What is Jihad, Seriously, Again??

"Please point me in the direction of a copy of quran and sharia that you believe is right. And I will see if it differs from those I have allready. No compulsion in religion Holy war is the duty of all moslems."

Someone wrote, the above and wants to know, What is Jihad?

The reply I wrote, follows below. If anyone has a better definition or explanation, please feel free to send me
an email or comment below, thankx. The comments are 'screened', like Muslims at an international airport, before posting, so it may take a while before you see your comment.

Reply:

No, there is no "Holy War". That's a Christian evangelical idea. Their words. Jihad simply means striving in the path of God. If someone builds schools, mosques, roads, wells, that's all charity that earns rewards for the person who donates to such projects. It is the best kind of charity, something that benefits for a long time.There are types of jihad, too. Fighting one's own desires, is also jihad. When many people talk about Islam or jihad, all they talk about is "unjust war". War in Islam is for defense.

The Battle of Badr and Battle of Uhud, the two most remembered battles didn't have many deaths or casualties compared to many other wars. The pagans or the Muslims had to go. God favored the Muslims in the end, and Medina was established as a Muslim capital. It took Muhammad, over twenty years of preaching but most of the Arab pagans converted after that. Mekkah was a bloodless victory, in that everyone surrendered, and only the criminals were not released (there was actually one man who went into the Kaabah to escape and he was killed).

The head leader, Abu Jahal had died, and some of the others had already converted before the Fateh al Mekkah, that day, so the rest of their tribe soon followed, like Khalid Ibn Walid, who later converted, but Abu Sufyan another famous person had converted before that, and his wife was HInd, a woman who had hired an assassin to kill the Prophet's uncle Hamza. Despite this, they converted of their own free will when God willed. And became good Muslims.

Another case in point is the Jews and hypocrites in Medina who sided with them, after declaring their Islam, which people always bring up. Why were Jews killed in Medina or evicted? Because they were traitors. Do you want traitors who attack you to be given a free pass?? Do you only HATE Muslims but LOVE traitors?? No. War is just at certain times. Americans will "never forget" 911 but they forgot Iraq's innocent children very quickly. (SOMETIMES SOME) Americans and (SOMETIMES SOME)Christians are some of the worst hypocrites alive today. Muslims don't say that war isn't justified, but they believe that killing innocents is forbidden.

If some Muslims do that, they are the worst criminals. STOP saying (not you personally) that Muslims never say anything when terrorist attacks occur. We are against terrorism and killing of innocents, but when we say that, who is listening?? Oh. No one.. Obviously you still believe the lies about Islam or you wouldn't be asking about "No compulsion in religion". Don't be lazy and do some of your own reading. One book which is pretty good is "The Sealed Nectar". It won't cost you an arm and a leg. It is a biography of the Prophet Muhammad, and tells a lot about the battles, including Badr and Uhud, and why the Jews (traitors) were killed. It won a prize for the best biography in a contest, and was written by an Indian Muslim scholar and translated into English. There are many hadiths showing how kind and generous the Prophet Muhammad was. His character is pure and good, but non-Muslims want to make his character vile and evil. God forbid we should not defend him.

There is no translation that will do justice to the Quran, not just because it's Arabic, but because translators are human beings, and other languages also aren't as great as the Quranic Arabic. English, especially, is a young language, and you can see how it is being destroyed today. But there are some translations that are better than others. The Yusuf Ali one was edited because it had bigger problems than some others.

The Bible has many verses that must be embarrassing for Christians, some people say the same thing about Hadiths. Well, the hadiths aren't the word of God. (There are Hadiths Qudsi, which are God's words revealed to Muhammad, but not part of the Quran). But the majority of hadiths/sayings or traditions are not God's words, and also they were written and compiled after a long time. So they are more like what the Bible is in terms of how long after the events they were collected into books. The bible is also not God's word, so that explains why there are a lot of wrong things in it. No offence to people who read it to study it and get some good out of it. Cherry picking verses is the past-time of the non-Muslims. They do it with their own book and with the Quran (translation of the meaning of the Quran). But many people still say it is one of the best today (if you get the edited version). Learning Arabic is impossible for most people. But it is different when you know some Arabic and can read the original. That being said, the problem isn't even which translation but that people read with a closed mind, and there's no 'medicine' for that, except to ask God to open your heart and mind. Shariah is Islamic law, there is only one "islamic law". There are colleges that teach Usul Fiqh, jurisprudence. They will teach about the way to understand and apply laws. You know, stuff I haven't studied indepth.

There are many non-Muslims in Muslim majority states and they are not all fighting each other. Muslims work with non-Muslims here. We have a fairly peaceful country. The government is fair, and people are free to live and work. There is also one of the oldest Catholic Churches in the ME in our country (I am a citizen now too, as are many people who got their citizenship in the past couple of decades).

Just like any other person studies law, it is studied in Muslim countries, and also some other countries today. There is ijtihad, which is consensus of opinion, where a question is something the scholars today may not know about, such as things that never happened in the past, or for which there is no ruling. In law this is like looking for precedents, and if there aren't any then you derive an opinion from looking at the whole body of works on that subject and using their brains. Judges can be wrong, also when making judgments, and this is not denied. But Islamic law lays a lot of emphasis on proofs, and circumstantial evidence isn't emphasized. Even if a man is found with a knife in his hand at the scene of a stabbing death, doesn't prove his guilt, for example. There was such a case and the judge makes sure that he gets to the truth, if possible, or else the person can't be convicted of murder. In a very old case which happened, a man was actually found not guilty, because it turned out he confessed because he thought none would believe him anyway if he told the truth. He had come upon a murder scene, grabbed the weapon and then been found by people. Later, a man actually confessed, because he was afraid that he would be responsible for the murder of the victim plus the unjust killing of the person who confessed to the killing. I guess stranger things have happened. There *is* no compulsion in religion, so just go about your life like you always have if you have no interest in learning about Islam. Men are responsible for the expenses even when women work. That doesn't mean women marry men for their money, like many people say. Many non-Muslim women also are converting to Islam here, and also men are converting to Islam. There is no forced conversion. People are free to live and work, and they are free to worship wherever they are able to do that. In Canada, Muslims often pray at work, on their break, and it's not against the law. Why do people think freedom of religion is such a difficult concept??

Good day.

