually were lost from each other, until they matured and finally were able to be reunited and married. She died in a battle against the some of the barbarous Tartars under Hulago at the time.

Muslims today are still derided for past ‘iniquities’; the slave trade is often cited by ignorant (on the internet or in books, which are sold unfortunately in a free market which doesn’t account for tastes, books written by Westerners, or Europeans, who openly declare their hate for Islam and Muslims’ beliefs)while they may even accuse Islam of promoting slavery; slavery was in fact an ages old practice before Islam in the Arabian peninsula was revived by the message of Muhammad and Quranic revelation.

In the anecdote at the start, I find several lessons or opportunity for reflection; reflection will not solve problems, alone, but is a step toward resolution. In any case, these are what I thought about –

Zakat will be taken but no one will benefit from it; then it will be wise for people to think of other ways in which they will benefit humanity, so that they can expiate for their sins, or at the end of time, there will be greater trials than ever before, and that will expiate their sins E.g. natural disaster or other.

People will probably be living in luxury, and that will mean they are heedless of Allah, and so He, azawajal, spreads wealth among all of the people, and they forget Allah, so He will forget them, too. He will test them with wealth and children, and their blessings, but will not forgive them, but a little.

People will later return to Allah, azawajal, and He will perhaps test their (new) resolve (again) with new trials, possibly loss of children and poverty, they will remain steadfast, and the majority will remain poor, while a few will give charity, and the institution of Zakat will save those poor from utter mental collapse and destitution.

In disastrous wars many men will die, leaving women and children without fathers. Nonetheless, some women will be so desperate they will seek to give their children away; they allow them to marry at a younger age, a custom which previously they had not experienced. People will be afraid that the enemy will molest their women and children, so permit the girls to marry at an earlier age.

Eventually the situation will come full circle, so that there will be no poor to accept the zakat money. Then this will mark the end of Days.

This is merely a fantastical story with some grounding in the knowledge we have about the coming Judgment. Whether wealthy Muslims will increase or decrease is a matter for Allah; but as oil production increases so do profitability and consumption; if Muslims can hold onto their natural treasure, oil production will continue to benefit Muslims. But if they do not share the wealth by even distribution to poorer Muslims, then Allah may punish them for their lack of judgment and fairness in a critical matter; the wealth of Muslim lands, especially if there is a caliphate, is for all the Muslim Ummah. There should not be any poor who have nothing while others hoard the wealth and even refuse to give zakat, which is an issue of concern to some scholars who speak about these matters; when they hear that there are rich Muslims or business owners who do not pay the yearly zakat, nor do they even believe in its compulsory nature it is proof of the sinner’s dangerous disregard for the basic teachings and pillars of Islam.

Abraham Lincoln - Reformer, Not Vampire Slayer

Religion and Freedom – are they dichotomously opposed?

Part One – Islam’s legacy

Zaid Ibn Thabit said, who reported it is known, and I could reference it, (in the notes, or in revisions), before Islam, he was the only monotheist (alive at the time), “I am the only person (amongst you) on the religion of Abraham”.

Muhammad had not been commissioned with his dawa at the time when Zaid was in search of a religion like that of Abraham. Nonetheless, there were some people in addition to Zaid, such as the Prophet, who used to worship Allah with sincere devotion. The Prophet Muhammad himself didn’t used to prostrate himself to idols. Zaid said of himself, he would not eat the meat (slaughtered on the nusuub of idols) of the Meccans (or pagans). Zaid excelled in Tawheed as one of the first of the monotheists in Arabia at that time.

There were few people who did not commit sins like fornication or adultery (Al-Mubarakpuri,2002).

Important lessons –

Allah’s wisdom can be discerned by people; Worship of the Creator (Allah) can be discerned, furthermore, it is an innate desire to worship God as one, who is without partner or son or any need.

In this present age, an “Islamic revival” is the hope of many Muslims. They hope for better things –health, happiness, livelihood, for their children and children’s children. But they are a “minority” in a wider society often hostile to Islam and their dearly held beliefs.

It has become very important that each Muslim should know his religion and the Ummah (community) must strive harder to defend its religion and community of believers. This means a proper Islamic education, as well. Of course, they should be foremost in morals and manners.

Allah’s knowledge is all encompassing.

Islam is a complete way of life. Also, it is complete and perfect since the time of Muhammad, pbuh. Therefore, one must seek answers in the past to questions or problems of the present and future.

Specific questions:

1 – Why was slavery not finally forbidden in Islam?

2 – Why was marriage to “minors” (as people today see the situation of marriage to a girl of 9 or 10) permitted before and not forbidden in Islam? Why was it permitted for the former peoples and how should we understand this in terms of the practice of Muslims forever? E.g. Can Muslims marry young girls or not?

