The invitation must have been sent to you by one of the members of FFI. But I am glad that you agreed to this exchange.
I will start with something that needs clarification and it has to do with your position as a “Quran only” Muslim.
You apparently deny all the Hadiths. Can you please tell us whether you also deny the books of history such as Srat, Tabari and Al Waqidi?
If so on what you base your knowledge of Muhammad as a historic person? How do you know about him, his life, his companions, etc?
Do you perform the rituals of obligatory prayers fasting, hajj etc? If you do how do you know that is the way Muhammad intended. There are no descriptions of these rituals in the Quran. All these details are in the hadith which constitute the bases of the sunna. But you deny the authenticity of the hadith. So where do you get the important information that is missing in the Quran?
Finally, do you recognize the importance of some of the hadiths at least for their historic value?
Dear Ali Sina:
A good question.
Syrat (history of prophet and his companions) were written after hadith and civil war intellectually and emotionally contaminated the so-called Islamic land. Though some are more critical than the other, still they all rely on hadith and hearsay. Besides, they are also not immune from the influence of political and religious powers of their time.
Historically, the Quran is the most authentic book reflecting the events. In fact, the Quran is like a journal of major events with lost chronology. Surely, you will claim that the narrative of the Quran is from the perspective of Muhammad and his interest. I think and hope that we will find a way to come into a reasonable agreement on major historical events.
I do not think that you are relying on every historical report of the syrah books, such as Tabari or Waqidi. I will treat each historical anecdote on ad-hoc basis and evaluate it critically with a healthy dose of suspicion.
I think we both will agree on many issues, as long as we both try our best to be consistent and objective on the purported stories.
I mostly rely on the narration of the Quran. If the Quran's account contradicts the account of a particular narration I chose the narrative of the Quran since it was written down when events were happening. However, if you chose the narrative of a book written five or ten centuries after the events, I expect you to provide a good reason for that choice.
Interesting. I hear similar questions from Sunnis and Shiites. I do not follow any ritual that is not in the Quran. I argue that all the details of Salaat (contact) prayer, zakat (purification of blessings), hajj (annual conference in Mecca), and fasting in Ramadan are given in the Quran. For instance, if you have time, please find my article "How to Pray According to the Quran" at my website, yuksel.org
Hadith, like every heresy, legend or story may contain some truth. They at least reflect the spoken language of their time, the culture, general events, mindset, economy, political and social tension among groups and nations.
However, I will not consider Hadith as authority besides the Quran even if I know hundred percent that it was uttered by Muhammad. I dedicate my religion to God alone, and I reject the religion of limited partnership that is based on Allah + Muhammad + Muhammad's companions + early imams + mujtahids + later imams, etc.
So you prefer to use the books of history to learn about Muhammad. That is fine with me. I will rely on history when I talk to you. However let us talk about hadith for now.
Your position is that all hadiths should be scrapped because a lot of them are fabricated. Lomax, your opponent in that debate, made a valid observation. He said: “The bound collection of testimony from any court is certain to contain some lies and some errors. The reliability of any piece of evidence remains debatable….And if a collector collects a thousand hadith and makes a few errors neither is he to be condemned as unreliable.”
You rebutted his statement and said: “Not a single court will accept the testimony of Bukhari who collected contradictory hadiths about the Prophet Muhammad, narrated from generation to generation 200 years after his departure.”
On this issue I side with Lomax. Let us make this clear with an example. The police department of a city is trying to solve a case and asks for tips from the public. Thousands of tips pour in. Most of them are completely unrelated, but among those thousands a few corroborate a story and based on those related tips the detectives will be able to solve the case. It would be unconscionable to through away all the tips because most of them are incorrect.
In our case we want to know about Muhammad and how he lived his life. We have tens of thousands of tips in the form of narrations of his followers. Many of them are weak leads and many of them are fabricated. We know also that the believers tend to exaggerate and aggrandize the virtues and attribute miracles to their beloved prophet. So when it comes to these particular hadiths we should take them with a grain of salt. However when we put all these tips together the picture of a man emerges. We separate those tips that corroborate each other and based on them we sketch the profile of our suspect. Can we be 100% sure that this is how he looked? Maybe not! But because these tips come from a variety of sources and despite the differences in detail they tell us the same story we can be fairly sure that we have a good idea of how our suspect looked and what he did.
So if I were a responsible detective, I would not discard all the tips simply because some of them are fabricated, especially when there is no other source to depend on. However, what if the picture emerging of the suspect portrays my beloved father? What would be my natural reaction? I would probably want to scrap all the tips and discredit them. This is dishonesty. But hey, you are talking about my father. You are asking me to choose between filial piety and honesty. That is a tough choice. Not everyone can pass that test. I would do everything to cover up my father’s crime and protect him. That is how I see you and all other hadith deniers. You do not like what you see in the hadith. They embarrass you. You find Muhammad torturing his victims, beheading them, gauging their eyes, raping them and doing all sorts of despicable acts and all that hurts. So instead of being honest and admit that you were wrong and the man whom you worship is a psychopath criminal, you try to dismiss all the hadiths. You think if you put your head in the sand and pretend you do not see; the problem will go away. The despicable lawyers of O.J. Simpson did that and they won. But does that mean that Mr. Simpson is innocent? Even if you win this case based on discrediting the evidence and technicalities, can you still live with your conscience?
Can we use these hadiths in an actual court of law to incriminate Muhammad? I think we can. You may argue that they are circumstantial and try to discredit them. But they are so many that any sane jury will find it difficult to dismiss them. Muhammad is guilty as charged.
However, our goal is not to take legal action against Muhammad. He is dead. We want to find out the truth. We may never be able to find the truth one hundred percent. But we can get a fairly good idea of it. What you have now is absolute lie.
Nonetheless, we have enough evidence in the Quran, in the books of history and in the hadith to become certain that Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a cult leader like Jim Jones and David Koresh and this I will prove to you in our discussions.
Muslims have fallen in love with Muhammad because they have been shown a picture of him which portrays him as a holy man, a perfect human being, an example for all to follow, the mercy of God for all the creation, etc, etc. That image is false. According to our tips, and his own book, he was far from being a good man. How did the Muslims get that false picture in their minds? …Because they were fed with lies! It certainly does not match the picture we get from our tips and from our thorough investigation. So which picture is more accurate? The one that is based on the fantasies of his followers or the one that emerges from the tips?
This is just to show the weakness of the position of the Quran only Muslims. Apart from the fact that this is a fallacious way of thinking, it leaves Islam indecipherable.
If that is your position and you are adamant to deny all the historic evidences relating to Muhammad, I deny even the existence of Muhammad. I claim that he was the fabrication of Arab rulers who needed a religion to justify their imperialistic ambitions (See Crone and Cook). You are a lawyer. You know that the burden of proof is on the person who is making the positive assertion, i.e. you. It is you who must prove that Muhammad actually existed and was not just a fictitious personage, a figment of the unknown real author/s of the Quran. Anything you say must be documented. However you can't use the hadith or the Sira to make your case. If you deny these books you can’t use them.
|I do not think that you are relying on every historical report of the syrah books, such as Tabari or Waqidi. I will treat each historical anecdote on ad-hoc basis and evaluate it critically with a healthy dose of suspicion.|
So what is your position exactly? Are you saying that part of the history is acceptable? I perfectly understand looking at the history and hadith with a healthy dose of suspicion. That is my position too. The reason I bring this up is to know which documents are admissible in our discussion and which ones are not and whether your rejection of haidth and Sira is categorical or you are open to accept them with a healthy dose of suspicion. Are you willing to use the same criteria also for the hadith or hadith is definitely out?
I asked on what you base your knowledge of Muhammad and you responded:
|I mostly rely on the narration of the Quran. If the Quran's account contradicts the account of a particular narration I chose the narrative of the Quran.|
That is okay with me. If a hadith or a narration contradicts the Quran or the spirit of it we will reject it.
So let me recapitulate what I understood from your position. You would look at hadith and the biography of Muhammad, provided they do not contradict the Quran or the spirit of it. You are willing to consider them as sources of information for their historic value, although with some reservation.
If that is your position I am with you. That is how I look at those sources too. But if I have misunderstood you please correct me.
If that is the case, I will make my case against Muhammad using the hadith and Sira as well as the Qurn. You are of course free to dispute the accuracy of each document I present based on the above mentioned criteria. i.e. if they contradict the Quran, we will discard them but if they don't we keep them, not as absolute truth but as a probable.
In other words, we will not discard a hadith or a story just because it incriminates Muhammad. After all that is what I want to prove. If I am not even allowed to present my evidence against him then what is the point of the trial?
I agree not to present any evidence that is against the explicit or implicit teachings of the Quran. You are entitled to question the validity of my exhibits but if you can’t demonstrate that they are unauthentic we are not going to discard them. We leave them there as probable. It is my conviction that the weight of these probable documents and that of the Quran will be so overwhelming that I will win the case against Muhammad and will prove to you and the world that he was an impostor and not a prophet. Scott Peterson's lawyer argued that all the evidences against his client are circumstantial. He was right! But they were so many that the jury had no problem convicting him. We have a lot more evidence against Muhammad.
Once I was a believer and defender of hadith. However, when I studied the history of hadith, its collection, procedures of its collection, and problems with their authenticity and the profound difference between hadith and the Quran, yes I witnessed this, I gave up from following hadith and sunnah.
I understand why you want me to drag to a source that I have come to refute at the cost of my life. You want me to revert back to my old days and start believing those sources that are mere hearsay. Here is my answer:
I WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR INVITATION TO DIG INTO A LITERARY GARBAGE AND CHOOSE AND PICK WHATEVER WE LIKE AMONG THE THOUSANDS Of CONTRADICTORY AND OCCASIONALLY RIDICULOUS NARRATION.
It appears that you are not able to criticize the Quran without the help of adding some garbage from collections of hearsay.
|Muslims and non-Muslims, all agree that the historical authenticity of the Quran is far beyond the authenticity of hadith.|
It is not true that everyone agrees that the Quran is more authentic than the hadith. Here is a study that disagrees with that claim:
|Thus, your insistence to rely on hadith, by a biased criterion of "if it says something good about prophet we will reject it but if it says bad things about him we jump over and accept it." is unacceptable. It is unfair; it is dishonest.|
|How can you rely on Bukhari who in the beginning of his collection is not even ashamed of insulting MONKEYS by reporting that a companion of the prophet saw monkeys stoning an adulterous monkey to death?"|
|According to your suggested criterion of sifting the garbage, we should accept this report since it does not praise Muhammad! Or you have another criterion that you forgot to communicate to me? You may end up with hundreds of arbitrary criteria to be able to justify your picks and rejects!|
- It is repeated in several sources
- It is not contrary to the explicit or implicit teachings of the Quran, in fact it is in unison with it.
- It is not contrary to logic. It is possible to cut the hands and feet of people, gouge their eyes and leave them die in the desert sun.
- It is consistent with the character of Muhammad
- There is no reason to believe why so many believers would fabricate such story
- It is detailed.
|How can you invite me to speculate on Bukhari who confesses of collecting 700,000 hadith and accepting only about 7000; rejecting 99 percent of them? Don't you see the exaggeration? Had Muhammad talked every minute of his life after claiming messengership, his words could have hardly added up to 700,000 hadiths.|
|How can you take Bukhari serious who justifies the abrogation of a Quranic verse after Muhammad's departure by none other than a holy goat that ate the skin where the alleged verses issuing the stoning-to-death for adulterers written? Should we accept that report? In order to add another insult to Islam you would like to have it. But you cannot have it both ways. You have to also believe the "holy goat"|
|Bukhari had a very different idea of islam than Muhammad. Bukhari was an ignorant idol worshiper and had no respect to the Quran. Besides, he sided with the oppressive rulers. For instance, he found Marwan, the drunk and murderer governor. to be a credible person by narrating "sahih" hadiths from him, while he declined accepting any hadith from a brave student of the Quran, Abu Hanifah who suffered in the jails of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties for rejecting to sell his soul! Bukhari was not an objective hadith collector, he was on the side of murderers and aggressors.|
We can write volumes of books listing the contradiction between the teaching of Bukhari and the Quran, the only book delivered by Muhammad. Then, how can a sound person claim Bukhari to be a friend of Muhammad? To me, he was a real enemy of Muhammad (6:112-116), like St. Paul was the real enemy of Jesus, since he distorted his message beyond recognition.
Let me little side track here. For instance, Jesus never silenced women and put them down with xenophobic teachings but St. Paul asked women to submit to men and hush: (1Ti 2:7-15; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Peter 3:7). Jesus never asked for money for preaching but St. Paul asked for money shamelessly and likened his audience to flock of sheep to be milked by the holy shepherd! (Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 1Co 9:7). He was a successful Machiavellian (before Machiavelli was born!) as opposed to Jesus who did not twist the truth to gain people: "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22).
