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.

Muslims & Christians..If You Must, Watch this Debate

Muslims & Christians..If You Must, Watch this Debate

I had to edit this post, the original video link I had was for another video, but I accidentlally removed it during editing. I can't remember what video it was, so I searched for another and this one caught my eye.

I hope it is appropriate. I will be watching it 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

How do you "interpret" the Koran?

An Opinion:


“I really like what you said about freedoms and the search for peace around the world. In my country, Islamic people are allowed to practice their faith without any government interference. This is guaranteed by liberal democracy. We have come a long way in the West. I'm not sure that any Islamic country that exist today or has ever existed will treat all human beings equally under the law. I'm not sure what to make of that story about the Prophets teaching of the effeminate man. It may have been one of understanding and compassion, but as you have already said, many scholars debate about the authenticity of some of the Hadith and Surrah [Or, Sunnah?]. Unfortunately, many very powerful Islamic clerics have condemned homosexuality to the point that they believe that gay and lesbian people should be stoned to death! They apparently have other Hadith to support this.”

“I can tell that you are peaceful person. I'm not sure however how you interpret the Koran with respect to nonbelievers. Clearly they are so vile that they're going to suffer an eternity of torment and punishment for their nonbelief. It's really hard to make peace and dialogue with people who are judged by the creator of the universe to be worthy of hell.”

My Reply:

I don't think it’s hard to make peace with anyone as long as they are peace loving. They can believe what they want, and everyone goes on with their life. What the consequences for disbelief in the next life are is clearly stated, yes. That doesn't stop Muslims from peace treaties or dialogue, and we have had a lot of the former in the past and have a lot of the latter today and in the past there was also dialogue, as proven by hadiths and Islamic history, letters which were sent between nations and so on.

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.

Debate Proves Counterproductive to Understanding Islam – Part Two

Forum for Cooperation, or Disunity?

When the Introduction to the audience was made, the MC notes that a French North African community activist said, “We feel we’re trapped in a cellar and need oxygen; you give us this oxygen.” About the appropriateness of a cultural relations organization launching or handling such a project, or I assume, similar activities; I’m not sure what else would have been discussed then, or what the activist was particularly referring to, or even if he was speaking as a Muslim or rather only from a cultural perspective.

But I’m afraid that this debate, which ran for almost an hour (the one clip which I was able to download and watch on my PC), an “Our Shared Europe” program which was taped, later edited for television, we were told, would host some 70,000,000 viewers worldwide when it was aired by BBC World. “We build trust and engagement throughout the world”, he reads off a prepared speech, about the organizers or the British Council. Yes, a prepared speech might claim that the debate would lead to more trust and engagement, but I fail to see how that materializes, when Douglas Murray takes part; especially in this particular “Intelligence ²” debate, he seems to have grown fangs on set.

I believe, the lack of time for a debate, which should reflect the magnitude of the topic, and the goals of “Our Shared Europe” to build trust, should not be left at the mercy of debaters, who may not even share their vision, “to highlight the contribution of Muslims to Europe.”

I hate to think, what would be the result if many more debates happen the way this one did, maybe that much “oxygen” given to this type of event with support, and encouragement from Shared Europe and the British Council, might actually end up “blowing up” like a high school chemistry lab might do without teacher supervision.

To admit a problem is the first step, “the growing cultural relations frictions between Muslims and others”, is mentioned in the introduction. I’m relieved that that at least helped to highlight what many people believe about Muslims in Europe, that there is a “cultural relations problem”, and that it might well be the fault of the host country, and not the fault of Muslims. Because if Our Shared Europe believes that Muslims have made a significant and healthy contribution to Europe, then there is hope that this positive outlook can continue to be the focus as well as “push” for Muslims’ struggles within Europe (as well as other parts of the Globe), if understanding and cooperation continue to be developed and nurtured by both sides. “Muslims are an integral part… now, and of our combined future”.