I THINK THIS IS ADDED LATER? :

I live in Bahrain, and it's fine, people have recreation and all the many things that they have back home, even many of the same foods, restaurants and fast food places, they may have a church (it varies in the ME from country to country). Not every Christian denomination has a church obviously. But it isn't the responsibility of a government to give land away for every church that some people want. I think the same goes of the masjids (mosques) in non-Muslim countries.I don't object to laws that are meant to protect people, and countries have a right to make such laws. But there are also laws against wrongful oppression of immigrants, etc. It is not only fair, but required that governments treat all their citizens equally and punish the wrongdoers, but not wrongfully convict innocent people or treat people who are not criminals like criminals. All governments, if they abide by the humanitarian laws, will treat citizens and also immigrants, or visa workers with kindness, justice and secure their peaceful existence and human dignity. Unfortunately,that's not always the case, is it? Islam has human rights, and even animal rights. These are binding in the Islamic texts, and are obvious.

[Jane Dughatir] Thanks for reading! Have a nice day/evening :)

(EDITS are in round brackets: when I probably insulted many ppl already I was informed by a friend about the error/mistake and corrected my wrong sentence. I have already apologized on social media. #clickbait #racism)

The Thinking Atheist - Did God Reveal the Quran?

The Expansion of the Universe

The video "Scientific Facts in Quran" (1 of 10) tells that the Big Bang is mentioned in the Quran, which is a scientifically accepted theory/fact.
"While observing the sky... Edwin Hubble...discovered that the...constantly expanding Universe."
Further research proved this to be so..

This fact is mentioned in the Quran as well. Therefore, it is proof that the Muslims knew about the "expanding universe" and that is what proves the "Big Bang" occurred, and that the "cloving asunder" describes that monumental event.

The fact that others might also have believed this points towards a Creator, because how would have any early people have known about this event, which had no human witnesses, except if God had revealed the fact to them? If anything, this proves that the Quran is also the word of God, as the previous scriptures were the word of God.

The Thinking Atheist website pretends that this is something that doesn't favor the creationists (or Muslims), but he is wrong.

Other facts, which are accurate descriptions are the creation of the human inside it's mother's womb.
This could not have been known during the Prophet's lifetime. Nor are the three stages (or also, three layers [of darkness], as sometimes are mentioned in other verses) revealed in any other scriptures. (Revised)

Please see the video for both the descriptions of embryology.



 

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.

Agnostics by the passage of time

Too Easily Offended?

[Good] morning Jane or good afternoon in Bahrain.

Thanks for another very thoughtful reply.

I don't know Dr. Moore and I'm very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is an earnest person. I believe he is wrong when it comes to these Koranic verses because I have read them myself. For the life of me I cannot understand what he sees in them, but I don't see what other religious people see in the book of Mormon, Upanishads, many verses of the old and New Testament, or Nostradamus for that matter. I also don't understand why he did not convert to Islam if he feels these verses are the word of God. It strikes me as strange to think that he would think that the embryonic verses are inspired by God but the rest of it is not, particularly those verses that consider certain Christian beliefs, like the divinity of Christ and the death on the cross to be anathema. Where these verses not inspired by God? Perhaps he has been able to finagle a different interpretation of these verses? I have great experience with Christians and Jews who are extremely efficient at interpretive gymnastics such that they can make any passage fit with modern understanding. I was once given a fascinating book by a Jewish Rabbi called the "science of God" by man called Schroeder, who is a very important Israeli scientist. It's amazing how he used general relativity explained this six days creation. I've also listened to a great Christian apologist called William Lane Craig, who has debated many Muslims, use similar interpretive gymnastics to explain away embarrassing passages in the Bible. No doubt Hindus find certain passages of their Scripture to be ecstatically life-changing and I have seen Mormons passionately assert that their book is the word of God.

I do not lump all theists into one bunch except in respect that they all believe that they know the mind of God, through some sort of Scripture. In addition they all claim that religion has changed their lives and given them a sense of the transcendent. Most religions in some way believe that those others are deliberately and malevolently rejecting the truth. Christianity and Islam particularly think that those others are going to rot in hell for all eternity for non-belief.

I watched a video yesterday on YouTube of a popular Islamic person reciting a Koranic verse in front of hundreds of people. He actually has a wonderful voice and just listening to the rhythm I would think it quite beautiful, except when I was reading the translation. He actually got people to weep as they contemplated how Allah is going to punish nonbelievers in hell for all eternity and how believers are going to get whatever their heart wants in the afterlife. The rhythm is beautiful, the content IMO, horrific and tribal.

[When] I left my religion, I found my life so much better. I could look at things honestly without threat of hell. No longer was I terribly concerned about converting people to my religion, but I found myself basically the same person. My life has its trials and tribulations, just like yours, and I still have a great sense of wonder at the beauty of life.

Sent to: Jane Dughatir

********

Hello, Stu, I quite enjoyed the email  because it was at times a sincere effort to think about matters from two dichotomous perspectives. I agree with one thing, and that’s that not all religions have the same take on punishment, the Jehovah’s witnesses don’t believe in a Hell, if I have understood their belief in an afterlife as heaven on earth for some, or maybe all creatures with a soul. Not sure, but it shows that there are sects which dampen down the fearful elements of Godhead, to make belief more palatable to a wider public, but have no grounds in the actual scriptures, or very little, and a lot of hemming and hawing in their semantics. The bible is quite clear on this issue, but people tend not to want the truth because they are very sensitive and their fears reflect the general fears or rejection of central beliefs because of this learned response to the mere idea of punishment.

Do theists all really believe they know the mind of God? If they did there would never be any agnostics. Most agnostics had a religion, which they left to pursue and/or reject any other options. They are in spiritual limbo, like the position into which  Dante put two early Islamic philosophers ( Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd,  not Ghazali, obviously, who was more despised by critics) onto the heights (al-Araaf) in his famous work, because he respected him too much to consign him directly into Hell. (Graham, 2006) Ibn Sina was a drunkard    (Graham, 2006)

according to historical fiction if I can call books like Mark Graham’s, “How Islam Created the Modern World”, an orientalist type attempt to explain the rise and fall of the Islamic Empire.

 

Dr. Keith Moore doesn’t specifically say that he doesn’t believe that there are other passages in the Quran which are believable as well; his refusal to accept Islam, is his own choice, which could be explained with some thought to why people are afraid to change, for example, or because they like the status quo, or they actually believe that there is room in God’s idea of justice for more than one correct religion. This is in fact one way some adamant theists approach religion in general because they don’t want to reject any possibility; but they are unfortunately left coldly alone and uncomforted, like driftwood which eventually gets separated from its fellow travellers, suddenly night falls.
Take care.

Deny All You Want, But You Can’t Debunk This

The Signs of Allah, As I See The Present Debate

In life, most things have a reasonable explanation, only few are completely confounding or impossible to fathom.