How can you trust Bukhari who narrates the LAST HADITH while prophet Muhammad in his death bed, rejecting the recording of any hadith through a decleration from the mouth of Omar Bin Khattap and the acquiescence of all prominent muslims that "Hasbuna kitabullah" (God's word is enough for us)?
|Will your suggested criterion to sift through the garbage help us to decide the authenticity of this hadith and reject all the rest? Which one do you believe? Was the Quran deemed sufficient by early muslims or they too needed hearsay reports to understand the Quran?|
|What is the meaning of protecting the Quran from tempering while making it needy of volumes of dubious and fabricated stories?|
|How can you trust hadith books that report THE MOST WITNESSED HADITH, or THE MOST AUTHENTIC HADITH and manage to confuse the most crucial words, THE LAST WORDS in that hadith? The hadith about the last sermon, which was claimed to be witnessed by more than hundred thousand believers, has three different endings: (1). Follow the Quran. (2). Follow the Quran and my Sunnah. (3). Follow the Quran and my family. Should we pick and choose! Throw dice? How will your criterion help us to pick the accurate version?|
|How can you invite me to take Bukhari a serious source of history while in its LONGEST HADITH it narrates the story of Miraj in which poor Muhammad goes up and down between 6th and 7th heavens trying to reduce the number of daily prayers? In that hadith, Muhammad is like an innumerate and gullible union leader bargaining for some break time on behalf of his people against a merciless boss (hasha God!) who tries to require 50 prayers a day, that is, a prayer for every 28 minutes, day and night! In that narration Moses is the wise guy and he coaches Muhammad in this hard task of negotiation with God! According to your suggested criterion we should accept this hadith because Muhammad is depicted as an idiot who cannot even calculate, without the help of Moses who resides just one heaven below God, the impossibility of performing 50 prayers (not unit) a day? Even if one tried at that time they could not have divided the day to 50 periods of 28-minutes! Since, this hadith insults the intelligence of Prophet Muhammad according to your garbage-sifting criterion, should we believe this story?!|
|How can you trust the account of hadith books, which unanimously claim that Muhammad was an illiterate man? Based on your criterion, we should swallow this lie because it does not praise Muhammad, since it depicts him an illiterate man who was not capable of learning 26 letters while dictating a book for 23 years! Or should we reject it because while insulting Muhammad it praises the literary excellence of the Quran?|
|Idiot friends can harm a person more than wise enemies. Hadith and siyar books are products of ignorant friends who insulted and defamed the men they were trying to worship.|
|Besides, we should not ignore the possibility of some converts with agenda to distort the message. For instance, many Jewish stories and practices were imported to "islam" via "convert" Jewish and Christian scholars, such as belief Mahdi and practice of circumcision, etc. Kab bin al Ahbar is one of those influential converts. The story of Muhammad massacring Bani Qurayza Jews is another fabricated story by Jewish converts; unfortunately they were able to insert such lies into hadith and siyar books, which provided every fabricator access to a holy mass propaganda.|
|Hadith books contain almost anything you want. You may find an extremely kind and nice Muhammad besides a cruel torturer one. You may find Muhammad to be a person with great morals and on the other page you will see him a pedophile. You will find Muhammad pointing at the moon and splitting it into two pieces letting one piece falling into Ali's backyard, and on the other page you will find Muhammad incapable of reading a simple letter. Now, you want us to enter this Muhammad-in-the-wonderland and separate truth from falsehood. And without looking in my eyes you are suggesting me to pick the bad and reject the good ones. You cannot be serious!|
But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic." 54:1,2
|It is evident that you have no knowledge of modern rules of evidence in justice system. I challenge you to find a single judge in America that would find those hearsay reports credible for character assassination. If you find one, I promise that I will petition to the bar to take away his license by using similar hearsay to depict him as a drunk child molester! Yes, go find a single judge in a secular country accepting the garbage you are inviting me to.|
|As I gave a few examples out of many, it is not possible to get a fair and objective idea by using hadith and sira books. But, your insistence on this issue gives away your weakness. You are not able to discuss Islam based on the most reliable historic document, the Quran. You had perhaps had very good time in constructing arguments against Sunni or Shiite Muslims who are mislead by those sources. As you know, I follow the Quran alone, like Muhammad himself did. There are now, thank God, tens of thousands of Muslims all around the world reaching the same conclusion.|
Interesting. How in the world you can construe our rejection of hearsay and silly reports as weakness? The real weakness is in your argument, since you mix garbage in your arguments. I did not come here to speculate on books that NEITHER OF US TRUST. Bukhari could not survive five minutes in the witness stand and he would be rejected by every decent court of justice. But, your hatred against Muhammad or Islam, as it seems, has made you care less about truth and justice.
|Why do you think that the books collected centuries after Muhammad are more reliable sources regarding the words and deeds of Muhammad? Why rejecting those books should undermine the HISTORIC value of the Quran? I find no connection. Let's say I reject the claims of a biography of Jefferson written by a contemporary author and you tell me: "Well, if you reject this book then how can you prove that Jefferson was indeed a real person who drafted the constitution of the |
|I am not sure how serious you are in your denying the historic reality of Muhammad. You are right that I cannot PROVE his existence to you, neither you can prove to me that there was Jesus or Socrates. But, you are missing the entire point.|
|I follow the Quran and whether Muhammad existed or not is really a side issue in the context of the message of the Quran. I am not following Muhammad; I am following the message of the messenger. I am here to defend the principals and teachings of the Quran. Did Muhammad really exist or not, was Muhammad a good guy or not, is not relevant right now.|
That is absurd. The message of Islam depends on the credibility of its messenger. If Muhammad was a mere mailman who had brought a book written and sealed by god in an envelope. Then his credibility would have been irrelevant. When you receive a letter from your friend by mail, you do not interrogate the mailman.
- “The very first thing that Allah Almighty ever created was my soul.”
- “First of all things, the Lord created my mind.”
- “I am from Allah, and the believers are from me.” source
|I again invite you to tell me which verses of the Quran you have problems with and why. Please be specific and concise as possible. Let's discuss the real issues. I hope we will not be distracted by secondary issues.|
|PS: I believe and argue that the Quran is word of God and the information contain there is authentic. Inshallah, when we get over this procedural issues I will share you my REASONS why I believe in the divine nature of the Quran.|
Can The Quran Stand Alone?
No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains!
Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame!
His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!-
A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!"
"And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment.
Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink.
And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding.
And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent m returning (to Allah)".
A participant of the forum, Mirror of Truth, in another threat answered your argument. You were urging me to join you in using hadith as a reliable evidence to incriminate Muhammad. I am quoting his answer, since I agree with all of it and it will save me time. I will answer some of other arguments of yours after this excerpt from Mirror of Truth, whose answer is distinguished with five asterisks:
*****I'm writing my first post regarding the actual debate and I note that some classic AS double talk is beginning to creep into the flow of debate.
On the one hand - AS bluffs his hand by stating:
Well he launches into an awful lot of pre-amble if he has no need for hadith. Edip has made it explicit that he does not need nor has any desire to discuss the hadith.
During this pre-amble AS lists two possibilities as the motives for the fabrications which I accept. These are namely:
1. Glorification of an idolized leader. This would explain hadiths for example that report that Muhammad's manliness was equivalent to 30 men or whatever number it was. In trying to make their hero macho they do not realize the absurdity they create - and the inadvertent slander they commit.
2. The fabrications of enemies whether they be hypocrite 'believers'/converts or or open enemies. This explains a great many hadiths that are covert digs at Muhammad. An example is the cherished hadith of the 'miraj' where Moses acts as the wiser guide to Muhammad's alleged negotiations with God. Obviously this is the fabrication of a Jewish convert who asserts the superiority of Moses' bargaining/knowledgeability.
What Ali Sina discounts and does not mention at all is that there is another group of hadiths that were introduced (or supported) in the folklore in order to support the actions of corrupt leaders. If corrupt leaders/mullahs could justify their pedophilia or desires to rape and pillage by introducing or supporting such hadiths then having the absolute power there would be little reason for them to reject such hadith. Thus the hadith that obviously makes Muhammad look evil/wicked/stupid etc. become canonized because it meets the secondary need of the corrupt leaders.
Thus there are motives for these hadith that AS has completely ignored.
The sum of it is that whatever the motive for ahadith - none are required for the purposes of following God's system - not one.
AS has stated he has no requirement for them. None of us are shocked and the position to go on sans ahadith is very tenable. They are fabrications. The absurdity they contain is enough to convince the free-thinker of that. I would advise that AS lets go of his love for the hadith that I'm sure rivals the mullahs in order to make a real contribution to the debate. Let's move on from the nonsense of ahadith and see what arguments he has left now.
I want to elaborate little bit more about motivation in fabrication of hadiths. Ali Sina is treating hadith sources in a simplistic way. I recommend him to read Mahmud Abu Rayya's book
Holy cow! Is this your level of reading a literary test that contains metaphors? Your hatred against Muhammad and islam has reduced your literary skills to elementary level. When your friends tells you "Ali don't have a cow" do you chastise them "When did I want to have a cow? Are you hallucinating?" When someone labels another person "pig!" does he really mean that the other was transformed to a pig or acted like a pig. The verses you refer are metaphors that use the Arabic language and culture. It likens the acts of a particular group of Jews to the behavior of monkeys and pigs. Please check Arab language for the implication of such metaphors.
And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson to those who fear Allah
Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
"The Prophet said, "A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it." I told this to Ka'b who asked me, "Did you hear it from the Prophet?" I said, "Yes." Ka'b asked me the same question several times.; I said to Ka'b. "Do I read the Torah? (i.e. I tell you this from the Prophet.)"4.54.524
....They were doomed TO STAY AS APES FOR THREE DAYS without food, drink or reproduction, TILL THEY DIED" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, second edition 1998], pp. 146-147; bold and capital emphasis ours)
I do not have such ideas about revelation. You are making up ideas in my name. I do not blame you for this since you have encountered so many Sunni Muslims or Shiite Muslims you may be excused to confuse a "muslim muslim" with them.
You are accepting one of the biggest lies about Muhammad. Muhammad was literate. He wrote the Quran with his own hands. The Arabic word UMMY does not mean illiterate, it means gentile. For my logical and scriptural reasons for literacy of Muhammad please visit my website at: http://www.yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm
|“The very first revelation from the Angel Gabriel was, Muslims believe, "Read!" And the first five verses of that revelation encourage reading and writing (96:1-5). The second revelation was "The pen and writing" (68:1). These facts compel some questions that orthodox scholarship would rather avoid. Does God command an illiterate man to "read"? If so, could Muhammad read after Gabriel's instruction to do so? The story told in Hadith books about the first revelation asserting that Muhammad could read only after three trials ending by an angelic "squeeze" contradicts the other stories claiming that Muhammad died as an illiterate!”|
|Second, if Omar supported Muhammad for 23 years of his messengership he must have known that Muhammad prohibited his companions from writing his hadith all his life. He must have known that the Quran was the only source to be followed and associating man-made teachings to it was another form of polytheism. If I were in Omar's sandals, I would too reject Muhammad's request to prescribe another source for our guidance, especially knowing that he was terminally sick and had high fever.|
This is the fallacy of presupposition. You presuppose that Muhammad prohibited his companions from writing hadith all his life. There is no basis for that claim. People used to tell stories from the Bible and Muhammad did not like competition, he denigrated the scriptures of previous messengers who he had already acknowledged as true and said they are corrupted, then he said that the Quran is "the best story" (haidth) (39:23) meaning instead of paying attention to other traditions, listen to me only. But he never said do not write anything about me and my life. Muhammad was a narcissist. He considered himself to be the center of the universe. He told everyone to emulate him. Do you have a verse of the Quran to prove your point? As I quoted from the Quran, he claimed to be a “good example to follow” and have “an exalted standard of character” 68.4 How can Muslims follow his examples if they are not recorded?
|Third, you are confusing the early believers with later Sunni and Shiite Muhammad-worshipers. They were free minds. They did not follow Muhammad as a cult leader, but they accepted his message by using their God-given reason. As you are confusing me or wish to confuse me with a blind follower of a particular sect or cult, you are also confusing or wish to confuse those brave and progressive souls, those freedom fighters with them.|
The discussion of whether Islam is a cult or not or whether the early believers were free minded or not is long. I am not going to discuss that here. But if anyone is interested I have drawn the parallel between Islam and the cult of Jim Jones in an article that is going to be part of my bookFrom Mecca to 9/11. I leave a link to that chapter for anyone interested. Many Muslims would be shocked to see the similarity of Islam and the cult of Jim Jones. All cults are alike. Once you read that, you’ll never call a Muslim free minded. Those early believers were absolutely cultists.
You share a strikingly similar poor knowledge of the Quran with Sunnis and Siites. You use the same lousy argument. If you were able to read the Quran without smelling the garbage of hadith, you would easily notice that 33:21 had preceding and succeeding verses and the example of prophet was his bravery in defending Muslims against the aggressor army of Meccan oligarchy. If your knowledge of the Quran was a little bit beyond the surface, you would also notice that verse 60:4 uses exactly the same description, "good example", for Abraham and his supporters. Using your logic Muslims should have had the hadith of Abraham and his supporters too! Perhaps, you will find the story of another hungry holy goat eating those hadith collections to be "not illogical"
I use that hadith to show a conspicuous internal contradiction in hadith books. I say, "if you believe this hadith, you must reject all other hadiths. If you accept other hadiths, then you must reject this one. You cannot believe all to be authentic!" I am surprised that you did not understand this common and simple rhetorical device.