An anecdote -

The fact is that many Muslims today still live in societies which are “cut off” from the world in terms of their ways/beliefs. After Islam’s “Golden Age”, it regressed. Allah as the Lord of the Universe knew that in some Muslim-majority states, Muslims would largely remain poor, until the end of time, when wealth will become so abundant that no poor will be found to accept the Zakat. (We assume this will be a worldwide event or phenomenon, but it could just be a regional one (e.g. like the flood of Noah.) Assuming it is a worldwide happening, it will be difficult to find anyone to receive charity. Muslims will not be able to expiate sins by charity, as a result of this spread of wealth to all corners. However, knowledge will remain, until finally before the Day of Judgment is near, it will be removed from the hearts. Then many sinful people will prevail. The good will die by a “cool wind” (or “cold wind”).

It appears to be a blemish on Islam that Allah, the ‘author’ of the Quran did not abolish slavery outright.

I have stated before that slavery is not a race issue but a “justice” issue.

As for Islam, it is about justice of a supreme nature. Compared to other religions and some belief systems, such as communism, Islam is just and gave minorities rights. Communism or socialism seeks to limit people’s creative purpose, by restricting the ownership of personal wealth and the use of personal wealth to make more wealth. It insists on communal holdings and community sharing of everything materially valuable. This is the reason Capitalists are the furthest from Communism.

How did Islam encourage “freedom” and “justice” for slaves?

Complete Freedom is dichotomously opposed to Islam, because Islam can never accept that there is more justice (and it is right) in people choosing their government, laws, based on personal preferences, the times, etc. than that a system revealed by God and its implementation according to the Prophet Muhammad and early generations of Muslims, should be the only law; Islamic sharia doesn’t change, even as time passes and situations change, it is a bedrock of constancy.

Allah didn’t permit people to decide against the sharia, decisions must reflect the basic principles of sharia.

These basic principles are sufficient for Muslims to discern the best course of action in a situation. By Ijtihad or Ijma, cases without clear examples and references to the past, verdicts may be “agreed” by scholars (which is consensus), or “inferred” (logically deduced by “conjecture”) from the available evidence, but nothing circumstantial is permitted to enter as evidence.

*******

 

 

 

[Part Two - Next - will be the final word on Abraham Lincoln's legacy]

Emails Asking about Islam - 1

Re: Reply to your comment on: Douglas Murray - (SML) Are Muslims Too Easily Offended?

good Day Jane. Thanks for the reply. I hope you are well.

I thank you for sharing some of your experience. It sounds as though your parents love you. I am sure there are many things involved in making us who we are. Our genes, no doubt, confer onto us certain proclivities, but no one would question the importance of affirming parents.

I have no doubt as well, that your religion has changed some of your thoughts about things, and certain behaviors. The individual religious experience is fascinating and I am familiar with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "preset ideas about Islam and Muslims". I will admit however that I am a biased person. I try my best however to limit bias as much as possible. As a Christian, I was quite biased to see the world a certain way, consistent with my religion. As a Christian I thought of Islam as a wayward religion that needed to be set right ( lol) . As a Westerner, my view of Islam has been too heavily influenced by extreme versions of it, that seem to show up in the news far too often ( and for good reason!).

My first encounter with a Muslim occurred about 20 years ago. I was working with a national from Saudi Arabia. We had a discussion about religion. We were both scientifically minded so he gave me a book called the Bible, the Koran, and science by a man called Maurice Buccaille. I read it with interest.He was a good man.

Following 911, I read a couple of books about Islam by Karen Armstrong, who portrays Islam in a favorable light.

About two years ago I decided to read the Koran myself. I tried to read it in the nonbiased way. I must say, that it did not impress me very much. It seemed very repetitive and the main theme seems to be that God is one and that those who believe will inherit heaven and those who disbelieve will be tortured forever in hell. Believers are the best of people and nonbelievers are the worst of people.

It talks about the prophet of God as well as other prophets like Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Sampson, and a couple of other ones I did not recognize.

Faithful men will we inherit virgins and men are allowed up to four wives and can have sex with "what his right hand owns". Mohammed himself apparently can have more wives . Women appear to be inferior to men, at least intellectually and as witnesses.

A man may discipline his wife by refusing his bed to her and if that doesn't work ( lol) he may physically punish her. Divorce is quite easy to attain. God apparently forbids the eating of pork. There's a lot of stuff regarding Christians and Jews, some which seem favorable and others describing them as quite pitiful. Sura 9 is quite distressing.