It is not right, that the debate should have focused on Muslims’ contribution, and that “culture” not religion should be the main focus, yet Islam is being targeted and blamed as the main culprit throughout the debate. One side, the Muslims, must defend their religion, not only their culture, and the other side, seems to oppose, not Muslim culture, but Muslim religion (Islam).



The original Motion is “Is Europe Failing its Muslims? Murray argues, no. Europe is not failing its Muslims. That he sees the real issue as Muslims are failing Europe focuses negative attention on the Muslims, and takes away the negative attention from Europe, where the original question had placed it.

The panel was, on the right, Douglas Murray and Fleming Rose. On the left were Petra Stienen and Tariq Ramadan.

Tariq Ramadan - Professor, Contemporary Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford. President, European Muslim Network.

Stats: Muslims are ‘creating problems’, Muslims are perceived as ‘bad’. 75% of people believe Muslims are having a negative effect on Europe. “Separate controversies around the Muslim presence”, in each part of Europe. He says, “we speak about culture (Europe does) and we Islamize the socio-economic problems.”

Tariq Ramadan is the first to point out that this is not just about “culture” but also about religion. He also tells us how Muslims who are European are not (even today) perceived as Europeans, despite their longstanding European status.

Thereafter, he says, “it is not because they are Muslims but because they face the class discrimination, segregation and wrong social policies”. In other words, because Europeans don’t accept the Muslims’ culture, the growing Muslim presence, and so on, or their status is subjected to a “double standard”, i.e. they are not “really” Europeans, they are not like other Europeans, therefore discrimination is a given or to be expected. He points out that Muslims are trying hard to integrate, and in fact have built their lives around their cultural-religious institutions, etc. so that they might feel and be at home, yet they are made to feel like they don’t belong, by the others; the ‘wider society’ or non-Muslims. Therefore, that is discrimination, due to cultural-religious dislike of Muslims because they have a visibly different culture or religion. This is not only the problem of Muslims, I believe, but of all immigrants, i.e. the Roma people, might be a good example, or of blacks and visible minorities who are not born citizens of Europe. To be short on the subject of media, I will just note that it is prominent in the media, the Muslims “negative impact”, everywhere in the world.

He believes that Muslims are understanding Europe and also understanding their own religion much better than before, therefore, they are not going to be a “problem” for Europe, but hopefully would positively influence the society, through their many positive activities, which he also spoke about. Thus, was Tariq Ramadan’s opening.

Douglas Murray – Director, The Centre for Social Cohesion

First off Douglas Murray asks the audience to acknowledge that the attack on 911 was done by Muslims (which is only a half truth). But certainly we can all acknowledge that Muslims did attack sometimes, in some places, extremists exist, no doubt about it. However, his speech beginning on a very sour note or negative note, because “for any debate to happen” (I wanted understanding, rather than debate, but alas, that isn’t the final outcome) we must grasp this important and relevant point; he says his piece, however there is some booing from the audience. This is strange for me to see, the first time, someone who is the Director for the Center for Social Cohesion throwing a very damning light on Muslims when the venue and the positive start all highlighted the positive emotions in the outset of the debate. But the MC did warn us, in a way. Murray’s centre “tries to promote integration” - which I assumed means promoting cultural (and religious) understanding, as well. His centre also specializes in “radicalization” which perhaps has cemented his own previous negative views on Islam, or his perception of the vast numbers of Muslims as “radicals”. I would have to ask him, to know if that is the case.

Murray then speaks about the “vast migration” in the 21st century, 15-17 million Muslims in Western Europe alone. They have “dealt with” Muslims, he says, much better than “Muslim countries”. He blatantly or very ignorantly lies, when he says that Muslim countries do not permit freedom of religion, anywhere in the world. This is false, and can be proven, by the freedom of worship not only of Muslims, but by the many churches in the Gulf region, Bahrain, in particular, which I know of, and others I believe, and elsewhere I’m aware of Egypt, or Turkey, and other countries. Also, a similar positive situation exists further East in Malaysia, and so on. Even in some African nations, which I’m sure has churches as well as Masjids. “The failures of Muslim societies, the failures of … come here into Britain”; here I’m not sure, does he mean, the few extremists who are failures, or the majority of Muslims? In other words, while Tariq was highlighting the fact of the positive contributions of Muslims in Europe, Mr. Murray was not aware of such, and even at this point, due to the necessity of “following the script” refuses to acknowledge that the majority of Muslims are “trying” to fit in, and trying to be a positive force in the European cultural landscape and that they are to a degree succeeding, however slowly; as Tariq Ramadan mentioned the “silent revolution”. I wonder does, Mr. Murray walk the streets of London, to “get out of the taxi” once in a while, as a French Canadian friend of mine once asked a bus driver in Montreal interested in her hiijab.