What is Allah, where is Allah and Does Allah (even) exist, are questions which cannot be answered empirically, through our senses, or by experimentation. Muslims do however believe that in the Quran there are great signs; some of these signs can be mentioned and have been mentioned elsewhere before. Allah tells us in the Quran that we should look for signs in the world and in ourselves. We can even go to the outer reaches of space; or maybe space will come to us and reveal signs of the Creator.

The sex of the insects mentioned in the Quran, e.g. the worker bee is a female, not a male, and the leader of the ants (or one with initiative at least) is a female; in the grammar we can see that it is definitely described in the female form, this means either that Allah revealed this word, or that Muhammad, pbuh, is a liar (not!) but got the sex of the worker bee and ant leader correct. Why wouldn’t a leader of men describe a leader of insects as male while every successful leader in history has been a male and naturally men describe things as they see in nature, that males are strong and the protectors of females, in nature or in humankind, at least, and females are weak and need protection, and females role is to nurture the young. (“Pretty sure”, but revising, sorry for the yellow highlight, again)

the Big Bang; more than a theory, more riveting than prime time televisions version.

The grammar is clear and the insect is described in the singular, so there is no mistake that it is a single female insect and it isn’t the case that the form of the word is plural; if it were plural we could mention that perhaps (in Arabic) some of the plural word forms can encompass male and female; in the case of one leader, this wouldn’t be plausible because there are not many ant leaders(at least, per grouping of ants) and in the case of the bees, there are only female worker bees. Male bees’ role is to reproduce with the Queen, nothing else is required of them, lol. (My young son would say, “that’s sexist!”but what does he know anyway? How will he feel when I tell him that all the nurses are females?) Importantly, in Arabic, like French, male plural word form encompasses the female(s) as well, so it is by the context that we know if the word (in m/pl form) is speaking about males in a group only, or males and female(s) in a group.

Metallurgy and Astronomy

The chapter Iron, in the Quran, states that the earth’s iron ore which is deep inside the earth and which we mine was sent down to earth sometime after the earth had been created; this happened, as scientists have explained, when the earth was still very hot and with the impacts of objects in space (I don’t know, meteors or an asteroid, or what have you. Perhaps there also wasn’t an atmosphere, or the ozone layer, as the temperature still had to cool.) If you want to argue against this point, then bring me information about how the iron ore got into the earth without it already being a part of the earth, because we have already learned (from science) that there are microbes from space (or evident signs that the iron ore isn’t terrestrial) which are not found on earth. If Muhammad had written the Quran, or any human had written it, during that era (550-650 AC, or so) then there wouldn’t be such a detailed verse about iron ore being from space (or maybe the ancients thought it came from heaven?).

So far I don’t see anything in contradiction in the Quran and science, so I would kindly ask that non-Muslims not refer to the Quran as a book written by men, or it would have contained many errors, as the Quran itself says, and to stop referring to Muslims as backwards because we believe in a book (which has scientific evidence, which cannot be disproven).

They also say that some of our interpretations are modern and we pick and choose which ones we prefer. Well, it’s a matter of science and our knowledge (therefore, our interpretations) catching up with Allah’s words (the Quran).

Creation in the Holy Book

The Arabic word, Yaum, for example, can mean  “days”, it can also mean “ages”, considering that we know from science and also experience, which is also one means of discovery - that the world couldn’t have been made in a day, and all the heavens included, etc, but that the creation was made in stages (or ages, which is like eons). If Allah created the baby in stages (not contradicted by embryologist Keith Moore, who I heard speak on the subject, over twenty years ago)or we could say also that the baby is created within three veils of darkness (again not contradicted by Keith Moore, the specialist on human development (embryology), why should we assume that even the ancients didn’t sometimes wonder how the earth or heavens were created and if it took a long time - it’s possible they thought about things like that, but the Quran definitely mentions “ages”.

The “mistake” the bible makes could maybe be examined as per the language and whether or not it also states that the earth’s creation took ages, or merely days? I believe someone has already done that, e.g. Ahmed Deedat, and that the language (original Greek, I assume, or Aramaic, which Jesus spoke) of the bible shows that it was written by a human being (it is fairer to say that the bible today isn’t what Allah revealed to the followers of Jesus, but that it was corrupted (or fabricated, either in whole or in part); but Jesus also said that he didn’t come to change the law, so I wonder what he did bring, besides a law or anything or if there is a contradiction; actually I don’t believe there is a contradiction, this can be explained easily enough, that Jesus brought a scripture, or his sayings were preserved (more likely, and not contradictory what Muslims believe about him, AS) in book form. Because Jesus, AS, didn’t bring a new Law, he wanted his followers to remain on the same law which was the King’s law and/or the law of the Jews. This might be controversial for Christians or they haven’t thought much about it, but actually Jesus, being there only for a while (before he was believed to have been crucified, but was saved by God and taken to heaven)didn’t bring a new law, or that would have left his followers with little guidance besides the few saying they were able to get from him and preserve in a short amount of time; Jesus’ followers or disciples were to follow the letter and spirit of the law they already had (the torah or Talmud, not sure if it is both?) and then also to “give to Caear what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”, which suggests (if it isn’t a fabrication, too, like his “death”) that he didn’t want them to rock the boat, or become rebels, they would have quickly been annihilated.) It is interesting to note that there are Christians e.g. the Unitarians, or perhaps some others, who believe in One God worthy of worship, and that Jesus was a messenger, not the “begotten” son of God. Jesus was one of many “sons” and “children” of God, if you believe what the Bible says. (checking - revise)

- I’m unbiased in as far as I admit if I don’t know something or can’t recall details, but it is very exciting to recount the knowledge I have been able to learn just by reading Islamic books and watching Islamic videos and television. It is the Muslims today, despite claims and accusations of non-Muslims to the contrary, that pass this knowledge onto humankind, and daily, we are seeing reasonable people, even non-believers attest to the facts, that there are verses in the Quran that can have no human source, and no explanation other than that Allah revealed them to Muhammad in the 7th Century.

I mention that experience is as valuable(and it’s one way of gathering data that humans acknowledge works well, before I have said it) to inquiry as testing; for example, the experience that we know it takes 9 months for a baby to develop and be born, therefore, wouldn’t the rest of creation by analogy have taken a long time, why assume that ancient people didn’t also believe (some of them, anyway) that most things take a long time to develop, including living and non-living things? The ancients had a lot of time to contemplate the stars and the universe, and who knows, maybe when some of them (somewhere, not the Christians who wrote the Bible, because they were not very prone to reason, it would seem, or the Europeans during the Dark ages, because they used to think that the baby was a miniature human and just got bigger inside the mother (even though humans also develop once outside of the mother, or we would all look like Mr. Magoo) gazed at the stars, wondered why a star dies, and therefore also wondered if it had a birth? Maybe this is stretching it too much, and in fact, even the Muslims couldn’t explain most of the Quranic verses which spoke of phenomenon which they couldn’t test (before science developed and technologies came along (many invented by Muslims); the scientific method was a Muslim invention, which must be clear.