There is some good stuff. There is the protection of nonbelievers ( so that they might convert) and admonitions to be good to orphans. it is a quite noble and good act to free slaves.

There is some scientific stuff in it that some scholars elaborate on. None of it seemed to be necessarily written by the creator of the universe. I'm amazed at how much liberal interpretation of these verses goes on.

like all books, particularly holy books, it appears to be quite subject to human (mis)-interpretation.

then there are the Hadith and sunnah. Some of these are admirable, but others astonishingly disturbing.

As it is now, I have no idea how anyone would believe that all of this is inspired by the creator of the universe, which is why I am interested in the ideas of people like you. I have no doubt that you are an earnest person who feels in touch with something transcendent.

I am very concerned about the impact of religion. I'm not sure that religion is consistent with liberal democracy. I think there is a clash of ideas. Liberal democracy asserts that all humans are equal under the law and should be allowed to live his or her life the way he or she wants to, provided it does not interfere with the next person to do the same. It protects minorities, free speech. He challenges authority and requires empirical validation of any truth claim.

Anyways, I have enjoyed our discussion.

“Burn a Quran” is Islamic Duty? (Re: David Wood’s lies)

“And we did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in, then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.”

(Ch: 22, V: 52, The Qur’an)

Ibn Omar

When Ibn Omar said, “much of the Quran has been lost”, he was speaking about the deaths of the people who used to memorize Quran and teach it. (Remember this!) The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, foretold that the Quran would be taken away. Then heedlessness of religion and God would prevail and the earth would contain only evil people. The Muslims would be touched by a cool wind which would afflict them and they would die, leaving only non-believers. That the Muslim scholars, as well as memorizers would die, and less of them would remain is one of the minor signs of the Day of Judgment - which may happen any time after the Prophet and has already happened in the past and will continue to happen until the Quran is forgotten. We don’t know when the major signs of the Hour will all come to pass, but when the sun rises from the West and not from the East, such as could happen if the Earth were jolted with great force or whatever might happen to cause that, that will be one of the final signs of the Day of Judgment. (When there was a great Tsunami in Indonesia in 2010, the earth was jolted from its axis 1 cm.) Indeed Allah causes the sun to rise in the East, as Abraham in the Quran told Pharaoh, Allah makes the sun rise in the East therefore can you (Pharaoh) make it rise in the West? Or he said something similar to that, which is in the story of Abraham’s message to the Pharaoh of his time. The point is that the Quran has not been lost, nor any part of it has been lost; the hadith in which Ibn Omar says “much of the Quran has been lost” is speaking to the fact that scholars will die; without the scholars and only ignorant people to interpret the verses, the vast majority of the interpretation will disappear. He was not suggesting at the time however that the vast majority of Muslims in his day were ignorant, they were not, but some of the important scholars or memorizers of his day had passed on. Ibn Omar’s time was characterized by a lot of learning, not ignorance, so the hadith only highlights the fact that Muslims in all eras and times, even until today, took to heart the words of the Prophet Muhammad and also feared that ignorant people would outnumber the educated ones and that the preeminent scholars would die. Muslims feared also that Islam would decline in good people and power which stems from Godliness, which later happened with the decline of the Islamic Empire.

The Prophet foretold that the Qur’an would be taken away by the death of scholars and also that people would recite the Qur’an but the recitation wouldn’t reach their throats, meaning they would not be rewarded for their recitation( because they were insincere to Allah or they don’t practice Islam like Muslims who read Qur’an should).

Another hadith tells that in the future there will be Muslims who will recite the Qur’an but they will do it for show; this is a supporting proof that “much of the Quran has been lost” doesn’t mean whole verses or chapters were lost or that the Community of Muslims had forgotten parts of the Quran. This supporting evidence rather suggests insincerity or arrogance will arise. Despite the gloom, there have always been reliable people who memorized and taught the Quran, as well as scholars of tafsir and hadiths, and scholars of all other important areas of study (Usool Fiqh, Islamic Jurisprudence, and also Arabic studies). There are 100,000s of Hafadh Quran today. Just one family, can have several members who are Hafadh; we see this often in the Middle East and Africa alone.

The Quran itself states that it cannot be attacked from in front or from behind; it is protected by the Almighty, it is complete and free from errors. The Mother of the Book contains the Quran; the Quran is with Allah, in the “preserved tablet” (al–laugh al-Mahfudh). From the Mother of the Book, the Quran was revealed piecemeal to Muhammad, pbuh. Knowledge of the Quran on earth is also protected by Allah until such time as He will take it away. There has been no death of scholars en-masse – the final days, this may include also the removal of all books which have Quran and the tafsir; whether the Prophet foretold the “removal” of scholars, students of Islam, and the actual books of tafsir (explanation and interpretation) or any other present-day sources of knowledge, Allah knows best.