Murray on Muslims and Women’s Rights

“Their dislike and distrust of half of the population, women”? This is quite unbearable, almost too much even for me to listen to. It smacks of a completely hopeless case of “racism”, or “Islamophobia” and a “sickness”.

Murray on Islamic Law

And if no other group asks for parallel laws, what of it? There are parallel laws for Muslims in Canada, to some degree, such as the family laws, or allowances for Muslims to bury their dead in their own cemeteries, or women to demand female doctors, and so on. These are rights (similar or the same) that others also have. Because others have gotten these rights before, and now Muslims share similar rights or might demand new ones, means they are the ones who are intolerant? I think there is not enough evidence that if one has Islamic laws, (not the entire Sharia, obviously) but some parallel laws, that such would not harm society in any way. Where is the proof after all, since these other, newer parallel laws don’t in fact exist? The practice of their faith openly; or prayer in schools, for example, is not a right which Muslims only have demanded. (Perhaps some relevant laws were in place before Muslims demanded them?) Nor has there been a very negative impact because of prayer in schools, one might argue the opposite is true; that religious children are better students, or better citizens. (And I don’t claim here to know a lot about Europe and the laws or which laws Muslims are demanding; one man mentioned that gays have less rights as they are being overlooked for their demands, to appease or give religions, not only Muslims, preference; I wish he could have been more specific despite the lack of time, but as I said, debate forums due to their nature don’t allow for really constructive criticism, or enlightenment and understanding.)As a plural society, Europe or Britain should be very careful to “walk the talk”. I don’t understand why such a plural society then refuses to acknowledge grievances of some people, be they Muslims, or other minorities, visible, or not visible minorities? Is it due to the government’s own racist, anti-Islam, or anti-gay views? (Or a specific lobby, which is at fault? The government for the people, as they say, should apply but doesn’t always) Is it the fault of “multiculturalism” which is supposed to integrate people, but in fact is a tool of the government to cause more division in society not less? As Tariq noted, Muslims have been in Europe a long time. Therefore, did Europe or Britain need “multiculturalism” and laws to promote different cultures, etc. or is “multiculturalism” actually driving a wedge in society, between Muslims and others, because more immigrants are allowed into Europe and cannot even find jobs or can’t ‘fit in’; the newer Muslims (immigrants) are used as fuel for the fire, to ignite more hatred against Islam and Muslims, when the Muslims who are born there already have found that integration is possible, but only with understanding; that same understanding is being undermined by the very laws which were made to integrate Muslims. It all seems very strange and perplexing. If we look at immigration now, is it being blocked or not? I think Europe knows that there are enough visible minorities, especially Muslims to do enough ‘damage’ to Europe, in terms of civil strife; that Islam will never be allowed to have a real voice; that ‘multiculturalism’ is a sham; this is the status right now.

Briefly, I’m revising to add this crucial point, in regards to what David Murray said about Muslims rights in Europe; “you have no right in this society not to be offended…” I ask do the Jewish people, also a minority, even if they are a European minority that existed in Europe before the Muslims, also have no right to ask that they not be offended; what does the law say about “Holocaust denial”?? I believe it would be greatly undermining peace if we applied the same hard brush to Jewish sentiments that we (or Europe, or Douglas Murray) want(s) to apply to the Muslims, whether immigrants or Europeans by birth. If a = b, and b = c, then a must also = c. He is of course referring to freedom of speech. All people in Europe, whether Douglas Murray likes them or not, should have equal rights before the law. Maybe he can answer the above question better than I can, as I am not a European and have not given this much thought, previously. But this debate certainly seems to lack crucial honesty.