I will point out, for some, that early Muslims didn’t believe the sun rotates around us, but that the earth moves around the sun; this is proven by the verse(s) in the Quran which suggested to early Muslims to investigate phenomenon, such as shadows. (The only Muslims who believed the sun rotates around our planet were people who didn’t know what Muslims science was theorizing and learning by experimentation, exploration, including but not limited to others works ( e.g. Greek works) etc.)

The Sun Is a Big Ball of Fire (even though the Quran doesn't say as much)

No Muslims (who understood the Quran properly) believed the sun rotates around the earth, because the Quran states that the day and the night “wrap around each other” and “follow each other” in the way that a turban goes around the head; they imagined that this “following in quick succession” meant that day and night were occurring simultaneously, that one part of the earth was in darkness while the other was in light (night and day, happening together). If this was true, they also knew that the earth must be round. In fact, they knew for sure, because the quran says as much; the earth is ostrich egg shaped. They also observed the shadows (obviously, if the earth were flat, would mean that the sun is turned on and off like an electric light, with a switch) and change during the day, as the earth turns (away from the sun) and because during different seasons the sun is farther away (which maybe they didn’t imagine as early on, or someone else later proved this, I don’t know these facts myself e.g. who invented the astrolabes and why?) I only know some of this (how seasons occur) because I studied first year astronomy, which is something everyone should do at some point in their university careers. Probably I had slept through it in high school astronomy, one of my electives (that course had nothing on the university level course, which afforded us to see the sky at any time of the year (any time) while leaning back in our chairs). Earlier Muslim science details facts, not fiction. As civilizations ventured to travel the globe, it became apparent that travellers on sea voyages never fell off the earth’s surface, which was a fear early travellers by ship (or their land loving people) had, they were however likely to be attacked by pirates or drowned in terrible storms at sea (drowning and disappearances, attributed by some to sea monsters). Muslims would have been silly to think so, too, because they could see the moon, a great sign, which once was split (I saw photos of this, whether they were real or photoshopped, I can't say) I could also see Muhammad written in arabic, and we all know about the one (the face) of Mother Theresa. Anyway, the moon or solar eclipses show that obviously the earth is round (or I also barely remember some science fact like that that proves the earth is round for early people, who used telescopes). (Today) We know it's round because we live in the modern space age and study space in gradeschool, if not any further, otherwise most of us wouldn't know the moon from a flying saucer.

The Sun Always Sets

Now that we can test and prove with science that there is a “barrier” which science of large water bodies proves (oceans and seas are meant; the “seas” do not “encroach”; where the sweet and salty waters meet, e.g. the “barrier” (barzakhun) is a “homogenizing area” as explained in the book This Is The Truth, by Capt. Al-Rehaili, published in Saudi Arabia. Both “seas” (or water bodies) meet, pass through the homogenizing area in their meeting, and then compete the passage to the other side (since salinity affects this passage, there is a visible slanting where the less dense is on the bottom and the more dense is on the top, but in a way that they do not meet like a wall which is standing upright, but like a fallen structure – a fig. would be handy about now.) Dawkins didn’t lie when he said that two waters, one salty, one sweet will mix, nor does the Quran say that “mixing” doesn’t occur; Mixing occurs e.g. “maraja al Bahraini” means, loosely translated, “the two seas (Bahraini, “ain” being “the two”, e.g. “bahr” is one “sea” or “ocean”) mix” (I could be wrong about this, but I think “bahr” is used generally to mean seas and oceans, the Quran isn’t particular about which is spoken of, as far as I can tell, also proving my assertion that it is first a “religious text” and not a text book, the fact that there is some science in it doesn’t make it the science text Muslims prefer,(though we can defer to it occasionally in discussions) it is our Holy Book.) The topic being the meaning of words in the verse, we know that “maraja” is mixing, and that early Muslims didn’t quite understand or couldn’t picture how the seas “meet without mixing” (Dawkins or others are so far unwilling to investigate or admit this) so they continue (the first or earlier Muslim exegesis)to have two opinions on it, the first, that the seas meet but don’t mix (they couldn’t explain how); second, that the seas meet and mix, but without “encroaching” on each other (again a conundrum, in that era, especially for those who never would travel to the sea).

The Encroachment of Muslims

What happened later on, but much later in places where Muslims encroached, as islands like Bahrain, where many people intermarry between Indian and Arab and of course people of African descent (the first to call themselves “Bahrainis” prior to migration to the island by other permanent residents; the original people are what is taught as “dilmun” in schools) is that some pearl divers used to go to the sea floor and gather sweet water to drink, either in utensils with a small mouth or a leather bag, or a plastic bag; I don’t know when this occurred, but it was in the Persian gulf area, where many Muslims, Arabs and Indians prospered by the pearl trade. The best pearls were traded not in Bahrain, or the GCC, but in India, apparently. Therefore, by diving only were many men able to get drinking water on these boats (fishing or pearl boats) while they stayed many months on their tours. Especially the pearl divers wouldn’t go ashore for long periods, then how can we explain how they survived other than that they collected sweet water from below the salty water?

Even though the ancients could possibly have guessed at some of the things which are found in the Quran, they couldn’t have avoided making some mistakes, but there isn’t a mistake in the Qur’an. It is also a reasonable person who will admit that since pearl diving happens in salty (and sweet water - revise) (there are fresh water pearls, too, but are they only man-made or cultured pearls?) water or large bodies of water, that Muslims would have to have known about this practice of gathering sweet water from other people. But do we find literature on this subject. There is apparently more to learn about this and I look forward with anticipation, until I can try and Google it. In any case, there is no proof that Muhammad, pbuh, learned about the availability of sweet water within the ocean from others, because there is no proof; no one has written anything on this subject which we definitely know of today is ancient writing. This means that at least we do know that whoever revealed the Quran didn’t “invent” the verses by accident, nor did the author of the Quran make a mistake about it, because these are either extremely unlikely propositions or clearly untrue, no matter how much you want to debunk the existence of this verse in the Quran, the Holy Book of Muslims which “claims to be revealed by God”.