“But the ones who strove against Our verses, [seeking] to cause failure – those are the companions of Hellfire.

(Ch: 22, V: 51, The Quran)

Book burning

To compare what Muslims do with the Qur’an, even to burn some loose pages of the Quran, or to bury it in the ground to prevent anything evil happening to the excess copies or old torn copies of the Quran which believers must take care to keep from defilement, therefore Muslims sometimes have to bury or otherwise protect these copies, or worn out books or pieces of Quran and other books containing Quranic verses, or also Arabic writing which should not be thrown in the garbage, which may contain the names of Prophets, or any Arabic writing, which according to scholars should not be thrown in the trash, is not similar to what the non-Muslims intend when they decide to have “Burn a Quran Day”. Even Arabic newspapers are preferably burned or buried in clean ground free of filth. For the non-Muslim to laughingly say that the Muslims had burned their Qur’ans is stupidity. Muslims do not burn copies of the Qur’an; they bury excess numbers of unused Qurans. Muslims don’t burn the Holy Book, they do sometimes burn loose pages of the Quran so those will not be lost or defiled. This is what I have understood on the subject.

It seems, the non-Muslim David Wood and his cohorts prefer time-wasting activities in front of the camera, such as “randomly” picking up Islamic texts and misinterpreting them in a charade for their equally idiotic audiences (the people who enjoy such fare) instead of studying them, and others (like I) can use their material and videos to put their false interpretations under fire in blog posts. David Wood is like a misbehaving little boy - he behaves childishly and is predictably easy to counter yet equally annoying. I would like in all honesty for him to have that grin wiped off his face, maybe if he reads this - that might do it. But often evangelical Christians are blind to their own follies. They cannot see Truth even if it hits them in the face.

Deeds are judged by the intention

The Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, said, “inna al aamalu bi niyaat, wa inna li kulli imri in ma nawa, fa man kana hijra atuhu lillahi wa rasooli, fa hijra atuhu lillahi wa rasooli, wa man kana hijra atuhu li dunya li yusibuha, aw li imra atin, li yan kihuha, fa hijra atuhu li ma hajaru ilay” which translated means,

“Verily, the deeds are by the intention, and each one shall have that which he intended. He whose migration was for Allah and His Messenger, his migration was for Allah and His Messenger, and he whose migration was for some worldly benefit, or to take some woman in marriage, his migration was for that for which he intended.”

Similarly, Muslims intend no evil by burying copies of the Quran, or burning pieces of writing which contain Quranic verses, or similar actions. It is the non-believers intention to defile the words of Allah, or to cause pain to Muslims by their actions, which they claim are freedom of expression or freedom of speech, therefore they are responsible for their actions and do not the least harm to Islam or Muslims. Allah is not in need of their worship and His Kingdom is not any less because of their refusal of Islam, or because of their evil actions. Glory to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Let the early Muslims speak

David Wood and also his Arab friend do not “Read to understand” and often they seem incapable of understanding plain English (a translation of the original, which suffices for this example will follow).

“Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an, for how does he know that it is all?

Much of the Quran has been lost. Thus let him say, I have acquired what is available.”

David Wood misrepresents what Ibn Omar says (above) as recorded by As-Suyuti. Next, is the source which he used to “show” that the Quran is missing two chapters - a claim which is not supported by the source he cites, yet he believes that it is?

We have to wonder, when did this happen (what was the context)? Was it before or after the collection of all the pieces of the Quran into a Book? Many of the grand reciters of Quran had died prior to and during Caliph Omar’s time therefore Uthman, RA during his Caliphate, ordered the holders of Qur’anic copies (chapters or verses) or fragments, and the best reciters to come and he made an official copy of the Qur’an. Then, Uthman ordered that the other copies or fragments (verses on palm leaf, bone, etc.) be burned, (this was done) so that there would be no original sources “floating” about which could later be changed or lost. He ordered that five copies of the first Quran (mushaf) be made and distributed them to parts of the Islamic Kingdom. Since then, the Qur’an (in book form) has been preserved and other copies were always made from the original and the five copies until they numbered in the thousands and today Quran numbers in the millions. The Quran has been checked every time it is printed for accuracy, there are no typos, printing errors in the Arabic Quran. This might not be the case for copies of Tafseer (Arabic with English or other language explanation) which do not face the same stringent process as the printing of Qurans (in Saudi Arabia), but are very reliable, nonetheless.