Islamic laws are based on revelation, but that doesn’t mean that they are not also reasonable. In Islam, incarceration is disliked, whereas capital punishment is preferable, in cases of proven and obvious murder, or rape. In America, capital punishment is also accepted and used in some states as a deterrent. That being said, there are Islamic laws very distasteful to Europe, which would never be accepted by the majority of Europeans, or even by some Muslims in Europe. I don’t think this is a real question of Muslims in Europe today however, or even in the possible future, as Muslims in Europe do want to integrate as Tariq Ramadan showed quite convincingly. If the future of Europe sees a drastic change in the religious affiliations of a vast majority of the people, I can imagine that the situation could be more tolerant of what Muslims believe and prefer, in terms of their own governance and also laws reflecting the population (with more Muslims, comes more political power for Muslims.) as a natural evolution with Islam’s saturation, if ever that occurs to any great extent, say 40 - 50% of the population (We are talking about a very long time). When Murray speaks of Europe, and the “no compromise” he offers Muslims, not immigrants, but the European Muslims who I’m sure already clearly understand their country’s laws (or am I mistaken?) then, one feels Europe must be a very unwelcoming place for most new arrivals, if every European thinks the way he does. Only a masochist, it seems would want to immigrate to Europe from a Muslim country, despite the supposed and many “freedoms” being touted by Europeans in all the media, cultural venues, cultural programs, multicultural activities, International film festivals, debates, etc. I think even tourists would run away from a vacation in Europe if ever they meet a Douglas Murray type in the street.

I would love to meet Petra Stienen in the street, however, after hearing her speech for this debate; I thought she was very well spoken, not at all unfair to anything anyone had said during the debate up to when she took her chair to speak. She spoke to the point.

Cruelty Has Been Universal

Those who believe the Ancient Arabs were barbaric and more or less crueler than others, would have to argue that Genghis Khan, or Hitler was not equally cruel. Maybe that depends on whether or not one prefers their children to be buried alive or burnt to death.

Meaning of Islam

Islam is about saving souls, not taking lives.

Fleming Rose - editor of the Netherlands newspaper that published anti-Muhammad, anti-Muslim cartoons. (Revise)

Fleming Rose, who is rather infamous, if not just famous, gave his afterthoughts about his experience after his newspaper published the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. He speaks about the democracies; the important distinction he wants to express; which supports Murrays arguments is the “freedom to choose”, about which he believes “Muslims are not able to exercise that right” in Europe nor benefit from the rights the Government gives them. His main focus turns to the Islamic Law (which is not practiced in Europe), so I fail to see the reason or mention of this in this particular debate; it is highlighting something which would likely happen not in Europe but in Pakistan, a rather negative view of Islam, again propagated in a debate which is being promoted by groups or entities which claim to want “cooperation and understanding”. Rose, like Murray and many others want to highlight the few cases of extremism. I dare argue there are extremists who hold views which run counter to Islam, are hateful and so on, but they do not pose any more danger than white supremacists in Europe. Therefore, this is a matter for the police and law enforcement; this is not about Islam and a Muslim problem, per se. These types of views, distrust of government, or anger are shared by Europeans, (or Americans, in the case of America), and are not only the views of some new arriving Muslims, or immigrants; i.e. the government lies to the people, the government cannot be trusted, politicians steal the wealth, politicians take bribes. This is also another problem of “perception”. Similarly, one of the panel mentioned that it is not only Muslims who have “homophobic” views, but that this is a problem of the overall society’s dislike or even hate of homosexuals. When it is the personal view of someone, and doesn’t hurt anyone, such as people would be the target of hate crimes, then I think we don’t yet draw a line in the sand, however when the government dictates certain policies, to appease Muslims, or religionists, then it becomes the fault and responsibility of the government - and if problems or hate increase as a result. Always, in a secular society, the government must bear the greatest responsibility for “fairness”, fair treatment, just laws which reflect the nature of secular society, but also democracy. Unfortunately, as Bilal Philips, a Canadian Muslim scholar, points out in his book The Clash of Civilizations: an Islamic Perspective, America (and we can assume others) claim/s to be (a)democracy/ies, but actually, they value secularism much more than democracy. Therefore, we see that two separate agendas (might) exist, one which promotes secularism over democracy, and another which (in the open) promotes democracy or secularism over the rights of minorities, even though these rights have until now been part of the fabric of that society, or the people’s choice. Some day governments may not allow people a choice in their personal beliefs, or open religious practice; they may become more like the Arab governments which tortured Muslims or Christians because of their faith; governments like Mubarak’s or Ghaddafi’s, or Saddam’s, or like Bashar Assad’s government at present, and like Israel behaves in the occupied territories. If the British government today is heedless of (or promoting) anti-gay policies today, tomorrow it will be equally or even more heedless (or in favor) of anti-Muslim or anti-religions policies tomorrow.