Quranic Styles, Scientific Evidence

As for verses which are less scientific and more literary, that doesn’t mean that definitely, they don’t (in many instances) speak to real things e.g. just as we cannot see Allah, we cannot see other “invisible” or “the ghaib” (unseen things) which Allah has created, heaven and hell, the angels, and so on.

Someone might say they are pure fiction (many people say that), but others (again, many people), say that such things exist, whether or not we can ever prove by science (not happening as far as “showing God” to everyone) that they do exist.

A verse which Muslims all agree is purely “literary” in nature is that the sun set in a murky pool of water. It doesn’t matter if non-believers argue that Muslims actually believed (as the Arabs might have in ancient times) that the sun rises and sets (not that the earth turns away from the sun) below the horizon, like an egg might fall off a breakfast table. But that isn’t what early Muslims scholars or scientists believed, and it is proven by what they did say early on. If the sun sets by falling under the level of the earth or into a body of water, then we would imagine that the sun, which was very great (it looks very big at times, just as the moon looks very big at times) would have caused a lot of steam to rise and the Arabs should also be able to see steam rise, because the sun also sets on the desert nations (they see the sunset, believe it or not, sometimes). They would also have imagined from the verse (if they believed the sun sets inside a body of water) that they should see a lot of steam as the hot sun descends and immerses itself into the water, but that doesn’t occur, does it? Also, why doesn't it get cold even though the sun is gone? Muslims and others must have wondered about this and other phenomenon a lot..noone thought there were two suns, or even five, even though it's possible that everyone could have seen a different sun in the sky because they lived so far away in separate nations, but we don't probably find this belief, except maybe in some indigenous writings, if at all; definitley Muslims were intellilgent enough and inquisitive enough to investigate and also reason about the sun and the moon. (The Qur'an mentions one moon and one sun, but many other possibilities exist in verses for interpretation about other worlds. It isn't beyond Muslims expectations, who have imagination, that aliens or other beings, (besides the djinns) exist on other planets far away in the cosmos in other solar systems, we can't see. Just because we don't see them, doesn't mean they don't exist, again.

One might argue these things are purely made up, but even the “unseen” (ghaib) have support in our own experience, for example, as the falling stars appear to die, or fall, while they once lived above. We cannot see oxygen, but we have the ability to prove that it exists; while we won’t prove God this way, we can use our imagination a little; something God given which comes in useful occasionally, and which some scientists seem too much lacking in – only six percent of scientists believe in God, I could be wrong (about the exact %age)

Smelly Gas, Imagine That

Some gases smell, and yet we can’t see them. This is also an example of something (a gas) which the ancients could have pondered and wondered, e.g. if something smells, does it have an invisible form or a molecular level? If gases which we don’t see can create smells, or asphyxiation, etc. why can’t a being we can’t see create us? The fact is that we are here, so there is some explanation, and the “creation” “theory” isn’t any more farfetched than science, and of course I believe it isn’t farfetched, or impossible to prove (through examples, and proofs, as you see here) but that we can almost certainly prove to many people that God revealed many signs in the Holy Quran. It isn’t the only book which has some proofs, for example, the Bible mentions the coming of “Ahmed” (another name for Muhammad, which is a prophecy; who revealed this Prophecy to Jesus, God or a fortune teller? It is strange that some new age worshippers believe in fortune telling or astrology, or numerology, but don’t believe in revelation (it’s too improbable or stories only, and because Science opposes all religion in general, which the numerologists and others are not immune from believing is more “rational” than earlier “monotheistic” and pagan religions.)

Even our imagination is a sign of what could be or is, but that we can’t see; how is it that people can “invent” or “imagine” new things and yet, we go about our business without much thought as to how this all takes place, sometimes in the twinkling of an eye, or the “inkling” of our mind. If we are so creative as to be able to make something almost from nothing, but not quite, and for example, bring data from the computer and send it elsewhere, through cables and this data is basically ‘nothing’, doesn’t that in a way support the existence of God? (David Icke believes it points to something other than us, or we are not seeing the world as it really is because we only rely on our five senses; he calls this reality “the matrix” - he also believes in “aliens”, some ppl would say they are “djinns”) We are going to die someday, but God never dies, and it is a fact that we once didn’t exist, but appeared (it seems) from nowhere, but like cybernetic data (is that a good metaphor, I don’t know, WT… is it?) we were somewhere (in the past, Allah created humankind, and brought them all forth from their parent (Adam) and asked them if they believe in Him, and they all said that they do, so If they after that deny Allah, despite their innate ability to know him, then they will end up in Hell) and God “pulled” us out just like David Icke describes “data” being “pulled out” from a computer to a network, or from the internet to a computer.

Let the deniers work their magic, but they can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; it is more plausible and with more research and effort we can prove (to many minds) that the Quran is a miracle.

Next: If I feel like it, Abraham Lincoln, aka “vampire slayer”, in historical perspective (working title)

Note:
If you email me, know that I use email sometimes in my writing ideas or as direct quotes, though I won’t mention you by name (if you submit emails with your real name in future), your IM might show up on the blog or in other places on the internet, where I quote you. I think this is okay as far as laws about “fair use”, and readers might suggest to me how I could better give “sources”, e.g. or how to better give references for material that isn’t mine.

Comments, suggestions (for revisions or blogs) and submissions related to Islam and Muslims in the news are encouraged.

Insha Allah Peace lyrics and Islamic Law topics

#INshaAllah Peace is a song on the YT which may or may not promote peace in a way that is attractive to some but not all Muslims, also what is the real message inside the lyrics? It's hard to understand much of what is being sung, and so I couldn't tell you my opinion of it..

I never have replied to any email or comment anywhere that I believe that rape is okay, this is a topic which many non-Muslims are also speaking about, and some non-Muslims (I can recall one in the Google stream, in particular which revealed hostility and "stalker" behaviour towards herself). There aren't any women, no matter what religion or background, who believe rape is okay. For one woman to accuse another is deplorable, and for men to do it is really nasty.

I have never said that a rape victim requires four witnesses to prove rape in her case, that isn't the ruling in Islam, nor has any Muslim to my knowledge said such a thing. It's ridiculous to claim Muslims say this.

Why is it then that despite my best and honest efforts to explain some facets of Islamic rulings and laws with respect to adultery, someone either deliberately or without malice (but stupidly) believes that I would believe that a rape is equal to adultery? These are two completely different and unrelated crimes and their treatment in Islam is very different. Rape victims are never considered criminals in Islam, nor are they in any way to be punished (according to Islamic Shariah or any teachings). The criminal/s if he/they can be ascertained are definitley punished, and should be put to death according to Islamic penal code.