Do you really hear what you are saying? What about the Quran? The book that preceded the hadith books by centuries! The Quran refers to all major wars and conflicts and even generously quotes the allegations and accusations of opponents. But, you are addicted with the stinky smell of hadith narrations and you try hard to engage me in a wrestling match in that location. No, my dear friend. I had been there and I am grateful to God for saving me from that. You might, however, continue enjoying your mud-slings with Sunni and Shiite opponents there. If I have time, I will be watching you with a smile on my face.
Finally, a good I would like to reserve a separate discussion onJquestion, a fair criticism protection of the Quran via its numerical structure.
Again, you are confusing me with your Sunni friends! If I were in an island and found the Quran there among other books, and if I were able to understand its message and blessed to witness its scientific accuracy, prophecies and mathematical structure, I would not need anything else to believe in its accuracy. Do you hear me? Do you understand me? Besides, I am not a Muhammadan. Islam, as the system of peace and submission to God alone, existed long before Muhammad and will continue exists as a path for the truth-seekers long after him.
The Quran does not claim that Muhammad was illiterate, but only illiterates of the Quran claim such. Quran claims that Muhammad was not reading any scripture, in other words, he was a gentile. Muhammad was a literate gentile, like many of his contemporary prominent Meccanians.
The Quran does not claim that Muhammad split the Moon, but only the splitters of holy lies claim such. The Quran refers to the end of the world and gives the splitting of the Moon as a sign for its coming close. I understand it as reference to the splitting the Moon surface by Apollo astronauts in 1969 when they took rocks from the Moon. I have a detailed argument on this in my Turkish books and inshallah you will find it in my upcoming Reformist Translation of the Quran.
Then they saw a miracle; but they turned away and said, "Old magic."
They disbelieved, followed their opinions, and adhered to their old traditions.(54:1-3)
The commentator of the Quran Maududi writes:
"The amazing and wonderful phenomenon of the splitting of the Moon was a manifest sign of the truth that the Resurrection, of which the Holy Prophet was giving them the news, could take place and that it had approached near at hand. The great sphere of the Moon had split into two distinct parts in front of their very eyes. The two parts had separated and receded so much apart from each other that to the on-lookers one part had appeared on one side of the mountain and the other on the other side of it. Then, in an instant the two had rejoined.
"During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split into two parts; one part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond the mountain. On that, Allah's Apostle said, "Witness this miracle."
The same theme is repeated in other hadiths: Bukhari 6.60.388, 6.60. 389 and 6.60.391
Only an Inquisition or Taliban court would accept your evidence as credible. But, in case you find such a court in
Now this is really funny. I never stood on that stool or wanted in the first place. You are the one trying to push it under my feet and each time I kick it you have being trying harder. Now, you are taking credit for your failure to insert that stinky stool under my feet? What logic are you using? In my first letter to you I invited you to discuss the Quran and you managed to extend the introduction with silly arguments from silly books.
|So, it should be the last round that we discuss hadith. We should now move to the real argument. Are you ready for that, or you want to dwell more on hadith? You will not receive any response from me if you continue your bizarre insistence to force me to accept hadith. Then, you may claim your victory and continue your debates based on hearsay and ignorance.|
I hope you will kick that stinky stool under your feet. Hope Jthat it is not the only stool keeping you standing
We are already talking about the Quran. I think I have made my point clear that those who believe in the Quran only have no leg to stand on. This is to show that even if the Quran were a true book of God, the position of the Quran only crowd is fallacious. That is established already. By this exercise I do not want to make you believe in false hadiths. I want you to be honest.
A Revolution Led by a Gentile Against the Mollarchy of Medieval Arabia
It was 570 years after Christ when Muhammad was born in
Muhammad, a member of a powerful tribe and a successful international businessman, was not an ordinary citizen of
Arabs living in the Hijaz region were brethren of Jews, and Abraham was their common forefather.
Meccan Arabs had deep respect to the struggle of Abraham whose courageous stand for his monotheistic belief was a legend. Therefore, they were very protective of his reputation, religious practices, and the Kaba. Knowing that Abraham rejected worshiping the statutes besides God, Arabs never worshiped statutes, or symbolic objects. (FN1)
Nevertheless, they had holy names, such as Al-lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat from whom they would ask intercession and help. Their association of other authorities and powers to God and their fabrication of myriad prohibitions and laws in the name of God is called shirk (FN2) and the Quran repeatedly criticizes this mindset and practice as polytheism, the source of all evil.
However, those who accepted other authorities besides God, never accept their crime. They vehemently deny their shirk. Though majority of "believers" follow the teachings of their clergymen and assign divine authority to others besides God, they usually do not accept that they are committing shirk; they claim to be monotheists. If you question a Hindu who worships hundreds of gods and goddesses, you will learn that he or she is really a monotheist! A Christian who puts his full confidence in
Arab mushriks (those who accept other authorities besides God) never claimed that those holy names were gods, they were merely praying for their intercession. They believed that the saints and angles were mediators between them and God.
The Quran clearly rejects association of any authority besides God, whether in making the religious laws or providing eternal salvation.
According to the information given by the Quran, Meccan Mushriks preserved the forms of religious practices while they lost its monotheistic and spiritual meaning. They were praying, fasting, and going to pilgrimage. (FN4) It was the most popular religious practice.
Mollarchy in the
There were some characteristics of
Prominent tribal leaders like Abu Hakem (a.k.a., Abu Jahel), Abdul Uzza (a.k.a., Abu Lahab), Abu Sufyan, Umayy Ben Halef, Nadr Ben Haris, and Valeed Ben Mugiyra, could not tolerate any reformation movement that would change the status quo and risk Mecca's crucial position in political and economic landscape. They were determined to follow the traditional religion they inherited from their ancestors who had distorted Abraham's monotheistic religion to shirk. Preservation of the traditional religion and the status quo was vital for the theocratic government of
A teaching that rejects the idea of intercession and the sacred role of professional clergymen, a teaching that promotes the human rights of slaves and the oppressed, that seeks economic justice by objecting monopoly and usury, that is concerned about the poor, that condemns ethnic and racial discrimination, that protects the rights of women, that advocates democratic governance through consultation, and encourages people to use their reasoning and questions the tradition, surely, such a religion would pose a serious threat to the economic and political interest of the ruling elite.
Social, economic, and political structure criticized
It is a well-known fact that the early revelations of the Quran use a strong language in criticizing the theocratic oligarchy, which did not care about the poor, orphans and aliens; did not free the slaves; did not treat women equal to men; and did not consult people in public affairs.
Life Style and Harmful Tradition Criticized
The population of Mecca was afflicted with many social problems caused by individual abuses of time, money, brain, body, and exploitation of God’s name.
For instance, gambling was transferring money from the poor to the wealthy, thereby creating financial nightmares for many families. Alcohol was the cause of many personal and social problems such as domestic violence, inefficiency, loss of intellectual capabilities, alcoholism, rape, criminal activities, accidents and myriad of health problems. The Quran, though acknowledged some financial and personal benefits of gambling and alcohol, encouraged believers to abstain from these addictions without criminalizing them via penal code.
Sexual promiscuity or adultery was contributing in the destruction of families and was a major health threat for public by transmitting sexual diseases. The Quran encouraged men and women to be loyal to their marriage contract. Though polygamy is permitted to take care of fatherless children and their widowed mothers, monogamy was encouraged.
Lengthy list of dietary prohibitions concocted in the name of God was wasting many food resources. The Quran prohibited only four items related to animal products and considered any additional religious prohibitions to be fabrications and shirk.
The Quran dealt with many other issues such as protection of environment and ecological balance and protection of God’s creation from unnecessary mutilation. For instance, the Quran prohibited hunting during pilgrimage (5:95-96). It also criticized Meccan Arabs for cutting the ears of animals for religious reasons, which has negative implication regarding the custom of circumcision.
The chapter “Ben Israel” (Children of Israel) contains a series of commandments aiming to change the mindset, attitude and actions of individuals:
The Quran aimed to reform both the society and the individual. The Quran invites individuals to undertake a substantial reformation. The description of believers in the last verses of chapter “Al-Furqan” (The Distinguisher) reveals the desired characteristics of muslims:
Meccan Leaders are Losing Their Sleep
When Muhammad declared that he received a message from God, the Meccan oligarchy first did not take him seriously. They just ignored him. However, when they noticed the potential power of his message and the rate of the new converts, their reaction varied between mockery and insinuation. Soon their reaction escalated to slander and threat of eviction and death. Though Muhammad's personal history and his tribal relationship was providing a kind of protection against physical attacks, some of his followers did not have tribal support. For instance, among those who were subjected to torture was Bilal, an Ethiopian slave who was freed by one of Muhammad's friend. The first convert (FN10) who was killed was Sumayya, a woman. Slaves and women. Victims of racist and misogynistic laws and religions.
Clergymen who had economic and political interest in their corrupt religious teachings, augmented and manipulated the religious fanaticism of ignorant masses. The fatal combination of ignorance and arrogance, which in the past had taken the lives of many messengers and prophets, from Socrates to Jesus, was again at work. The words uttered against previous messengers were repeated against Muhammad, this time in Arabic. Muhammad's situation was no different than Saaleh, a messenger to a community perished long time ago.
Muhammad's message was focused on monotheism (tawheed), which is the main theme of Mosaic teaching that crowns the Ten Commandments.
Ironically, despite the popularity of Ten Commandments among Jews, Christians and Muslims, the faith and practices negating and defying the first two commandments have become their basic dogmas.
Muhammad delivered the words of the Quran critical of the traditional religion of Meccan people who had transformed Abraham's monotheistic religion to polytheism by blindly following their ancestors, inheriting innovations, superstitions, numerous cleric-made religious laws falsely attributed to God, and the belief of intercession.
Flocking on the Glorious Path of their Ancestors
Mushriks, be it of ancient times or modern times, attempt to justify their religions by the number of their members, by the glory of their ancestors and by the fame of their "saints." In arguments based on logic, scientific investigation and analysis of historical documentation, their common defense is the miserable argument from authority: "this and that holy clergymen said this," or "most of our ancient scholars have decided this way."
Idolizing their ancestors under different titles and following the dogmas and superstitions that are attributed to them as a religion is the universal characteristics of mushriks. Religious idols vary according to religions and languages. For instance, idols, in
Ironically, it is the religious leaders who promote blind imitation. By institutionalizing ignorance via religious terms, the diabolic saints lead astray masses from Truth. (FN11) The messengers and prophets, who invited people to question their popular religion and traditions, almost invariably found the clergymen fighting and plotting against them.
The Black Campaign Waged by Those with White Turbans
The message delivered by Muhammad baffled and bewildered the bearded and turbaned Meccan clerics. They first tried to attack his character. They accused and insulted him to be a "wizard," a dreaming "poet," or "a crazy man."
The Quran encourages Muhammad not to give up against this negative propaganda. Muhammad's mission was to deliver the message at the cost of losing his popularity.
The Reaction and Plans of Disbelievers
Tyranny and terror is a prevalent characteristic of mushriks. Terror and violence is a defense mechanism of many who prefer not to use their brains. The polytheistic elite of Athena convicted Socrates to death for questioning the absurdity of their religion. Persian priests tried to get rid of Zoroaster. Jewish clerics conspired with Romans to kill Jesus for his threat to their abuse of religion. In defense of his theocratic and oppressive regime, Pharaoh mobilized his generals and religious leaders to eliminate Moses. Shuayb's life was threatened by his people. Noah was stoned. Abraham was rejected by his own father and was thrown to fire. Some messengers were evicted and others were killed. Muhammad, who declared intellectual war against slavery, subjugation of women, racism, superstitions, ignorance, illiteracy, ancestor-worship, and exploitation of religious beliefs, would not be treated differently.
The forerunners who took all kinds of risks by siding with Muhammad, encountered difficult tests. They were excommunicated. They were rejected by their families and relatives. They experienced economic hardship. They were subjected to the insult and torture of mushrik Arabs. They were oppressed, banished from their land, and were viciously attacked. Many were killed; but they did not give up from their conviction and cause.
Muhammad was the main target of mushrik Arabs. Not only he had lost his popularity among his people; his life was in danger. However, he was ordained by the Lord of the Universe. He was commissioned to deliver the Message without compromise. He became the recipient of the greatest possible honor, receiving revelation from God.
While the multifarious aggressive campaign of the Meccan government and its allies in the region continued, Muhammad and his comrades promoted the freedom of expression and religious beliefs.
The leaders whose political and economic interest was at risk, and the ignorant followers, whose conformity was disturbed, responded this message of "leave us alone" with violence. But, their bloody terror and noise could not prevent the light from piercing and destroying the layers of darkness.