Because many reciters died during battles or due to illness or old age, also, the younger generation of Muslims who followed didn’t have their teachers to acquire more knowledge of the Quran from, specifically the exegesis; explanation of the verses. Therefore, when Ibn Umar tells the Muslim, “for how does he know that it is all?” means that, if his memory fails or if he had already forgotten, (which happens to everyone at some time, except very exceptional people). But that would mean maybe (he had lost) a verse here or there, or even a chapter, here or there (I will explain more about the “two chapters” David Wood says are “missing” from the Qur’an), not “much of the Qur’an”. In actuality, what the hadith tells us is that the younger generation of Muslims could no longer ask their scholars what the explanation of the verses (or hadiths, and other areas of knowledge, also) were, because they had died and taken that knowledge with them. The knowledge which some students had was often less than what their scholars had to teach of knowledge (“Thus, let him say I have acquired what is available.”) But that was not always the case. Find out why, next paragraph.

Why Qur’an is not lost

It happened in early Islamic history that some of the students of Islam excelled their teachers and even became more learned and prominent than their scholars. So there is no danger that what brother David and others suggest e.g. that the Quran is missing verses or even one word. Nor is it true that the knowledge of tafsir, the correct meaning of the Qur’an was lost.

E.g. Imam Ahmed excelled his teachers, he memorized 1,000,000 hadiths and compiled in his “Musnad Ibn Hanbal”, 28,000 – 29,000 Prophetic hadiths.

Imam Malik (born 93 or 94 AH) studied under 900 professors and taught Imam Ash-Shafi’i (150 AH – 204 AH)

Abu Da’ud (born 202 AH) studied under Imam Ahmed along with Al-Bukhari and taught many of the later hadiths scholars, e.g. At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i.

All of the Islamic scholars also had to be memorizers of the Quran. Studies in Islamic law, or Hadith methodology had prerequisites; much like studying at Princeton has a tough application process and/or stringent academic requirements and prerequisites today.

Al-Bukhari the most famous Hadiths scholar of all time, said about ‘Ali bin Al-Madini (whom most ordinary Muslims have never heard of), “I never belittled myself before anyone else except before ‘Ali Al-Madini” (died 234 AH). He was the Hafiz of his time and the exemplary of Ahl Al-Ahadith (the scholars of the hadith), according to the biography of him found in the book compiled by Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, from which I often quote (Bulugh Al-Marram is a textbook; said to be written by Muhammad bin Ismail As-Sanani). Al-Madini was not the student of Al-Bukhari, but was his teacher! What does this say about the excellence of Al-Bukhari in terms of his learning? And what does it say about his prof?

Definitely, Uthman, RA, made a book form of the Qur’an which was checked against the best reciters, and there is no doubt that it was in complete form. The Qur’an we have today is the same as the first Qur’an. (God knows best, and I will explain further on about why some Qurans may have fewer chapters but still the same wording). The fact that Muslims have always been eager to study the Quran, the tafsir, and hadiths and to pass on the knowledge as it originated is enough for us to trust in the accuracy of what is in the Quran, and in most of what are the major hadiths collections; as far as accuracy, the second most reliable and authentic book after the Quran being Saheeh Al – Bukhari.

Hadiths

The Saheeh Al-Bukhari is the most accurate hadiths collection; Sahih Muslim follows it in correctness, and so on. The major hadiths scholars or some of them, developed a system by which the traditions could be graded, so that each hadith has a chain or narrators, and each hadith is recorded in the same wording, or different wordings, (slight variations in wording or meanings are usually one of the complaints of some critics) depending on who narrated from who in a chain to the Prophet himself. The chain, the reliability of the narrators, and the wording all reflect the level of accuracy, the source and the general trustworthiness, or if the opposite, the unworthiness of what was said or transmitted. What non-Muslims sometimes fail to understand is that when we say that Sahih Bukhari is the most accurate and authentic book after the Holy Quran, we are not saying that there are definitely no errors, or that it is divinely inspired. Firstly, one should examine the text itself. Imam Bukhari heard many hadiths and included them in his books (collection), while he rejected other hadiths; his hadiths collection may therefore be smaller than some others, or doesn’t include many of the hadiths which other collections included, e.g. Al Muwatta or Al Musnad. Secondly, the Sahih traditions are accurate as to the details about their source, the chain of narrators and what was said, but that doesn’t suggest in any way that a hadith graded “weak” or “unreliable” is something which is truthful as to the (intended) meaning e.g. what the hadith (or narrator) suggests might never have happened or is misleading or wrong. That should be self-evident, but apparently many people do not know what the purpose of a “grading system” is. E.g. it’s not enough to say that a hadith is from Sahih Bukhari, it could be Sahih (strong), or it could be Mursal (missing a person in the chain) or Daif (weak). One should also keep in mind that many narrations which we mistakenly call Hadiths are actually referred to in Arabic as “Athar” (were not inspired as the words of the Prophet would be - which are often part of a longer narration or the Prophet’s explanation of a verse in the Qur’an (a hadith being his own story or a description of what he had said or done which recalls his (exact) words. Some people therefore deceive their audience by saying a narration is a (Prophetic) hadith; or that a hadith is “Sahih”, but rather it is only found in a Sahih collection and can even be mursal/daif/wahin.