Other thoughts:

How often we hear that Muslim women lag behind everywhere in the world; I believe this is hate speech, not based on the reality all over the Muslim world; only in wartime did the Taliban forbid women for example from attending schools; the west fails to admit that there are certain grave conditions in some Muslim-majority countries that prevent their communities, or parents of girls or even boys (as in Palestine, or Lebanon) from permitting their children to attend schools. It is not as they believe, the dictates of Islam, or the dictates of Muslim extremism, but actually necessity, that girls sometimes are not allowed to attend school. This is not only a “Muslim problem” but a problem wherever wars or strife, starvation, or drought, etc occur. Now if some Muslims, through their misinterpretation of Islam do the same thing - is also not the fault of Islam. “Islam has failed the Muslims” is NOT TRUE; “Muslims have failed Islam” IS TRUE.

Another example; the west wants women to drive in Saudi Arabia; who will guarantee that those women who drive will not be attacked when their car breaks down? Who will prevent their accident on the roads, when one of the males of the population (the cause of major accidents, are young men who don’t drive properly, but possess a driving license; they do not follow the traffic rules) causes them to have an accident? Who will prevent their not talking on the phones, which they do a lot, while driving? I believe, as long as the law stands the way it is in Saudi Arabia, many women are prevented from horrendous accidents, crime and dangers which they would rather prefer to not experience than realize too late after the fact, were they permitted to drive. But this is an opinion many women in that country have; it is not necessarily my own opinion. I do know that many drivers with licenses in the GCC are incompetent and dangerous; that includes men and women, males and females. That is enough said, I think on the topic.

Biology vs. Belief:

I wonder if Fleming Rose’s wife is a visible minority. He says during the question period midway, that one cannot change their race, therefore implying that because religion can be changed it is not a fundamental part of a person. To which religion other than Islam, would he prefer Muslims go to? Or does he want all religious people to give up religion? Isn’t that also being hateful? Is it only hateful, therefore illegal, when race is the focus, but not when religions are the focus? Why? It is because, it is much easier for Europeans who are white to argue against racism, because race is much more visible and cannot be changed, whereas when people leave one religion for another they might become more, not less, “invisible”. And as more people convert to Islam, this will prove to change the face of Islam from colored to white people. Europeans are afraid of Islam, and afraid of the changing face of Islam, to white, not dark. (It will actually eliminate racism, if permitted to continue, due to the growing prevalence in Islamic societies of mixed marriages, which go unopposed, since there is no racism in Islam, which exists in some Christian fundamentalist groups.) Also, the statement Fleming Rose makes, suggests that if people could change their race, they probably should. It would be a lot easier if everyone were not so different, after all. Maybe his wife is an immigrant, but not a very distinctly different immigrant; probably she is white European and not a black or darker Indian for example. (Of course, I would have to ask him, or someone who knows his family). I believe he didn’t intentionally mean to sound “racist”, but that was the effect, somehow.