I hate to be misrepresented, misunderstood. It is not anyone's fault if they don't understand english, but give me the benefit of the doubt whenever something doesn't seem right. But to go on and on about crimes some Muslims do, such as wife beating or rape and then ignore all of my efforts and very clear statements doesn't reveal sincerity on the part of the person doing that. I'm sorry, I don't have time for ludicrous games or anyone's desire to self-promote his ideology or values while insulting mine, or tendency to show two faces.

Muslim IQ Test - Part Two

Open Book Test

I have a book which is “Sharh Al-Aqeedat-il-Wasitiyah; Fundamental Beliefs of Islam & Rejection of False Concepts”. As one would expect of this book, the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah is outlined; the faith stands on five pillars; belief in Allah, His Angels, His Messengers, the resurrection after death and belief in Qadr; the good or bad destiny. We also believe in the Attributes of Allah, with which He qualifies Himself and the Attributes with which Muhammad has qualified Allah. This is therefore, a genuinely good book for students of Islam; it is used as one text in Islamic schools. It was written by the famous Islamic scholar, Ibn Taimiyah.

When we study Islam, as Muslims, we learn the Qur’an, tafsir Quran, basic Fiqh, (later one can study up to PHD in Usool Ul Fiqh; Islamic Jurisprudence), Hadiths (traditions or sayings), the Seera, or life of the Prophet. These are the main subjects in Islamic Studies courses or in the Islamic Universities.

Freedom of Religion

It is fair to say that Muslims are much more interested in learning their religion than in learning about Christianity; apart from interreligious dialogue there is little or no interest in Christianity from Muslims.

We find in the debates for example, a lot of friction; and very little of the vast knowledge available gets touched on, and when issues are discussed there is oftentimes great friction or animosity from the speakers, and or the audience. These debates are like wrestling matches, someone said; they are about scoring, not about learning the truth about the religions being discussed. Otherwise, the debaters should accept much of what his/her opponent says which is sensible, but we find that this is almost never what happens. If you discuss any other subject, besides religion (or politics), you will find people can accept a person’s statements, even opinion, because you have nothing to lose and will likely benefit from this person who may be an authority, or may be someone who is self-taught, and you trust him enough to take him at his word. But when fundamentalist Muslims and Christian evangelicals debate, there is less acceptance of the others word or opinion; his/her authority is almost nil in his/her opponent’s estimation.

What we also find happens a lot, is that Islam is the topic of the debate - it is not Christianity which is in the hot seat. For this reason alone, it is often the case that Islam is put on trial. Islam must prove itself, whereas the Christian is to prove Islam wrong; as the debate moves on, the Christian take the role of prosecutor, judge and jury. He may have many supporters in the audience who will likewise have the same preconceived ideas about Islam which color the proceedings.

I don’t think debates will ever have the effect which Muslims are hoping, for the most part. There are some people who are more successful at debates. But I think debates are generally a bad idea. Also, it largely depends on what the debate topic is, and who the debaters are.

Un-Christian behavior

When I watched some of the debate between Rob Morey and Shabir Ali, I was to say the least, very surprised at some of the things Morey was willing to say on stage in front of cameras.

e.g. “If I say Shabir’s thing is black, you would know what I am talking about” - Emphasis on the word “thing”, by Morey.

I think no Muslim should ever debate this man again, as a protest; who will debate the Christians when they can insult our brothers or sisters this way? And it doesn’t reflect badly on the Muslim. The speech of the Christian reflects very badly on himself only. But on principle, such a person should be boycotted.

Morey was explaining his interpretation or understanding of a hadith, which he says shows that someone saw the Prophet Muhammad’s private part. The prophet, SAWS, was white; the hadith is telling how someone saw the “whiteness of his thigh and the whiteness of ‘the thing’”. “Of Muhammad”, says Morey. Whether there is any interpolation by him is a relevant question. But I am not again debating here what Morey said, just reiterating what was said.

About the length of a shirt

I mentioned the mid-thigh, last time, but also, some Muslim Arabs today even misunderstood a simple thing such as the length of the man’s shirt, if it is the middle of the leg, (the whole leg) or the middle of the shin or lower part of the leg only. If it is the middle of the leg, the shirt will be much shorter, which is how some extremists have interpreted it, who wear short shirts because of their faulty interpretation, whereas the longest a shirt can be is above the ankle. Correctly, the shirt would normally, according to Sunnah, be worn to the middle of the shin, not middle of the leg, which would be at the knee or above that. We see in Pakistan, men wear long shirts but they also wear baggy pants, so their style is not like the style of the gulf people, who wear long white thobes, which almost trail to the ground, sometimes. This is forbidden. Women’s clothing can be longer than ankle-length, men’s should be above the ankle at least, but not above the knee. This is the practice of the people before, and doesn’t have to do with modern styles or what some Muslims wear of their own cultural clothing, which may or may not be acceptable. A similar misinterpretation can happen when reading about “the hand”, some interpret it to be only the palm and five fingers and back of hand, while it is actually means the arm up to and including the elbow, such as the area which should be covered with water during ablution for prayers. Thus, the word for hand and arm up to and including the elbow (in Arabic), is being translated as “hand” in English when it means more than the hand only. This is just an example of a problem in translation.

What Morey wants

Whatever the hadith (above) is speaking about could be disputed, based on the language, and I don’t know what the Arabic has to say. But I will say this; definitely there is nothing in the hadith which would shake any good Muslim’s faith. There is nothing in the Qur’an or the hadiths which is so shocking or disturbing that believers would have their faith shaken. Is anyone honestly very disturbed that a man or woman, who is doing some physical activity, might or might not have become exposed?? The point to remember here is that everything about the Prophet was recorded, whatever people heard or saw him doing, etc. That doesn’t prove beyond any doubt that the hadith above is about what Morey thinks it is about; the fact is it can be misinterpreted. But this is not really my concern, though Morey wishes us to stop there and see what he sees.

I am speaking in all honesty and want to know, is anyone shocked that a person in the public eye, even for a split second, or little longer, might have something of the body or a private part of the body, breast or any other part exposed? When Janet Jackson, famously had a “wardrobe malfunction”, people filmed it and replayed the tape over and over again. I must say, that society is unfortunately very fixated today on such unfortunate occurrences, especially because the person who it happens to is very famous. But years after the fact, no one cares about it anymore or even thinks about it. If it were not for tapes of the occurrence, people would forget all about it, and history would have nothing to record about it; except in some archive which might have mention of it on page two of a newspaper, or in a newsreel or sports reel. Of course, due to society’s fixation about the human body, especially the female body, Janet Jackson’s breast will be seen again in the future, on a special segment, maybe with some editing to hide the majority of what was seen live at the Super bowl. Kids in 2020 will think it’s a hoot, when it airs on America’s Funniest years after the original hyperbole. Not to worry though, I’m sure Ms. Jackson has moved on long ago.