1. The common belief among Muslims is to the contrary. Clerics and scholars, in order to distinguish themselves from the Meccan mushriks, fabricated stories about statues. There are dubious narrations that Muhammad broke statutes occupying Kaba. However, the Quran that occasionally refers to the statues of previous communities (see: 6:74; 7:138; 14:35; 21:57; 26:71),never mentions the statues or icons of Meccan mushriks. Furthermore, there is no archeological evidence to support the claims of Muslim scholars. Besides, the classic book about statues, Al-Kalbi's KITAB UL ASNAM (The Book of Statues), contains many contradictory descriptions of the so-called Arabian statues. Muslim historians who were disturbed by lack of material evidence for the allegedly abundant Arabian statues came up with a "cookie" theory: Meccan idol-worshipers were making their statues from cookies and when they got hungry they used to eat them. That should explain why archeologist cannot find statues in the region for that era! Phew!
2. Shirk is described by the Quran in various contexts. Setting up partners with God, or accepting prophets, clergymen and scholars as authorities in God's religion is considered as an unforgivable sin. See 42:21; 9:31; 3:18; 2:48; 6:21; 6:145; 7:17-37; 17:46; 45:6; 16:89; 6:112-115; 19:82; 46:6; 25:30; etc.
3. See the author's book, "19 Questions For Christian Clergy."
4. The detailed argument on this subject can be found in author's Turkish book, "Errors in the Translations of the Quran."
5. They were originally Zilhija, Muharram, Safar, Rabi 1, and later their order was changed by mushriks.
6. The purpose and practice of polygamy is another distorted issue in islam (submission). Though the Quran discourage polygamy with two verses (4:3 and 4:129), it allows it as a social and economic institution to take care of orphans in a family environment. The Quran allows polygamy with widows who have children. This permission allowed those who could afford to marry with widows to provide a father figure to their children and take care of their needs. Interestingly, the verse clarifying this limited permission is traditionally mistranslated despite its clear grammatical structure. The correct translation of the verse:
"They consult you concerning women: say, 'As recited for you in the scripture, God enlightens you regarding the rights of orphans of women whom you deprive of their dowries while seeking to marry them, regarding the disadvantaged children: you shall treat the orphans equitably. Whatever good you do, God is fully aware thereof." (4:127).
Unfortunately, Muslim Scholars abused this limited permission and justified marrying with four women at a time even without the permission of the first wife who was deprived her right to divorce!
7. The examples of this category are listed in verse 5:3.
8. Many speculations made by Muslims to provide medical reasons for prohibition of meat of pig. Though, I consider it as a divine commandment to be followed for just the sake of obeying the Creator of the Universe, I think one of the reasons might lay in the waste of resources and environmental pollution. It is a well-known fact that pigs produce 6 times more waste than other domestic animals. Pig farms have caused serious environmental problems in some States, such as in
9. Muslim scholars, among many facts, have distorted this one too. They fabricated and narrated stories claiming that Muhammad was an illiterate man and maintained his illiteracy until his death. This claim not only contradicts the Quran and the historical facts, but it is also an insult to Muhammad. Was the prophet who brought a book and dictated it for 23 years not able to recognize the 28 letters of Arabic alphabet? How come a prophet who brought a scripture, which its first revelation starts with the word "READ," did not try to learn how to read? Why a prophet who encouraged his friends to learn how to read and write himself did not practice what he preached to others? If Muhammad was illiterate, then he was either a crook trying to fool people that he could not read (which is impossible since there were literally thousands of people who knew him since his childhood) or he did not have the intelligence to learn how to read and write! To support their claim of "Literal Miracle" Muslim Scholars resorted to this obvious lie and interestingly reached consensus on it!
10. Meccan Arabs initially called Muhammad and his followers, "Sabeen" meaning "followers of other religions."
11. The famous atheist philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, was so fed up with the abuse and exploitation of the Church, he opened a scorching attack on clergymen. He wrote, "As long as the priest is considered a higher type of man–this professional negator, slanderer, and poisoner of life–there is no answer to the question: what is truth? For truth has been stood on its head when the conscious advocate of nothingness and negation is accepted as the representative of "truth." … In Christianity neither morality nor religion has even a single point of contact with reality.… This world of pure fiction is vastly inferior to the world of dreams insofar as the latter mirrors reality, whereas the former falsifies, devalues, and negates reality. Friedrich Nietzche, The Antichrist, in The Portable Nietzche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954).
12. The following verse, 9:99, makes an exception of this statement.
You started your argument by saying I use hadith to insult Muhammad. Can you please show one instance of that?
In this debate with you, knowing perfectly that you deny the legitimacy of hadith, I have refrained bringing the hadith as the evidence of my claim against Muhammad. When I use hadith it is in support of the verses of the Quran.
I started my debate with you showing that the Quran and Islam cannot be understood without any reference to hadith and sira.
The proof of that is in this last long response of yours. Here you went off tangent and instead of answering any of my points you started copy-pasting from one of your books, giving details of the life of Muhammad without attempting to counter my claim that the Quran without haidth cannot be understood and Islam without the biography of Muhammad is meaningless. Since you completely neglected the topic at hand and contended yourself with copy-pasting your book, I am inclined to believe you truly have no answer to the points I raised.
However, despite your claim that the Quran is self-sufficient, you made statements that are not in the Quran.
How do you know all these things? This information is not given in the Quran. It can only be found in the hadith and the Sira. But you say that your Islam does not have any need for these “garbage” and the Quran is enough. Then how do you know Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. in Mecca and at the age of 40 he made his declaration, etc. etc.?
In this book that you are writing, you are providing a lot of information about Muhammad, about
You sneaked into the books of hadith and Sira didn’t you? You naughty little devil you! You shouldn’t have done that, you know that. You waddled into that load of garbage to find the goodies for us and save us from seeing that fetid pile of filth accumulated on top of the prophet. How nice of you! You are really the savior of Islam.
Apparently you say something and do something else. Is that a good thing? So you do not reject the hadith and Sira entirely. You simply reject the part that does not suit your agenda. None of these info you are giving away are in the Quran and you keep telling me the Quran is sufficient? If the Quran is sufficient why did you have to dig into the garbage of hadith to write your book?
Why not be honest here? Let us say that you agree with the part of the hadith that is not embarrassing and incriminating but when a hadith becomes too scandalous then that is garbage. The fact that Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. is not embarrassing, so you have no problem with that. But when the same sources say that he massacred the Bani Qurayza or raped a 9 year old child then that is all fabrication and garbage. Thank you for teaching us Islamic honesty.
In round III and IV I raised a series of questions. You did not even touch them. Here is a list of them:
1- How can Muhammad’s character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it? You reject his biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example and I mentioned before are all later day fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)" seriously or not?
3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them.
4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said “Be ye apes” (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said “We will get to the scientific accuracy… of the Quran”. Explain this please scientifically.
5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22
6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they can’t read their book. What is your response?
7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the “confederates” mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer.
Edip Yuksel, 19.org
If Muslims are Terrorists, then Jews and Christians are Terrorists to the Power of 666!
The Diabolic Coalition Exposed: Evilgelical Crusaders, Fascist Zionists, and Fanatic Hislamics Are Following Six Steps to Discredit the Quran
The verse 9:5 does not encourage Muslims to attack those who associate partners to God, but to attack those who have violated the peace treaty and killed and terrorized people because of their belief and way of life. The Quran does not promote war; but encourages us to stand against aggressors on the side of peace and justice. War is permitted only for self-defense (See: 2:190,192,193,256; 4:91; 5:32; 60:8-9). We are encouraged to work hard to establish peace (47:35; 8:56-61; 2:208). The Quranic precept promoting peace and justice is so fundamental that peace treaty with the enemy is preferred to religious ties (8:72).
The verse 9:29 is mistranslated by almost every translator. The correct translation of it should be:
"You shall fight (back) against those who do not believe in God, nor in the last day, and they do not prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, and do not abide by the system of truth among those who received the scripture, until they pay the COMPANSATION, in humility."
You have noticed that I inserted a parenthesis since the context of the verse is about the War of Hunain, and fighting is allowed for only self defense. See: 2:190-193, 256; 4:91; and 60:8-9.
Furthermore, note that I suggest COMPENSATION instead of Arabic word Jizya. The meaning of Jizya has been distorted as a perpetual tax on non-Muslims, which was invented long after Muhammad to further the imperialistic agenda of Sultans or Kings. The origin of the word that I translated as Compensation is JaZaYa, which simply means compensation, not tax. Because of their aggression and initiation of a war against muslims and their allies, after the war, the allied community should require their enemies to compensate for the damage they inflicted on the peaceful community. Various derivatives of this word are used in the Quran frequently, and they are translated as COMPANSATION for a particular deed.
Unfortunately, the distortion in the meaning of the verse above and the practice of collecting a special tax from Christians and Jews, contradict the basic principle of the Quran that there should not be compulsion in religion and there should be freedom of belief and expression (2:256; 4:90; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21,22). Since taxation based on religion creates financial duress on people to convert to the previliged religion, it violates this important Quranic principle. Dividing a population that united under a social contract (constitution) into previliged groups based on their religion contradicts many principles of the Quran, including justice, peace, and brotherhood/sisterhood of all humanity.
Some uninformed critics or bigoted enemies of the Quran list verses of the Quran dealing with wars and declare islam to be a religion of violence. Their favorite verses are: 2:191; 3:28; 3:85; 5:10,34; 9:5; 9:28-29; 9:123; 14:17; 22:9; 25: 52; 47:4 and 66:9. In this article, I refuted their argument against 9:29, and I will discuss each of them later.
Some followers of Sunni or Shiite religions, together with their like-minded modern Crusaders, abuse 9:5 or 9:29 by taking them out of their immediate and Quranic context. Sunnis and Shiites follow many stories and instructions falsely attributed to Muhammad that justify terror and aggression. For instance, in a so-called authentic (or authentically fabricated) hadith, after arresting the murderers of his shepherd, the prophet and his companions cut their arms and legs off, gauge their eyes with hot nails and leave them dying from thirst in the dessert, a contradiction to the portrayal of Muhammad's mission in the Quran (21:107; 3:159). In another authentically fabricated hadith, the prophet is claimed to send a gang during night to secretly kill a female poet who criticized him in her poetry, a violation of the teaching of the Quran! (2:256; 4:140; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22). Despite these un-Quranic teachings, the aggressive elements among Sunni or Shiite population have almost always been a minority.
Six Diabolic Steps to Distort and Discredit
The following six steps are cleverly utilized over and over by the enemies of islam, including Christian missionaries, to discredit the Quran. For the 3rd and 4th steps they find great ammunition inside the volumes of hadith and sectarian jurisprudence books. (No wonder they like those books very much). For the 5th and 6th steps they find many allies among Sunni or Shiite versions of Hislamics who are extremely intoxicated by those anti-islamic sectarian teachings. Here are the repeated sixes:
(1) Ignore the fact that the Quran is a self-sufficient, self-explaining and detailed book, and destroy its semantic network by deliberately disconnecting its verses. Take a portion of the Quran and ignore all other verses that explain, supplement or bring limitation to that verse. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(2) Reduce your reference to a smaller portion; take a Quranic verse or part of it out of its immediate context. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(3) Twist the meaning of some words. You may even find a sectarian book or a website that has done that before you. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(4) Refer to the mishmash collection of fabrications called hadith and sunnah; there you will find a treasury of trash to stink an entire city. Claim that the Quran is useless and unintelligible without these sources. Some Hislamic people will be confused by your love of those "holy" teachings! That is a good sign. If you cannot convince, you must confuse… But, your goal is to convert as many as possible. So, find as much as garbage out of the Hislamic sources and introduce it as Islamic. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(5) Pick some examples of Sunni or Shiite idiots or terrorists, from among more than a billion Muslims, and generalize it to all Muslims. Especially, choose your examples from traumatized populations that have been abused and oppressed under the occupation of USA, UK, Israel, or Russia, or under the tyranny of a puppet dictator supported by one of these nations. While doing this, you must entirely ignore all the wars, destructions, massacres, tortures, and terrorist acts committed by the Judeo-Christian forces. If this is not enough to make it ugly or scary, then;
(6) Exchange words of hatred and bigotry with some intoxicated Sunni or Shiite Hislamics. Then go to your church, sing songs about love and Jesus, and do not forget asking forgiveness for your sins. You will start your next day clean and ready to commit more sins. Your Hislamic partner (!) will be waiting for you since they do not have confession sessions. If this is not enough to make it ugly and scary, then you have picked a very wrong verse. Choose another verse from the Quran, and go back and start from step one!
Let's apply it to the Bible: "Jesus and His Disciples were a warmongering gang!"
Almost any big size book can be discredited by this dishonest and deceitful method; any book! By following these steps, I could easily depict Jesus, one of the messengers of peace (islam), as a divider and a trouble maker, rather than a peacemaker. Let's take one example from Bible:
By using the Evilgelical's own methodology of treating the Quran, I came up with a peace-hating, anti-family, troublemaker called Jesus! All I did was to take the verse out of its context. I did not even resort to twisting its words or adding some trash from secondary sources, or giving some examples from crusades, inquisitions, slavery, or irritate and provoke some crazy people among Evilgelical Crusaders.