There are hadiths which are “mansukh”, which means abrogated; similar to verses which are abrogated, these hadiths are known, but there is no validity of using such for any verdicts. When slavery was disallowed (it was not the practice of the Prophet, pbuh, to take free men as slaves) especially after the Islamic government was established in Medina, therefore hadiths about slavery insisted on good treatment of slaves, and moreover freeing of slaves was highly encouraged.

There are hadiths which are (commonly) known to be false, or weak. These hadiths may be included in the major collections, but the reader knows that they are false or weak and are not hadiths which were/are used by scholars in the early generations/ or today, to make fatawas. No Islamic judgment contains wisdom based on a false or weak hadith. Judgments or fatawas may cite a “weak” hadith if there is no other hadith on the subject, but Quran must first be consulted; if the weak hadith contradicts anything in the Quran it is not used as supporting evidence. An example is the hadith about the menstrual blood which remains on clothing. Because there is nothing in the hadiths on the subject except one hadith (which is daif - a weak hadith) this may be cited in the judgment that women can dress and pray in clothing which has been properly washed according to what we know from the hadith which mentions the method of washing and also, that one may then pray in it and there is no harm.

What does the Quran mention about the subject?

This is because the Quran says, “There is no difficulty in religion” and Muslims take this to mean that anything which would make the religion difficult to practice would not be an important consideration; one should do what is easier for him/her. Thus, people who are sick are exempt from fasting and may make up days later, or if they cannot, may feed a poor for every day missed, for example. As well, when there is a choice between two permissible actions, one may take the easier road, is what is meant, as Aisha, RA, told us, when there were two options, and they were both permissible, the Prophet liked to take the easier option or he encouraged others also to take the easier option. He also warned the Muslims not to make the prayers too long, because that might cause some people to dislike the prayer. There are many examples which could be given, but I will let these suffice for lack of time.

- Fasting can be cut short if one is travelling, or beginning a journey and wishes to break his fast, as it was a practice of the Prophet, although he didn’t always take this option.

- One shortens the prayers, and it is considered preferable during journeys. One may also join the prayers, but it is not required. Aisha, RA, used to not join her prayers during travels because she said, “it is not difficult for me” (it was easy for her to do her prayers in the fixed times for prayers as one who is not travelling).

- The sick or invalid person may pray sitting, or lying or by gesticulating if not able to perform the proper movements at all. Even paralyzed people who have their faculties (they understand) perform the prayers, although someone should make wudhu for them (purification for prayer with water), or if they are partially paralyzed they can make tayammum, if that is easier (purification by using some clean earth).

- Muslims living in a land of the non-Muslims can eat from their utensils, but it is better if they can eat from their own utensils; it is allowed “…do not eat in theirs, but if you cannot get other than theirs, wash them and eat in them.” (Agreed Upon)

Second Argument is also flawed

“Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Quran), yet we leave some of what he recites. Ubayy says I have learned it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.”

Sahih Bukhari (6.61.527)

(I cite the hadith according to David’s account, which probably is correct as to wording, but I haven’t checked the reference. Notice, it doesn’t mention if the hadith is Sahih, Mursal, Daif, or of another grade).

It means that these people who knew Ubayy were praising him because he recites the Quran best and he also applies what he has learned of Quran and ilm (knowledge). 1) They do not say that he had forgotten the Quran, nor do they say that he doesn’t apply it 2) but they admit that they do not apply what he does of the Quran. What exactly they are referring to is not mentioned here; it could be anything, such as additional acts of worship, etc. Without knowledge of the actual context, we don’t know (about the details) except that he is a praiseworthy person and “practices what he preaches.” We would have to know more to know definitely what is being stressed. But I will tell you what the context really is, probably you can guess if you read back. An alternate (accurate) interpretation might be that people did not recite as Ubay recited, yet his recitation was not disliked or wrong. Likewise, their recitation was not disliked or wrong.

It is possible that many people after the Prophet forgot a large part of what they had learned of the Qur’an (e.g. a chapter); either the recitation or the tafsir or both. That doesn’t support the idea that all the people forgot and didn’t teach the next generation of Muslims. There is no evidence whatsoever for this anywhere.