Muslims, similarly can move on from bad experiences, such as the mistreatment of Shabir Ali, by the evangelical Morey; the guy is a jerk. Not only is he a jerk but he is a fat ugly white guy. As one person recently remarked on the internet, I believe it was a comment from a black man, all white American men “look like Michael Moore” (or they are often fat and ugly).

Christian evangelicals like to wear suits like they are very professional; they never seem at ease; and I can’t blame them. I think if you are going to lie and say terrible things about Islam, the Prophet of Islam and Muslims, you will definitely find great opposition, even the type of unseen opposition, recording all that we do and say, and which curses the sinful and non-believers. There is “someone” who sees and hears everything, you can be sure.


The Shrouding of Allah’s Messenger


‘Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Jabir bin ‘Abdullah [RA], that he said: “While the people were rebuilding Al-Ka’aba, the Prophet Muhammad, SAWS, went with ‘Abbas to carry some stones. ‘Abbas said: “Put your loincloth round your neck to protect you from the stones.” (As he did that) the Prophet, [SAWS], fell to the ground and his eyes turned skyward. Later on, he woke up and shouted: “My loincloth…my loincloth.” He wrapped himself in his loincloth.’ In another report: “His loins were never seen afterwards.”’ (Page 82, al-Mubarakpuri)

This event in which the Prophet lay prostrate and the reclamation of the Ka’aba after it had been partly destroyed due to heavy flooding coincided; the age of Muhammad was 35 years, and it occurred five years prior to his receiving the mantle of Prophethood. (Ibid)

An example of the respect with which people held the Prophet and how they regarded his modesty as sacrosanct, was when the Muslims closest to him prepared the burial shroud of the Messenger of Allah, and had wondered what to do regarding the washing and shrouding of the Prophet, and they decided not to remove the Prophet’s clothes but to wash and bury him while his clothes were on him.

“Muslim IQ test”

Where Morey discusses 25 propositions, which I haven’t yet seen on a video, but I assume part of that was the discussion of the five pillars of Islam. There is nothing in the five pillars of Islam which Muslims and Islamic scholars dispute; anything he has to say would be inconsequential. The fasting, pilgrimage, zakat or charity, etc. are all frankly found in every religion of merit in one form or another. The fact that Muslims pray, fast, etc. or the number of prayers, or fasts, or form of some rituals has nothing whatsoever to do with pagan religion or any other religion. Islam is complete and the rituals were revealed as to the five w’s; what, when, why, who, how (last letter, lol), and I have no doubt that Morey has been reading up on the misconceptions which abound, written by non-Muslims, about the moon god, and other nonsense. It’s like an Illuminati of Islam, except that there is no conspiracy. There is nothing hidden in the religion; I guess the fact, that everything in fact was recorded in Islam, including what may or may not have happened while the Prophet, SAWS, was riding, proves again, that Islam is an open book; there is nothing in the Qur’an or hadiths which can hurt us. We believe in the truth of what was revealed, and anything which is confusing for some people, is only a test of their faith, or a trial for them. Some Muslims unfortunately also will have doubts based on something which is in fact unimportant. The true believers in Islamic monotheism know that it is the truth from their Lord, and we are content with what Allah has given us and we put our trust in Him. We are grateful to Him for our faith, and no doubt we know that the non-believers are always in contention with us about our pure religion.

Summing Up

Aisha called someone a liar, in fact, Omar Al Khattab also warned this man about what he says.

That Muslims worship a moon god, is totally false.

Many accusations which we don’t have the time for are mostly misinterpretation, or blatant falsehood.

Important issues versus unimportant issues; what does Islam say, and what’s relevant today?

The five pillars of Islam and the six pillars of Iman (faith) are what any reader should do as a preliminary study before the study of the Qur’an and hadiths.

The Qur’an and hadiths, in particular, are for Muslims. In other words, the Prophet Muhammad, told us to tell others the good news, that if they believe they will enter Paradise by Allah’s will. Then we should set out for them what are the main beliefs, five main pillars of Islam, and explain to them the six pillars of faith. If they accept, then they can become Muslim.

Jihad Watch (Spenser) Blind Leader with Followers

Introduction - Part One

The historical method - why is it important?

"It is dishonest to divorce the Quran from the historical context", says Nadir Ahmed.

The historical and scriptural cases show that early Muslims didn't wage war on "peaceful people."

The Christians who fought the Muslims were violent; they went with armies and killed not only Muslims and Jews but even other Christians.

Often the Crusaders had no intent of even conversion when dealing with the Muslims. They gave no choice of conversion or death. It was probably apparent that Muslims would not have converted to Christianity, so the only option before the Crusaders was genocide, or constant war with the Muslim armies.

A most important debate topic

Did the Muslims fight the non-Muslims because they were disbelievers?

Ch:8:39, is given, also Ch:4:75. These verses are “telling” and reveal “Muslims true intentions” with regards the Christians (and Jews) of the world, as all Muslims should bear witness.

Before I explain about the two verses above, I will leave you this verse to think about:

“Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of taghut (idols/false gods or wrong beliefs, etc) So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.” (Ch: 4, V:76, The Qur’an).

We understand the above verse to mean that Muslims are fighting “evil” people, evil ideas or the devil himself. But apart from the existential discussion we can have about the forces of good and evil, the previous two verses will shed more light on the reasons for Jihad.

Ch: 9, V: 29 "tells us who to fight but not why to fight", explains Ahmed.

(Similarly, there are verses which tell Muslims to fight other Muslims, and why to fight them; which I will get to later.)

The next verse states, “The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah”, and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah …May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded” (Ch: 9, v: 30, The Qur’an).

While the verse obviously condemns the sayings of the People of the Book (their former scriptures having been altered to include wrong beliefs about God e.g. His need for a son, besides other inventions) it doesn’t order the Muslims to fight the non-Muslims based solely on their beliefs. Allah says He will destroy them. But if they repent, Allah will not destroy them, is also to be understood. They must become Muslims or Allah will not accept their worship and good deeds. Allah says in the Quran that He is “at war” with non-believers, or "at war" with the enemies of Muhammad or the enemies of Angel Gabriel.

See another post I have written on the same subject of “Muslims and why to fight them” (see Part 2 of “Complacency in Religion” elsewhere in the blog – revising; add link)

Non-specific verses: not about any people in particular; these verses can refer to any people who behave in the manner described or who have certain characteristics, and are to be understood generally.