By using the first two of the six steps, I could claim that the disciple of Jesus were, in fact, a dangerous gang who were planning to shed blood in that peaceful region. They were savages who cut the ears of their opponents:
I could depict Jesus and his disciples as a gang of blood-thirsty troublemakers, by adding verses justifying violence, blood-shed, massacres and tortures from the Old Testament, which was heavily relied by Jesus and his supporters for their mission. I could even reasonably speculate that Jesus and his few followers were planning a huge massacre in the region, but the Roman Empire stopped them before the cult reached to a dangerous number (Luke 21:24);. Knowing that they were provoked prematurely, Jesus reminded Peter:
I could reasonably ask a Christian who claims his religion to be the religion of peace: "You will agree that this event happened in the last days of Jesus. Why then did Jesus never tell his disciples not to carry SWORDS before one of them cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest? Or, do you want us to believe that Peter, who was putting his life at risk by trying to defend Jesus did not give a hoot to the instruction of his leader? Was Peter carrying the sword to peel cucumbers? Obviously, Jesus had seen that his disciple(s) were carrying swords and he did not mind. However, here he knew that tactically using sword would not save them from the Roman army and it would be a futile and premature fight." Perhaps, my argument to depict Jesus as another potential Samson who killed a thousand men with the jaw of an ass (Jg 15:16) would receive cheers from the enemies of Jesus.
To depict Jesus as a rebel who planned a bloody revolution, I could cite Mt 21:12; Mr 11:15; Jo 2:19 and claim that he attacked the temple and destroyed its properties. I might have even continued the attack by quoting him:
However, if I had done this it would be unfair to the teaching of Jesus, one of the messengers of islam (peace and submission to God), delivered by the New Testament. It would be unfair because I would be taking them out of their context. Without even mixing them with the verses of the Old Testament that usually published in the same volume and frequently referred by the New Testament.
Modern Crusaders, Allied with Big Corporations are Orchastrating a Deceptive Propaganda and Misinformation Campaign to Promote their Bloody Cause to Colonize New Lands and Convert More People
Modern Crusaders distort verses of the Quran, exaggerate the deeds of terrorists and even attribute some events motivated by nationalism or other motives to islam. Their propaganda machine never referred to the Serbs as Christian Rapists and Christian Terrorists. Their propaganda machine never referred to the torturer and murderer Zionist occupying forces as Jewish Terrorists, or Jewish Murderers. Their propaganda machine never acknowledge the Christian faith and zeal behind Nazi crimes. But, they frequently associated any act of terrorism to Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, they cleverly managed to depict the freedom seeking victims of brutal occupying forces as agrressors in conflicts such as Chechenya, or Palestine.
They try to depict islam as a violent religion, thereby seeking to justify their own terror, massacres, pre-emptive wars, which are cunningly promoted in a euphemistic language through their propaganda machines. They don't kill and terrorize civilians; they just produce collateral damage and they just perform colorful shows of "shock and awe." They do not torture prisoners; they either interrogate them or turn them to anecdotals. They do not destroy cities; they do surgical and smart operations. They do not occupy others' lands; they liberate them. They do not take revenge; they take justice to their enemies. Thus, media is cleverly used to hypnotize masses and get their support for neo-colonialism. The ruling class in democracies use media to "manifacture concent." In order to plunder the resources of other countries, greedy corporations and their unholy allies replace one dictator after another, create wars and conflicts, undertake covert operations, and if they are bored, they play liberation games for fun and profit, big profit.
Crusaders have directly participated or supported many atrocities and wars in the last millennium; they have killed many more innocent people than their counterpart Sunny or Shiite warmongers. Inquisition, crusades, witch-hunt, World War I and II, holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, Nikaragua, Arjantine, Iraq are just few words in the long list of wars and massacres that are committed or supported by those who call themselves Christians. Nazis used the traditional Christian hatred of Jews as fuel and a twisted Cross (swastika) as the symbol for their racist ambitions. The list of British and American wars, occupations, massacres, slavery, covert operations that were conducted with the approval and support of the Christian church or masses is too long and too gruesome. You can still find many Christians justifying the biggest terrorist attack in the history, the destruction of two big cities with their hundreds of thousands civil population, as a retaliation to the Japanese attack to an American military base. American government has not apologized humanity for this horrific and cowardly act of terror. The mentality of these Crusaders is no different than those of al-Qaida militants who justified the destruction of the World Trade Center as retaliation to the American support for the Israeli's racist policy of occupation, massacres and terror in Palestine.
Evilgelical Christians or Modern Crusaders Use Proxies for their Bloody Cause
Evilgelicalism is a growing radical movement in Christendom, officially known as Evangelical Christians. They are also known as Left-behind Rapture Freaks. Here, we will refer them by mutating several letters in their name so that their name will fit their deeds: Evilgelicals. Yes, Evilgelicals have recently mobilized all their sources to launch a campaign against the Quran in order to convert Muhammad-worshipers to Jesus-worshipers. Though there won't be much difference, since both populations are like identical twins, but the plan is to start a new era of colonialism and slavery through holy Trojan horses.
Bishop Desmond Tutu, the South African civil right leader, once articulated the method of colonialist Evilgelicals in nutshell: “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said: "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
But, Crusaders are no more relying on prayers or the closed eyes of their victims to grab their lands. Many people nowadays are no more closing their eyes while praying, especially when there is a priest around. Since public learned that some priests grab other things besides lands, there is more reluctance to close eyes. So, the priests and their followers have mutated since last century and have transformed to modern Evangelicals.
This new strand of crusaders use all kinds of media for propaganda, combining their mesmerizing effect with the devastating impact of smart and dumb bombs and modern weapons. They call themselves pro-lifers, but they are always for increase in military budgets, they chant "God bless America" whenever USA-Inc invades a country and kills tens of thousands of its population, and they are more likely support capital punishment. Though they claim that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mt 19:24; Mr 10:25; Lu 18:25), in reality they support policies that make rich richer and poor poorer
They no more adhere the highest ethical standars thought by Jesus. To the contrary, for centuries they made a travesty out of it. Before they suck the blood of their victims, they no more use the pain-reducing and sleep-inducing formulas, such as, "right-cheek, left-cheek" or "coat after cloke" (Mt 5:39; Lu 6:29). They claim to bring peace and liberty to barbarians by invading their lands through proxy fighters, such as the armies of corporate-nations. While barbarians terrorize, they do awing and shocking. They destroy their homes, smack their heads, kill their children, torture, rape, and sodomize those they have captured. They further justify their method by comparing their action to the ones committed by the "few thugs" who were ironically their former allies in their preivous operations, and they look adamant to outdo those barbarians in the acts of shedding blood and inflicting pain.
Repeating the Old Habits
In the lands they occupy they kill 666 times more innocent people than their counterpart Hislamic barbarians. They excuse themselves by babtising those dead and mutilated bodies with the holy word "collatoral damage." If one of them or an innocent person is beheaded by Hislamic radicals by sword, they complain from barbaric nature of this and go on killing spree and shatter their heads together with the heads of many collatoral lambs.
Evangelical Christians have last year got a great doze of virtual blood and passion by watching several hours of brutal beating of their idol on the screens. While their mouth uttered peace songs, they dreamed blood and more blood. They drank wine pretending to be the blood of their sacrifical lamb, they ate bread pretending to be the flesh of their idol, but pretence was not satisfying them like actual blood and flesh. They are now determined to direct their anger away from Jews to Arabs. Sucking the blood from Jews is no more feasable since Jews have cleverly taken the top seats almost everywhere. For its unending apetite to suck more semitic blood, this dangerously mutated strand signed a contract with a newly mutated blood-sucking strand of Children of Israil.
Sure, on the other hand, there are many peacemaking Christians who follow the teaching of Jesus in this regard (Matthew 5:9), such as Jehovah Witnesses and Quakers, who have consistently and bravely opposed aggression and unjustified wars. Similarly, among the Jews too there are many peaceful people bravely condemning Israel's fascist policy. Nevertheless, the Old Testament, which is accepted by most Christians as verbatim word of God, is filled with horrific and racist instructions to commit terror, massacres and genocide that cannot be attributed to a Caring and Merciful Lord of all people. It is a great wonder that those Christians and Jews, who take this and few other Quranic verses out of their context in the hopes of misrepresenting the peaceful message of islam, do not see the sword in their own bloody eyes. I do not think that any contextual argument would be able to transform the following blood-sucking beasts to the knights of peace:
Despite their bloody and horrific holy teachings, and despite their practice of colonialism, slavery, discrimination, occupations, destructions, covert operations, productions of weapons of mass destruction, making great profits from production and sales of weapons, plunder of natural resources of earth, terrorizing nations, and massacring poor populations, Modern Crusaders and their allies are successful in portraying one billion Muslims as terrorists and themselves as people of peace and freedom!
Terrorists to the Power of 666!
Why terrorizing an entire nation, destroying their cities, killing, torturing, raping and sadomizing their children and youth in the name of "democracy and liberty" should be treated lightly? Why killing tens of thousands of civilians should be forgiven if the murderers, who are also proven congenial liars, use the magic word "collateral damage?" Why smashing the brains of children with bombs or severing their legs and arms should be considered civilized and treated differently than beheadings? Why destroying an entire neighborhood or city and massacring its population by a push of button from the sky should not be considered equally or more evil than the individual suicide bomber blowing himself or herself among his powerful enemies who snuffed out all their hope? Why surviving to push another button to kill more people should be considered a civilized action not the action of those who gave their own lives while doing the killing? How the smile of a well-fed and well-armed mass murderer be deemed more sympathetic than the pain and anger of a poor person? How can one honestly call an occupying foreign military force to be freedom fighters? How can one call the native population to be terrorists just because they are fighting against an arrogant and lethal occupation army which was mobilized against them through lies and deception? Why the children of poor Americans are used to kill the children of poor countries?
We should not favor one criminal over another because of their religion or nationality. However, state terrorism, regardless of the nationality and religion of the population, is much more cruel, dangerous, and sinister than the group or individual terrorism. In our stand against war, violence, and terrorism we must be consistent and fair. Peacemakers and promoters must also PROTEST and CONDEMN the atrocities conducted by the Evangelical-Zionist coalition in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, etc., as they condemn the atrocities committed by Sunni or Shiite radicals in Afghanistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
So, if Muslims are called terrorists because they killed several thousand civilian people in last decade, Christians and Jews must be called "terrorists to the power of 666" since they killed hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and just recently they killed tens of thousands civilians in Iraqi, and wounded even more.
What is happening dear Edip? Why is it that I feel like talking to an answering machine? You have completely neglected my questions and like all your fellow co-religionists resorted to copy-pasting. What is the relevance of these to our discussion? Where are the answers to my questions?
Now you start with a new topic. That is okay. I will dance along with all your beats. Let us talk about the verse 9:29 in its context.
You claim that all the translators were drunk when translating this verse or did not know proper Arabic but you, who have decided to become the Martin Luther of Islam and have embarked in writing a “reformist” translation of the Quran", can translate it better.
According to Dictionary.com reform means: “To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.”
Can you please tell us by what authority are you trying to “alter, correct the errors or remove the defects” of the Quran? If the Quran is perfect, why it needs to be reformed? Are you claiming to be superior in rank and knowledge to the original author of the Quran? Do you know more than Allah?
Or, are you the new Mahdi?
Since by your own admission, your translation of the Quran is reformist, it is logical to conclude that it is the least accurate of all the existing ones. You are deliberately trying to alter, correct the errors and remove the defects of the Quran according to your understanding and not translate it faithfully. You want to intentionally change the meaning of the Quran to suit your “reformist” agenda. Please tell us, why should we not read the Quran in Arabic directly or in one of its more faithful non-reformist translations and why should we rely on your “reformist” translation which is twisted and altered?
Now let us study the Sura 9. The first 29 verses of this Sura were written by Muhammad a couple of years after he conquered
This Sura is called Bara’at or "declaration of immunity". In this Sura he claimed Allah allowed him to break all his treaties with the Pagans. He gave the pagans four months of grace or immunity to go to their homes and after that they would be fair game for the Muslims. After these four months, they must accept Islam and pay the tithes or they would be hunted wherever they are found and put to death.
As for breaking his oaths, Muhammad had never shown any scruples. He broke his oaths any time it suited him. To justify his own treachery he would often claim that others would break their oaths and hence he is justified to do that preemptively.
“They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah). 8.56
If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.”8.58
This is the typical mindset of the pathological narcissist who projects his own lack of honor on others and then feels justified to avenge for the breach of an agreement that has occurred only in his paranoiac mind.
In this Sura Muhammad said that if one among the pagans asks for asylum it should be granted so he can convert to Islam. Therefore victims of Islam cannot ask for asylum and live their lives freely. They should only be given asylum provided they convert to Islam and pay zakat or become dhimmis and pay jizyah.
In verse 7 he makes a pledge to spare the lives of those who still had not believed in him for a period of four months. In the verse 8 he tries to justify his treachery by blaming the victims and claiming that they would have done the same. But do we have any proof that the pagans ever broke their treaties with Muhammad? None! The history, written by Muslims, only shows that Muhammad was the one who broke all his treaties and yet in every occasion he blamed his victims accusing them of "plotting" and "contemplating" to break the treaties and thus leaving him no option but to breach his treaties and attack them preemptively.