This “expert” happily admits to the audience that “[Ubayy] was the best reciter of the Quran”.

His friend Nabil asks, “Wasn’t Ubayy the best reciter of the Qur’an?”

David: “He was”, grinning broadly.

(He has done his homework)

Next Nabil asks, “Wasn’t he the fourth best teacher of the Quran?”

David: “He was”, pumping his arm and exalting.

(He has done his homework)

He brings us the authentic sources, so that we can check them later. Unfortunately, for him and his listeners, he doesn’t seem able to understand his own mother tongue! But don’t believe me, judge for yourself. Visit David Wood’s own channel, see for yourself. I also have his and many similar videos and much more for viewers on my YouTube TM channel, either in the playlists or in uploads (only six uploads).

David reads

“We used to recite a sura which resembled in length and severity to sura Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: ‘If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of Adam but dust.’ And we used to recite a sura which resembled Musabbihat, but I have forgotten it.”

(Sahih Muslim 2286)

Yes, as Allah, SWT, says, the son of Adam forgets, and that is why the root of the word Insan (humankind) means, forgetful. Allah created humans “forgetful”; that is a characteristic of all humans. The Arabic word, Ins means forgetful and describes humankind.

“So this is saying that two chapters of the Qur’an are missing!” exalts David.

Nabil says, “Your right…!”

But when I read it, as you can do - just look above in the block writing below “David reads”, I didn’t understand that at all. How does he get the idea that two chapters of the Quran are missing from the hadith above? He didn’t, it is just that he is LYING = DAVID IS A LIAR. If you know David like I think I know him, you would not be surprised.

LYING = DAVID IS A LIAR (Or a moron)

One person says he has forgotten ‘this and this’ from the Qur’an and David deduces from this that the Quran is missing two chapters??

Why not half of the Quran??

Oh because, the speaker says “I have... forgotten [two suras or almost two suras]”. This means that they were ‘removed’ from the Quran?? We know that is not what was said, nor what is written above. David, is your mother tongue English? Or maybe it isn’t? What IS your mother tongue then?

I have to explain something here, which is that the Quran is “an Arabic Quran” - as one verse of the Quran reads, “Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand” (Chapter 12, Verse 2) I don’t judge the Christian for trying to learn more about the history of the Quran and Islamic history, but I do judge him for trying to teach Muslims their own religion; The Quran is in Arabic, so we ask the Arab-speakers for explanation of the verses, etc. The hadiths also are in Arabic but we study them, oftentimes, in English. There is no harm studying in English or another language as long as we ask those who know. But I do take great offence at David Wood’s method of preaching. He is not only dishonest, or illiterate or both, but his attitude is reprehensible. Muslims have a great religion, which they have a right to be proud of - he expresses his hatred of that which he has not the least idea about. Then he makes a jackass of himself by misrepresenting the meaning of verses or hadiths, and on top of that doesn’t even understand the English! (Nabil is a parrot and doesn’t give off a vibe that says “trust me”, but no doubt many people will believe anything he says because he is an Arab and a Christian, which distracts the readers from what is really happening.)

What does this mean?

“Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an, for how does he know that it is all?

Much of the Quran has been lost. Thus let him say, I have acquired what is available.”

I explained most of this hadith earlier, but would like to add one comment.

It is well known to Muslims that the early Muslims were devout Muslims and the best people of the Ummah, generally. Their piety exceeded our piety, and their knowledge exceeded the knowledge of the most knowledgeable among us today, generally.

Thus we believe that the majority of the early first three generations of Muslims were exceptional Muslims and deserve our praises, may Allah be pleased with them all. That being said, and on the subject of piety, I ask, wouldn’t such people be modest and good? Wouldn’t they speak the truth, and wouldn’t they fear to exaggerate or praise themselves for fear of committing sin? Yes, I think so. But they carried the religion and were adept at acquiring knowledge. Some praised others and others praised the ones who praised them.

Today, we might say,

“I have acquired what I was capable of”, for example. One can still find a few individuals whose knowledge (and memorization) in hadiths, for example, is remarkable, but they are fewer than in the past.

It is possible, that when a Muslim is hafadh (has committed the Quran to memory) that he might sometimes forget some of it, and needs to revise in order not to forget. The Prophet, Muhammad, pbuh, explained that “The Quran slips away like a horse when it is not securely tied” or as was said by him, pbuh. It means that it is easily forgotten if not revised. This is why it is a recommended act to continually revise the verses and chapters of Quran one has memorized on a daily basis. We also believe that it is a sin to forget what one has memorized of the Quran.