"And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause...?” - is admonishing the Muslims for not fighting the evil people - and it continues to the end, "... of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and chldren who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppresssive people and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" (Ch: 4, V: 75, The Qur'an)

A similar verse has, “And fight them until there is no fitnah [chaos or persecution], and (until) the religion (i.e. worship), all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.”(Ch: 8, v: 39, The Qur’an)

Both verses encourage Muslims to aid those innocent people suffering persecutions and torture, irregardless of their religious beliefs.

Comparing Hadiths and Qur’an, on Jihad:

“I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and until they perform the prayers and pay the Zakat, and if they do so they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they do acts that are punishable] in accordance with Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty”.

It was related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

E.g. Two different verses about the same subject – how to deal with polytheists:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Ch: 9, V: 5, The Qur’an)

“And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah [i.e., the Qur’an]. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (Ch: 9, V: 6, The Qur’an)

Protection and ceasing of fighting are dependent on 1 – conversion to Islam, 2 – asylum seekers (below) or 3 – ceasing of hostilities and peace treaties

When the Quran was being revealed piecemeal – being arranged later by Muhammad (as per God’s instructions) into the chapters and a book - over two decades, many different conditions existed at different times, therefore, we cannot judge the whole Qur’an on one or two verses only. The Quran is meant to be studied as a whole, to get the real meaning of Islam and what Allah, Most High, wanted to convey to His slaves (humanity at large).

The next verse in connection with polytheists in Arabia mentions the fact that Allah would not have any polytheists remain in the Arabian Peninsula, as a result the final stand on polytheists is that they must be evicted or eradicated from there. The same is not true for the People of the Book, the Christians and Jews. (Or others with a holy book or scriptures, such as the Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc.) And Allah knows best.

“How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].” (This verse still permits some polytheists at the time the verse was revealed, specifically “those with whom you made a treaty at the [Kaaba]”.)

Ch: 9 v. 29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah …"

Spencer quotes the above without the remainder of the verse. "I didn't give you Quran? I gave you Quran", he says later.

Interestingly, Spencer doesn’t even say “and the Last Day” (maybe) because he doesn’t want to insult others who do not believe in the Last Day (Day of Judgment). He is a weak Christian, and an apologetic one. There are some Christians who do not believe in the Day of Judgment any longer, such as the Jehovah’s witnesses (If I am wrong, please inform me of the fact.) Jehovah’s witnesses also do not believe in Hell. Or maybe Spenser himself doesn’t believe in the Day of Judgment? Hell?

He also mentions a Muslim scholar's viewpoint with direct quotes (Ibn Jauziyah - to be discussed) to support his view.

The Context of the verse, Ahmed

"Believers, fight the unbelievers" and "When you meet the unbelievers..."

'"When you meet the unbelievers..." (continues) tells Muslims "how to fight". “Smite their necks”, and so forth.

And it is in the context of a battle.

I hope there are not people dense enough to really believe that Muslims would be ordered by God to kill the people they "meet" anywhere (marketplace? playground? street corner?) under any or all conditions??

I don't believe there are people that naïve or stupid. I hope not.

I will get later to the point many non-Muslims make that Muslims interpret the Qur'an violently and then act with violence against the non-Muslims because of the above verse (Ch: 9, v: 29). Just give me a few moments to explain some other things. You can also see the following blog post(s); "Complacency in religion" (Parts 1, 2).

Nadir Ahmed defends "his version"

Nadir's version is actually the general Muslims' belief. We don't kill people because they are non-believers. Otherwise, most of the general Muslims would be mass murderers. It is the West especially America that has a much higher prevalence of mass murders by "ordinary citizens" than does any Muslim country today. We are talking about people who murder out of some misplaced anger, not out of religious convictions.

"Background check"

Muslims do not believe that murder is alright. Even "honor killings" for example, are done out of the wrong beliefs or even "family honor" and are not permitted in Islam. It is Islam that forbids killing other than a life for a life. The Islamic authority puts to death rapists, or murderers. Only the Islamic government has the authority under God to stone adulterers (when four reliable witnesses are brought forth). Muslims are not permitted to take the law into their own hands, as a rule.

It is unfortunate that a large number of men in some Muslim societies kill women or girls in the name of "honor" or in the name of Islam, but it is not defensible according to Islam. We find these crimes are numerous but we do not find many mass murders in Muslim societies, or in the Western society perpetrated by Muslims. The unfortunate case recently of one Muslim in the US Army, General Nadel, I think, exemplifies "mass murder", and there are some examples of "honor killing" in the west, recently an Indian American killed his wife, but that also appeared to be a crime of passion, which the Westerners are no doubt familiar with and happens among Christian and other communities within the United States and Canada and all over the world.

Pay attention!

I think Ahmed has a tough time getting his message across to Spencer.

Probably much of the audience has the same problem focusing as Robert Spencer does; it is a problem of not listening or paying enough attention to the actual "words".

The verse Ch: 9, V: 29 was revealed in a certain (important) context and at a certain important moment in history.

Many of the quranic verses are revealed at a specific time or place, with a specific goal in mind. Allah gave Muslims at the time "the instructions" on what to do on those occasions.

One could say, as some people in the military that these were “tactical” or “strategic” verses. Not to be understood as applicable in all times or all places, or all situations, as I alluded to earlier.

Again, it must be reviewed and properly understood by the immediate context.

As Nadir says, "These are just "marching verses" or ‘marching orders’.

Look closely at the words:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day". In other words, fight non-Muslims only.

But the verse doesn't stop there. It continues, "...until they give the Jizya or are humbled".

The above fighting ("Qaatilu") involves more than one group of people engaged in a fight. It doesn't mean fighting civilians, for one thing. Secondly, the Arabic "Qaatilu" (which I am looking at now to verify it in my copy of the Qur'an with corresponding English meanings) isn’t the same as "Aqtil", which means "kill"; therefore, when we examine the word this way, even in the English translation of the Arabic, it becomes very apparent that the right meaning of "fight" is not "kill" indiscriminately, but "fight" other people who also are fighting you. I believe this is clear and as concise as I can make this point.

(Nadir fails by not examing the words closely, or pointing out the meaning of the word “Qaatilu”, in Arabic, and the meaning of "fight" in English. It is not translated nor can it be translated as "kill", which is (often) the same as "murder". Allah didn't tell the Muslims to "murder" people.

Does Islam Permit Discrimination or Racism?

Part two will be next, as well, "Ayaan Hirsi Ali's lies about Islam"