In verses 9 and 10 he accuses the pagans of not respecting even kinship. This is utterly a lie. The pagans loved their own sons and daughters who had fallen prey to the cult of Muhammad. They did not want to kill them and this was their vulnerability and weakness. This gave Muhammad extra power who told his followers that they should shun their own fathers and brothers who do not believe and even kill them.
Today this very dynamism is the cause of the weakness of the civilized world. While the civilized world is unwilling to deal with Muslims harshly and tries to respect their human rights, Muslims have no such twinges and are ready to kill any number of non-Muslims with total ease of mind. `
A good example of that is the Battle of Badr. Abu Sufyan was forewarned of Muhammad’s plan to attack the caravan under his leadership. He asked for help from the Quraish. However he managed to escape by rerouting the caravan. When he reached Mecca he learned that the Quraish had already left to confront Muhammad. He sent an emissary asking them to return. The men of the army debated and many of them returned. But encouraged by Abul Hakam and weary of Muhammad's constant taunts, some of them proceeded forward. Before squaring off with the Muslims, again another group of them, headed by Haakim ibn Hizam, the nephew of Khadija (who supplied food to Muhammad and his party when shut up with Abu Talib a few years earlier) is mentioned as urgent in offering this advice: “When we have fought and spilled the blood of our brethren and our kinsmen,of what use will life be to us any longer? Let us now go back, and we will be responsible for the blood-money of Amr, killed atNakhlah." Amr was killed by Muhammad’s marauding gang a few months earlier and he was the first blood spilt in Islam. Abul Hakam demanded that the army should advance. “If we turn back now” he said, “it will surely be imputed to our cowardice.”
So you can see that despite the fact that Muslims had killed a Meccan, the Meccans still did not want to kill the Muslims for these benighted men were their own sons and brothers and this was really the main cause of their defeat in Badr. They were hesitant to kill their own kin while Muslims had no such compunction.
Interestingly Haakim ibn Hizam was captured in the battle and despite his previous services to Muhammad was ungratefully slain.
Compare the attitude of the Meccans to what Muhammad told his followers about how they should treat their non believing kin. The Quraish, goaded as they were by the repeated attack of their caravans, and the blood shed at Nakhlah, were yet staggered by the prospect of the battle, and nearly persuaded by their better feelings to return toWaqidi (p.89) states that Muhammad led the Muslims in prayers and after rising from his genuflexion, called down the curse of Allah upon the Meccans and prayed: “O Allah! Let not Abu Jahl (Abul Hakam) escape, the Pharaoh of his people! Lord, let not Zamaa escape; rather let the eyes of his father run sore for him with weeping, and become blind!" Muhammad’s hate was unrelenting, and his followers imbibed from him the same inexorable spirit.
A story is told of Abu Hodhaifa, a young Meccan believer who participated in the battle of Badr and his father was in the rank of the Quraish. It is said that when Muhammad instructed his followers to spare Abbas, his own uncle, who was also among the Quraish, Hodhaifa raised his voice, "What? Are we to slay our fathers, brothers, uncles, etc., and to spare Abbas? No, verily, but I will slay him if I find him." Upon hearing this impertinent remark, Omar, in his usual sycophantic gesture of loyalty, unshielded his sword and looked at the Prophet for his signal to behead the ill-mannered youth at once. [Waqidi p. 75]
This threat had immediate effect. A dramatic change happened in the behavior of Hodhaifa and we see him after the battle, a completely subdued and different person. When he found his father slain and his corpse being unceremoniously dragged to be dumped into a well, he was overwhelmed and started crying. “What?” asked Muhammad, “Are you saddened for the death of your father?” “Not so, O Allah’s Prophet!” responded Hodhaifa, “I do not doubt the justice of my father's fate; but I knew well his wise and generous heart, and I had trusted that the Lord would lead him to the faith. But now that I see him slain, and my hope destroyed! ---- it is for that I grieve." This time Muhammad was pleased with his response, comforted Abu Hodhaifa, blessed him; and said, “It is well.” [Waqidi, p. 106; Sira p. 230; Tabari, p. 294]
The displeasure of Muhammad at Hodhaifa’s irreverence in defying his word and the swift reaction of Omar threatening to slay him on the spot, were such powerful stimuli that Hodhaifa immediately changed his demeanor and a day later he even saw the “justice” in his father’s murder. Once Hodhaifa lost his father, in whose killing he had conspired by ganging up with his murderers, then there was no going back for him. He had to justify what he had done and rationalize the slaying of his father. Coming to his senses and facing his own guilty conscience would have been painfully mortifying. He had to continue in the path that he had taken to justify his actions.
As these historic evidences demonstrate, Muslims were the aggressors not the pagans and it was Muhammad who told his followers to hate and kill their own kin and not the other way round. After 9/11 the world was stupefied to see how unabashedly Muslims commit the crime and blame their victims. However this is a sunna set by their prophet. This is the way the Muslim mind works.
But of course since all these historic facts do not conform to your self-made “religion of peace” you prefer to deceive yourself and ease your conscience by denying their validity. Yet what would you say to the following verses of the Quran that confirm the above and the fact that Muhammad told his followers to hate even their own fathers and brothers if they do not believe?
“O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong” 9:23
Muhammad repeatedly instructed his followers not to seek the companionship of the unbelievers 31:15 and even made his imaginary deity say: “It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.” 9:113
Muhammad’s paranoia was so intense that he told his followers “those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile;” 8.72 and he went as far as telling them that if some of the believers return renegades “seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;” 4.89
You have chosen the path of self deception and denial of historic facts. You reject wholesale all the incriminating tales about Muhammad, (yet keeping the ones that are not incriminating) but what do you say to these hate mongering verses of the Quran?
Continuing with Sura Bara’at, verses 11and 12 say that only if the unbelievers convert to Islam they should be taken as brethrens (in faith) but if they decide to exercise freedom of belief they should be fought and restrained. The verse 13 spews more hate and goads the believers to be resolute in their enmity to the unbelievers and the verse 14 makes it clear that the unbelievers should be fought and punished by the hands of the Muslims. This is the verse that OBL and other terrorists use to justify their crimes against humanity. This verse make clear that the punishment for disbelief is no more left to God but rather it should be meted by the Muslims. This answers all the hypocrite apologists of Islam who come to the West and deceitfully try to portray Islam as a religion of peace, claiming that the terrorists are misinterpreting the Quran.
In the verses 17 to 19 Muhammad prohibits the pagans to visit or maintain the grand Mosque of Ka’ba. This is the first time in the history of that temple that religious apartheid is ordained. For thousands of years, the Meccans had allowed the followers of all faiths to come to Ka’ba and worship together their own gods in amity. That changed when Muhammad came to power and inaugurated an era marked by religious bigotry and hate, which has lasted up to this day.
The verses 25 and 26 talk about the defeat of the Muslims in Hunain, despite their great numbers and then their victory, the details of this event is in the Sira and really does not belong to this Sura. How would we know what happened in Hunain and with whom Muslims fought without consulting the Sira? Isn’t this another proof that the Quran without Hadith and Sira is incomprehensible?
Here is the entire Sura Bara’at. The rest of the Sura is called Tauba and it refers to another unrelated event.
Now let us discuss the verse 9:29
- قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ
29). Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Who are you to “suggest” such thing? How can you suggest that one word should mean something else? You obviously have taken the entire Quran as a book of jokes and you allow yourself to “suggest” meanings that are not there.
To justify your twisted translations you wrote:
On what you base such claim? How do you know that Muhammad did not exact Jizyah tax on his subdued victims? The hadith and sira tell us Muhammad levied heavy Jizyah on his victims. We are told that for example in Kheibar he usurped their land and allowed the survivors to stay, provided they work the land and pay 50% of the proceeds to him. You deny all these because they do not validate your fantasies about Muhammad. How can you prove to me that Muhammad did not demand Jizyah and all that was invented by the Sultans or Kings? When I say Muhammad charged Jizyah I quote various books of history written by Muslim scholars. Tell me on what you base your wanton claim? Why should we reject the historians of Islam and accept your fantasies? You want us to throw out all the books of hadith and history because they were written a hundred or two hundred years after Muhammad but you expect us to believe in your words 1400 years later?
The verse 29 starts with قَـتِلُواْ This can only be translated as fight and not fight (back). It is an offensive order and not defensive. It is qatilu notdafeu. The verse goes on to say fight them until they pay الْجِزْيَةَ Jizyah. This word derives from Jaza. It means fine and punishment the plural of that is Mojazat. It does not mean compensation. The correct word for compensation is Mokafat.
Your “Reformist Translation of the Quran” is not translation but “reformation” or in other words misrepresentation of the facts and soft selling of the Quran by twisting the truth.
According to wikipedia.org Jizyah is the Arabic language translation of Poll tax or "head tax", a tax imposed on male individuals of other faiths living under Muslim rule.
Jizyah was applied to every free male member of the People of the Book, non-Muslim communities living in lands under Muslim rule. The jizyah was levied in the time of Prophet Muhammad on vassal tribes under Muslim protection, including Jews in Khaybar, Christians in Najran and Zoroastrians in
Give me one reason why should we reject all these historic facts and explanations and accept your claims? Obviously you want to rewrite the history by reinventing it. And your only sources are your fantasies.
The verse 28 of this sura says:
يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلاَ يَقْرَبُواْ الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـذَا وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَآءَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ
O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikin are impure. So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.)
Can you tell us how are you going to translate this in your “Reformist Translation”? The meaning of this verse is obvious. Please let us see how you twisted it in your version of the Quran.
“Unfortunately, the distortion in the meaning of the verse above and the practice of collecting a special tax from Christians and Jews, contradict the basic principle of the Quran that there should not be compulsion in religion and there should be freedom of belief and expression (2:256; 4:90; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21,22). Since taxation based on religion creates financial duress on people to convert to the previliged religion, it violates this important Quranic principle. Dividing a population that united under a social contract (constitution) into previliged groups based on their religion contradicts many principles of the Quran, including justice, peace, and brotherhood/sisterhood of all humanity.”
, “be patient with what they say” 20:103 , 73:10 , and preached about the virtues of Abel saying to Cain: “If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds” 5:28, when he went to ; ” , “Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him" , “Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them” , “ , “rouse the Believers to the fight” 8:65,“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies". 8:60 .
, 73:10 , and preached about the virtues of Abel saying to Cain: “If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds” 5:28, when he went to ; ” , “Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him" , “Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them” , “ , “rouse the Believers to the fight” 8:65,“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies". 8:60 .
, and preached about the virtues of Abel saying to Cain: “If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds” 5:28, when he went to
;“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.
, “Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him"
, “Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them”66:9
, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” 47:4
, “rouse the Believers to the fight” 8:65,“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies". 8:60 .
"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are STRONG and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory "[Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.]
According to Dr. Khan in 9:5 Allah ordered Muhammad to cancel all covenants and to fight the pagans, the Jews even the Christians. This is in contrast to what Muhammad wrote earlier.
The "Mujahideen who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (alone and not for any other deity) and that the word is Allah's (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be upper most."
So first it was “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:265) and then
“The command to fight the infidels was DELAYED UNTIL THE MUSLIMS BECOME STRONG, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient. [ Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen,
Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said:
"Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims."[ibid p. 270]
And Nahas writes:
"the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. (There is no compulsion if religion) Some said: 'It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q. 9:73 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them.' Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of authority."[ al-Nahas, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p.80. See also Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, A-Nnasikh wal-Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, p.42.]
Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi writes:
"Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)" On the authority of Ga'far ar-Razi from Rabi' Ibn 'Ons, from 'Abil-'Aliyah who said: This is the first verse that was revealed in the Qur'an about fighting in the Madina. When it was revealed the prophet used to fight those who fight with him and avoid those who avoid him, until Sura 9 was revealed. And so is the opinion of 'Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam who said this verse was cancelled by 9:5 "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them"[ bn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, P.27]
6) In point 6 again you are attacking the Christians and their conducts. Even if your accusations are proven to be true, how with this, you can justify the crimes of Muhammad or the violence and absurdities of the Quran?
Round VI -17
|Apostasy is not what gets one killed. It's a combination of being controversial and having a high profile.|
Now if what you presented was not couched in so much hatred - and what you have written above is evidence of your single minded hatred of all Islam - because you make it patently clear regarding your disrespect for the common holy text of all Muslims - then you might be able to do what you do and not be so controversial.
However your post above is enough to convince me that you are absolute in your hatred and that your posts about love and mending are hollow.
Most people give you the benefit of the doubt and wish you guidance but I have an altogether different prayer in relation to you Ali -
O Lord, you have given Ali Sina and his followers freedom of speech and action in this world. O Lord, they only use them to repulse others from Your path. O Lord, wipe out their actions, and harden their hearts to prevent them from believing, until they see the painful retribution.”
|"Exposing" or more accurately unveiling the identity or whereabouts of a person who is out there not to create a personal cult, but to debate important theological issues with great political and social ramification is irrelevant.|
But, it is more than irrelevant, it is irresponsi
So, I condemn the acts of those who want to indulge in detective or police work, rather than intellectual debate.