As with his previous statements about Aisha, that she called someone a liar (a person which Omar had warned about how he speaks), David attempts to throw a bad light on Zayd ibn Thabit and also the ones who are the subject of the hadith.

“The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the way of him whom I love (I.e. Muhammad) more than that of Zayd ibn Thabit”

Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol.2, p.444.

The fact that immediately the narrator (I’m led to believe it is Ibn Masud) as recorded by Ibn Sa’d, says, “I like it better”, as opposed to a stronger condemnation following the previous word “deceit” suggests that the word “deceit” itself is out of place in the context of the hadith. We should therefore understand that he preferred his reading to the others’ reading because that was how he had learned it from the Prophet, pbuh. He calls the Prophet, “him whom I love”, which is natural, and that doesn’t mean that he didn’t also love the companion of the Prophet, Zayd ibn Thabit, because he did. The prophet Muhammad loved Zayd and also had told others to love the ones whom he loves.

As with the wording of Aisha, there is some question as to what was the intention of the word “deceit” in this hadith, and what was the intention of Aisha when she called a person a “liar”. In either case, we can take the hadith ‘with a grain of salt’; we can say that maybe we don’t know exactly what was intended in each case.

What we do understand is that there are slight variations only between some of the qiraat and the others. Some qiraat only differ from others in one or two words (pronunciation is meant), some in one phrase only, such as the above example. The reason for this is easier explained in looking at the Arabic. Qirras also means “dialects”. (I will show what David actually reveals about the authenticity of the Qur’an, so don’t miss the end of this post and Part Two (“hang in there”).

Clarification needed

Sometimes during recitation, one has to repeat part of a verse, because it will not be grammatically correct if one doesn’t do that. One has the choice to stop in a certain place, or to keep reading as well. So there are different ways of reading which do not change the meaning, but actually preserve the meaning. Either way is correct (to stop or to keep reading) and this also demonstrates why Muslims should study Tajweed (recitation). If one stops in the wrong place, or forgets to read part of the verse again the way was done by the Prophet, pbuh, then it is not correct in its meaning. Some verses, if read without proper Tajweed (rules for recitation) may be the opposite in meaning to what is intended when read properly.

Ten different Qiraat – 7 major ones

There are seven main styles (qiraat) and in total 10 styles (qiraat); which were demonstrated by the Prophet, these have only slight differences including the dialects of the different tribes at the time of the early Muslims.

One easy example is of the word in Sura Yusuf (Chapter 12, The Quran),

The phrase, “Yusuf ignore this” is a good example because it is more common to find words that are very different sounding (comparing) pronunciation in Qiraat “warsh” (than from one Qiraat to another of the other dialects). In Qiraat “warsh” this happens with the alif, and other letters, e.g. ya, it is pronounced very differently than in any other (or in few others) of the Arabic dialects. (“Soosi” is another dialect, but I don’t have much knowledge of it, except that it is obviously Arabic, and one can easily follow the recitation with any (Arabic) Qur’an. I have one video of “Sura Yusuf” recited in Soosi on my channel.

Sura: 12, Verse: 29, “Yusuf ignore this”.

As well, an example in the same Sura to demonstrate what is meant about the Tajweed, rules of recitation, follows,

“Akrimi mathwa” is read twice, but appears only once in the verse. It means “Make his residence comfortable”.

“And the one from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, “Make his residence comfortable. Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son.” (Chapter 12, Verse 21)

It can be understood therefore, that the King (e.g. “the one from Egypt who bought him”) told his wife to “Make his [Yusuf’s] residence comfortable.” And then his first statement is repeated in the actual conversation to his wife which continues, e.g. “Make his residence comfortable [(because) perhaps] he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son.” But the verse always appears as in the (direct quote) above.

There are many similar instances in the Quran and it is due to the rules of Tajweed that we know how to read them properly, or also by learning by ear and memorizing. To a person who doesn’t know Arabic and who doesn’t read Quran this might seem like a difficult issue but it really isn’t. It takes time to learn how to read properly, however, if one is interested in learning Tajweed.

I just would add that unfortunately, I lack many resources which some other people with websites have, and also many of the resources which non-Muslims have which they use to fight Islam. But I hope my blog can grow and also help dispel myths about Islam and the Quran, God willing.

(I asked readers to remember what I said about the Qur’an being “lost”)

David Wood concludes that when Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, sent many reciters of Qur’an into the battle and they died, “much of the Qur’an was lost”. In his own words, he admits that the death of the reciters equals the loss of the Qur’an. He is not able to prove that verses are lost or missing (from the “books of Qur’an”) in fact he says the opposite of that and his ‘proofs’ show that the Qur’an today is the same as the original.

You can look forward to Part Two for more, next.