If I want freedom and security for myself, I have to want the same thing for others, including my enemies who are not in act and mindset of physical hostility. To do the opposite is hypocricy.
I believe that Ali Sina's voice, regardless of its truth-value, is precious and should be protected. We cannot find truth without people like Ali Sina.
Personally, I do not care a bit, whether Evilgelical organizations, Zionist organizations, CIA, or any other power pays or uses Ali Sina. To me, it is not relevant and important, since Ali Sina is raising important issues, and voicing important problems with a religion that is followed by more than a billion people.
We are all brothers and sisters from Adam and Eve. We cannot be muslims (submitters to God alone, and men of peace) if we do not act like humans. To be a human, and care about the life of every single human being is a prerequisite of being a muslim. I have no connection with those who ignore and violate this sacred bond among human beings, a bond that was established by our Lord and Creator in the moment and fabric of our creation.
I want people read my position, which I argue with passion that it is also the position of the Quran, regarding the freedom of faith, opinion, philosophy, etc, and their expression.
Round VI -18
|Apology to Mirror of Truth:|
Without knowing the real nature of your so-called "exposition", I reacted immediately and condemned your action with strong language. When I first read the reactions of others, I thought that you had indeed announced a privately held information about Ali Sina and thus endangered his safety and security.
However, now, I learn that what you posted was available for public. If it is the case, which now it seems that it is the case, then you did nothing wrong, and I apologize for condemning that action.
Though your posting did nothing to endanger the life of Ali Sina, since it was himself who publicized that fake yet revealing address in the first place, I still believe that it was an irrelevant posting. You gave an excuse to some trolls who took advantage of your posting and twisted and depicted it differently. They created a storm in an empty tea spoon. I am learning more about the nature of this site and its fanatic supporters and actors. They are just making too much noise...
"Verily, those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief - never will their repentance be accepted [because they repent only by their tongues and not from their hearts]. And they are those who are astray.
Round VI -19
Edip also wrote:
Ali Sina, by acknowledging today that he is open to make alliance with ANY group against Hislam and islam, did not surprise me. Just by looking at the position of his supporters one must be stupid not to understand where he is standing.
|Muslims in Fallujah grabbed the foreigners, savagely murdered them and burned their remains. This was performed by the general population. .|
|A Hindu being beaten by Muslims in a mosque in Bangladesh. He was captured outside the mosque while going home. After Friday prayers were over, the Muslims came out and grabbed the first Hindu they could. Mr. Vimal Patak a Bangladeshi born Hindu was beaten to death with sticks as the Muslim mullas (priests) chanted "kill the Kafir!" (non-muslim). With folded hands he begged for his life and died a brutal death. It clearly show the cruelty of Islam.|
|Palestinians accused of being informers are executed with no trial and their corpses dragged in the streets.|
Round VI -20
I see the role of FFI as a catalyst or a peacemaker. This is a time that we humans must put aside our differences and come together to fight Islam. This anti human ideology of hate, this last bastion of evil, this great menace to the survival of humanity must be defeated or we all lose our humanity.
The job of FFI is twofold. One is to educate the humans and make them see the gravity of time. Make them aware of the danger that is hovering over their heads and make them realize that their only hope for survival is to stick together and fight their common enemy. The debate about whose religion is better must cease. The finger pointing and fault finding must end. Today we all must jointly face our enemy and destroy it before it can destroy us.
Our other task is to rescue the humans among the Muslims and make them enter into the fold of humanity. The majority of Muslims are salvageable. The majority of them are humans just like the rest of us. They abhor killing and violence. Their hearts are filled with love for the rest of the people. They are just like us. They ARE us. These are the people we have to reach and rescue. Time is of the essence and we can't afford waiting for another day. Everyone must do his or her share and everyone must reach out to these good people caught in the claws of Islam and set them free. Those who still cling to Islam and cherish these savageries, who rejoice when they hear their brothers have murdered innocent people are not humans. They are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. They are the enemies of mankind. They must be stopped. They must be dealt with the way Quran says unbelievers should be dealt with.
Interestingly when I wrote this, the same Submitter who thought I should be killed because what I say about Islam is controversial highlighted my words in red and wrote the following:
Isn't this an admission that Quran's treatment of the non-Muslims is inhumane and barbaric? all I said is to treat Muslims the way the Quran says the kafirs should be treated and this Muslim was noticeably upset. He highlighted my words to show how heartless and hypocrite I am. Doesn't this prove that Muslims know very well that the treatment of the kafirs according to the Quran is barbaric and unjust? Doesn't this prove that they lie when they say Quran is just? Do we need more proof? The same person added:
Of course I detest the way non believers are treated in Islam. Oddly, this Muslim see is too. However isn't the Quran responsible for this inhumane treatment? We already quoted so many verses from the Quran that talks about the slaying of the unbelievers. The verse 9:29 that we read in Sura Bara't establishes the way the Christians and Jews or the so called people of the Book should be treated. It says .
"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued".
I would like to pose this question to Edip. Do you agree with your friend that the treatment of the dhimmis in Islam is wrong and dhimitude must be eliminated? Do you agree that the verse 9:29 is unjust?
Edip Yuksel continued writing about me:
All I am asking is that Muslims in non-Muslim countries be dealt with according to their own holy book. You say this is justifying atrocities, terror, murder, deception based on religion. You say by advocating the Islamic tenets I have no integrity and have lost my claim of being a humanist. If you truly believe this is the case why you defend this book? Why you think non-Muslims should be subjected to these inhumane teachings? Your fellow Submitter protested:
No, I am neither confused nor a liar. I want Muslims to have a taste of the same medicine they prescribe for others. This Muslim is of the opinion that dealing with Muslims the way his prophet says non-Muslims should be treated is "tit-for-tat" and a position of the "church of Satan". He says the "The Golden Rule is rather - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Isn't that something? He is fully aware that the way Islam treats others is utterly inhumane and satanic.
When I read the Quran and learned about these barbarities I could no more accept Muhammad as prophet of God. I denounced him as an impostor and set out to expose the deception of Islam. I thought if I don't want to be treated like a kafir or a dhimmi then I don't want to be a Muslim. Our Muslim friend also does not want to be treated like a kafir or a dhimmi, but instead of denouncing this sick ideology of hate and apartheid, instead of following the Golden Rule, he is asking the non-Muslims to live by the Golden Rule and treat Muslims they way they want to be treated while as a Muslim he is pushing the violent and discriminatory Quranic agenda.
This is the problem with Islam and Muslims. They demand that you treat them the way you want to be treated and live by the Golden Rule but they do not see themselves bound by the same rules. They feel that by virtue of having embraced the "religion of truth", they are the master race and hence entitled to treat you like animal, slay you, subdue you, rape your women, enslave you and reduce you into dhimitude. It is utterly shocking that a true Muslim feels no compunction in doing all that. To assume that Muslims have human thoughts and emotions is a gross mistake. They are simply bereft of human feelings. If they are true Muslims they rejoice and celebrate when they hear the news of your death. Spiritually Muslims are so much underdeveloped that you could say they belong another species..
The mind of Muslims reflect the mind of their prophet and Muhammad being a pathological narcissist, genuinely believed that he is entitled to special treatment. His followers evince the same pathology. Muslims truly believe that it is their right to come to the West, to use the benefits offered to them, take advantage of all the bounties provided to them thanks to their tax-paying hosts and return nothing in exchange. There is not a single Muslim who would question the absurdity of the fact that non-Muslims are not allowed to practice or preach their faith in Islamic countries. If you ask them why non-Muslims cannot visit Mecca or Medina, they look at you as if you have asked the most absurd question. Muslims treat non-Muslims with disdain but they expect to be received with utmost respect and even preferentially and they feel no compunction in that. You can never win the hearts and minds of Muslims by being kind to them. They consider your kindness and generosity as their right and your duty.
No my respected and erudite friend Edip! You are mistaken. I do have integrity and that is why I am an not a Muslim. I merely say deal with Muslims the way Quran prescribes the non-believers should be dealt with. Why are you so concerned about this? Don't you believe in the justice of the Quran? Don't you think the Quran is merciful?
I am not an evangelical crusader. I am a human, fighting for the human cause. I see all humans as as my brothers and sisters. But if someone thinks I must die for what I say, I will have to defend myself. Between Theo Van Gogh and his assassin Mohammed Bouyeri, I choose Theo Van Gogh.
Van Gogh was butchered because a subhuman fellow coreligionist of yours believed in the very book you call "miracle". He did what that psychopath you call prophet told him to do.
This man and many more are beheaded because some of your subhuman coreligionists believe in this verse:
8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.
Why? Don't you think non-Muslims should start applying these wonderful teachings on Muslims? So please stop this game of deception. Come back to the fold of humanity, denounce the Quran and the savagery that it teaches. This is a satanic book. If you don't want to be treated the way Quran says non-Muslims should be treated, why you follow this book? Abraham Lincoln said: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master". Abraham Lincoln was a good man. He understood the Golden Rule and he lived by it. Are you capable of doing the same?
Round VII -21
Edip Yuksel writes in colored boxes
Ali Sina in blank page
You wrote a book quoting all those details about the life of Muhammad and you say that was a trap for me? In that case this trap probably was misplaced because it looked like you fell on it yourself.
The message of Islam is not self evident. For example Daoism is self evident, because Dao is the natural way – the way things are, the way things happen. You don’t have to be indoctrinated to understand Dao. All you need to do is to observe and see how winds blow, how sun rises and sets, how rain falls, how flowers blossom, how children learn to smile, how people get sick and die, etc. Anyone can discover the Dao on his/her own. You may need a coach but not indoctrination. Islam, like all other monotheistic religions is not that way. It has a set of rules and principles that you on your own can’t know unless someone tells you. This is precisely the role of the messenger. He is allegedly the one who brings a message to mankind and unless you don’t follow his instructions you can’t know the right way or what God wants from you. That is not the case with Daoism where there are no messengers and you are basically a guide unto your own. So, you don’t have to know anything about Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi or any of the masters of Dao to become a master yourself. Daoism is an art of living. Just like music, you can become a master musician without ever having heard of Mozart or Beethoven.
Islam is not that way. You can’t master Islam if you don’t know what the Quran says. Despite the comical claim of its adherents who say everyone is born Muslim, Islam does not come natural to us. We must be indoctrinated in it. The very concept of monotheism is not natural to humans. It is indoctrination and conditioning. Although for Muslims, born and brainwashed since infancy in Islam, monotheism seems to be the most logical and self-evident fact, it really is not. Many people are not theists and many of them are polytheists. The concept of monotheism is relatively new and it dates back to Akhenaton, a pharaoh who lived in 14th Century BC.
The very fact that monotheist religions are prophet based, is proof that they are not natural or self evident. You must believe in those prophets and follow their teachings and you are not allowed to change an iota of what they say. This is not the case with natural “religions”. For example in Buddhism you are encouraged to question anything. You must love more the art than the teacher. The motto of Buddhism is: "if you meet Buddha, kill him".
Round VII -22
In Islam everything hinges on Muhammad. Muhammad claimed to have “sublime morals” 68:4 and ordered his followers to emulate his “good example” 33:21 because, as he claimed, he is “as a lamp spreading light”33:46. While in Buddhism the practitioner must rely on his/her own understanding, in Islam the believer must stop reasoning and submit his understanding to what Muhammad said. No contradiction is allowed or tolerated.
The message of Islam is not also logical. You can’t arrive at it throughinduction or deduction, such as postulating assumptions and axioms and sequentially deriving a conclusion. It is a belief system. It boils down to the fact that Muhammad stated his claim and demanded people to believe. No logical argument or proof was ever given. Whenever people asked for proof, he called them:
“Deaf, dumb and blind” 2:18, 2:171 or “Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.” 2:7, 4:155, 6:46, 7:101,
These are called logical fallacies. They are argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad baculum. He either insulted his opponents calling them blind and deaf with no understanding or threatened them with hellfire. Muslims keep rehashing the same logical fallacies ever since. But there is not a single logical argument presented in the Quran to convince us that Muhammad was indeed a messenger of God.
Therefore, since Muhammad presented no proof to back up his claim all we have are his words and his credibility as an honest or sane person. The sanity of Muhammad, his character and truthfulness are central to his claim. As we discussed this before, we do not question the credibility of a mailman when he hands us a sealed envelope that has not been tampered. But if someone brings you a verbal message you want to know how credible is this person, especially when you see he stands to benefit immensely from that message. If someone comes to your door and claims to have a warrant to search your house you want to see that warrant. His words are not enough. Muhammad not only did not produce any warrant, he actually convinced the inhabitants of the house to become his slaves, to worship him and to submit to his demands. In exchanged he promised them a bogus reward after death and threatened them of the consequences if they question him. What if he was an impostor? Imagine the embarrassment and the loss.
You say Muhammad and his life have no bearing on the message of “salvation” that he delivered. What was this message of salvation? The only message that Muhammad gave is “BELIEVE IN ME”. That is in nutshell all what Muhammad said. He wanted people to believe in him. That is the message. Basically Muhammad IS the message. Of course he had to present himself as the mouthpiece of a very powerful and tyrannical deity to instill fear in people and manipulate them. God was a tool by which he could manipulate people and make them do anything including killing their own fathers.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, a psychologist and an expert in narcissism writes: http://samvak.tripod.com/journal45.html
“God is everything the narcissist ever wants to be: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, admired, much discussed, and awe inspiring. God is the narcissist's wet dream, his ultimate grandiose fantasy. But God comes handy in other ways as well.
The narcissist alternately idealizes and devalues figures of authority.
In the idealization phase, he strives to emulate them, he admires them, imitate them (often ludicrously), and defends them. They cannot go wrong, or be wrong. The narcissist regards them as bigger than life, infallible, perfect, whole, and brilliant. But as the narcissist's unrealistic and inflated expectations are inevitably frustrated, he begins to devalue his former idols.”
The idols of Muhammad were the Biblical prophets. In his quest to become godlike, he tried to impersonate the prophets of the Jews and Christians. But when the followers of these prophets rejected him, he became vengeful, changed the Qibla and went on a killing spree of the Jews and Christians. Of course he could not disparage Moses and Jesus. That would have given away his plot. So instead he decried their scriptures claiming they are corrupt. Furthermore we can see Muhammad’s problem with authorities in
“Now they are "human" (to the narcissist, a derogatory term). They are small, fragile, error-prone, pusillanimous, mean, dumb, and mediocre. The narcissist goes through the same cycle in his relationship with God, the quintessential authority figure.
But often, even when disillusionment and iconoclastic despair have set in -the narcissist continues to pretend to love God and follow Him. The narcissist maintains this deception because his continued proximity to God confers on him authority. Priests, leaders of the congregation, preachers, evangelists, cultists, politicians, intellectuals - all derive authority from their allegedly privileged relationship with God.
Religious authority allows the narcissist to indulge his sadistic urges and to exercise his misogyny freely and openly. Such a narcissist is likely to taunt and torment his followers, hector and chastise them, humiliate and berate them, abuse them spiritually, or even sexually. The narcissist whose source of authority is religious is looking for obedient and unquestioning slaves upon whom to exercise his capricious and wicked mastery. The narcissist transforms even the most innocuous and pure religious sentiments into a cultish ritual and a virulent hierarchy. He preys on the gullible. His flock becomes his hostages.
Religious authority also secures the narcissist's Narcissistic Supply. His coreligionists, members of his congregation, his parish, his constituency, his audience - are transformed into loyal and stable Sources of Narcissistic Supply. They obey his commands, heed his admonitions, follow his creed, admire his personality, applaud his personal traits, satisfy his needs (sometimes even his carnal desires), revere and idolize him.
Moreover, being a part of a "bigger thing" is very gratifying narcissistically. Being a particle of God, being immersed in His grandeur, experiencing His power and blessings first hand, communing with him - are all Sources of unending Narcissistic Supply. The narcissist becomes God by observing His commandments, following His instructions, loving Him, obeying Him, succumbing to Him, merging with Him, communicating with Him - or even by defying him (the bigger the narcissist's enemy - the more grandiosely important the narcissist feels).
Like everything else in the narcissist's life, he mutates God into a kind of inverted narcissist. God becomes his dominant Source of Supply. He forms a personal relationship with this overwhelming and overpowering entity - in order to overwhelm and overpower others. He becomes God vicariously, by the proxy of his relationship with Him. He idealizes God, then devalues Him, then abuses Him. This is the classic narcissistic pattern and even God himself cannot escape it.’
The above perfectly explains the phenomenon of Muhammad. Vaknin says:http://www.toddlertime.com/sam/47.htm
The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of "being chosen" or of "having a destiny". He believes that he has a "direct line" to God, even, perversely, that God "serves" him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.
Round VII -23
From this mental junction, the way is short to entertaining the delusion that God (or the equivalent institutional authority) is an active participant in the narcissist's life in which constant intervention by Him is a key feature. God is subsumed in a larger picture, that of the narcissist's destiny and mission. God serves this cosmic plan by making it possible. Indirectly, therefore, God is perceived by the narcissist to be at his service. Moreover, in a process of holographic appropriation, the narcissist views himself as a microcosm of his frame of affiliation, of his group, or his frame of reference. A narcissist is likely to say that he IS the army, the nation, the people, the struggle, history, or (a part of) God. As opposed to healthier people, the narcissist is not talking about representation. He is talking about the embodiment of his class, his people, his race, history, his God, his art – or anything else he feels a part of. This is why individual narcissists feel completely comfortable to play parts usually reserved to groups of people or to some transcendental, divine (or other), authority. It also sits well with the narcissist's all-pervasive feelings of omnipotence and omniscience. In playing God, for instance, the narcissist is completely convinced that he is playing himself. The narcissist does not hesitate to put people's lives or fortunes at risk. He preserves his sense of infallibility in the face of his mistakes and misjudgments by distorting the facts, by evoking mitigating or attenuating circumstances, by repressing memories, or by simply lying.”
As we can see, all these traits were present in Muhammad. So it is logical to conclude that if Muhammad was not a prophet, he was probably a pathological narcissist. Apart from thinking to be the anointed messenger of God, he called himself Khayru-l-Khalq "Best of Creation" and claimed to be exalted above other prophets in degrees (2:253); to be the preferred one (17:55); to have been sent as a “Mercy to the worlds” (21:107); to have been risen “to a praised estate” (17:79) a station which he said none but he would receive and this is "the Station of Intercession at the right of the Glorious Throne". In other words he would be the person whom God will consult in the Day of Judgment to decide who should go to Hell and who should be admitted to
But when you look at the essence of the message itself you find nothing. There is no message. The message is to believe in him and accept him as the best of creation, obey him and love him. The message is "submission". So when you say it is possible to believe in the message of “salvation” of Islam without any regards to the messenger, can you explain what that message is?
You also stated that the corrupt rulers had many reasons to fabricate lies about Muhammad’s personal life. Although it is true that various schools of thought fabricated many hadiths to support their position, it is unreasonable to believe all the hadiths were fabricated. If so what happened to the real history of Muhammad? Why no one reported his life accurately? And what was the gain in portraying Muhammad as a pedophile, a rapist, a lecher, an assassin or a mass murderer? Can you even imagine that such thing could happen today? Is it possible, for example, that the gay Muslims fabricate hadiths portraying Muhammad as a gay man just to justify their position? Such excuse is certainly not logical. Was the entire umma stupid for letting this kind of highjacking of their religion happen under their nose? The only logical conclusion is that Muhammad did really commit all those atrocities and crimes. I agree that if a hadith is utterly contrary to the Quran, it should be suspected. For example the Quran denies that Muhammad performed any miracles, so all the haidths that claim Muhammad performed miracles are fabricated. It is also understandable why people would fabricate such hadiths. But if a hadith is confirmed in the Quran, there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. For example in previous round I quoted a hadith about Muhammad raiding towns. Is this haidth fabricated? No, because it is confirmed in the Quran by verse 7:4 . Or in other hadiths we read that Muhammad killed and enslaved people including the people of the Book. Are these all fabricated? No, because we find Quranic verses that confirm them:
33.26 And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners. 27. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.
33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:61. They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
62. (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
Sira and haidth tell us these verses refer to the massacre of the Bani Quraiza and the enslavement of their wives and children, who lived in a suburb of
There are hadiths that say Muhammad cut and burned trees. One such incident happened when he laid siege on Taif and the other when he declared war on Bani Nadir. In the case of Bani Nadir they agreed to surrender and leave town carrying with them whatever they could carry on their camels. We can’t deny these hadiths because they are confirmed in the Quran:
59.2 It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!3. And had it not been that Allah had decreed banishment for them, He would certainly have punished them in this world: And in the Hereafter they shall (certainly) have the Punishment of the Fire.4. That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if any one resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in Punishment.5. Whether ye cut down the tender palm-trees, or ye left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgresses.
There are many more examples and I will refer to them as we go on. I think these should suffice to prove that Muhammad was a ruthless man. This can be shown from the Quran itself. However, it is obvious that when one writes a book about himself he tries to justify all his actions and crimes. From the above verses we can see Muhammad is trying to explain his horrendous and treacherous actions for those of his followers who still could not reconcile their blind faith with their conscience. He gloats over the fact that the poor Jews were subdued and were exiled. In their rage they destroyed their houses behind them, carrying the wooden lintels. The Sira tells us that Muhammad wanted to massacre them and Abdullah Ibn Ubay, a chief of an Arab tribe of Yathrib intervened and did not let go of Muhammad’s arms until he relented. The confirmation of that is in verse 3 (above) where he reveals his original intention to “punish them in this world”. Verse 4 makes it clear that these poor people did not wage any war against Muhammad. Their crime was to “resist Allah and His Messenger”. That is exactly the crime all of mankind is guilty of and that is why the terrorists think it is right to kill the kafir. The terrorists are atatcking us not because what America, Israel or any other country did to the Muslims. They are just killing us becasue we resist submitting to their religion. Verse 5 is a confirmation of the fact that Muhammad cut down tender palm trees.
Round VII -24
I did not ignore your argument. But do not buy it. They are ratified in the Quran. Blaming the Jews for fabricating these hadiths is indeed very Islamic. Muslims blame even the 9/11 on the Jews. Dr. Mahathir, the ex Prime Minister of Malaysia thought that 12 million Jews control the rest of mankind and rule over 1.2 billion Muslims by proxy. Only Muslims are so paranoid that they can indulge in these kinds of fantasies. It would have been impossible for the Jews who were banished and massacred to have taken control of the Islamic academia and have written all those incriminatory hadiths without any Muslim ever noticing the plot. Even if they could have done such thing through an undisclosed technique of mind control, I see no gain for the Jews and the Christians to fabricate hadiths that would make them more vulnerable to Islamic violence. It would have made more sense if they fabricated hadiths saying Muhammad said respect, love and serve the Jews and never hurt them. It is just ludicrous to think that Jews entered in the house of every Muslim who had a book of history and replaced it with a fabricated one without any Muslim noticing it. If Jews are capable of that may be you should worship them. They certainly seem to be more powerful than Muhammad, for having hijacked his religion without any bloodshed and without anyone noticing.
You are right. Stoning is based on hadith (1, 2, 3). The punishment of stoning is not prescribed in the Quran. But can we discard it altogether?
Stoning the adulterers is a law ordained in Deuteronomy 22:23. What Muhammad said about this Book? He said:
”And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: And this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.
Elsewhere he said:
21:7 And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. Ask the followers of the Reminder if ye know not?
Muslim scholars, therefore, instructed by these verses, use Judaic laws wherever Islamic laws are not clear. Muhammad acknowledged that Moses was inspired and that the Quran confirms the Torah. Therefore even if you deny the Sunna still the Judaic law is to be applied.
Now, you may say this is a misunderstanding of the ulama. That does not seem to be the case but if so, the fault is with the Quran for not being clear on this mater and for telling Muslims that the Quran is a confirmation of that book without explicitly saying which parts of the Torah is abrogated. So if Muslims are misled, Muhammad is responsible.
Okay, so please give us the reasons for which you believe in Muhammad.
Round VII -25
I believe we already discussed this point. Yes people had heard many stories about Abraham and when Muhammad says he was a good example, they could relate to it. Abraham was famous through Old and New Testaments, Jewish sources, Christian sources etc. Many of these sources found their way in the Quran, e.g. the story of Abraham's dad being an idol maker and of Abraham smashing the idols come from preexisting Jewish sources. But, where do we find Muhammad's example set forth in the way that Abraham's example had been committed to writing? The Quran vaguely mentions him. It only says he is a good example to follow but no details. Why is he a good example?
As I said before, if someone says be like Job, we all know he means be patient in adversities. But if I tell you be like Jose, you have no clue what I am talking about because you don’t know what Jose did. We surly cannot follow the example of Muhammad as instructed by verse 33:21 without knowing anything about him.
Now let us think about it. Suppose you are a detective investigating a crime. You approach someone who is uncooperative, evasive and refuses to answer certain questions. Doesn’t this immediately raise the red flag that he is hiding something? The very fact that the submitters insist that no one should bring up any of the incriminatory tales of their prophet and do all mental gymnastics to avoid them, is proof enough that there is something they are hiding.
This Book (the Quran) was written by somebody. Who was that body? It claims to be a book of salvation and morality and demands us to follow the example of its author. It is very much different from a book written on science. I can study a book of mathematics, geometry, chemistry or computer and do not need to know anything about its author. The difference is that I am not submitting my intelligence and will to someone else. I am not required to believe anything. Everything is explained to me and I can verify them on my own. But in the case of a religion such as Islam you are asked to submit your intelligence and believe in one who claims to be the mouthpiece of God. It is important to verify whether he is a liar or a truthful person. If I claim to be a prophet, would you believe? Why not? What proof should I give you to convince you that I am a prophet? What if I am a psychopath, promising you the moon and taking you to hell? It would be foolish to follow me without verifying my claim and my character.
You say the character of Muhammad is absolutely irrelevant and you are not even willing to discuss it. This very attitude is indication that you are hiding something. Why the Christians don’t mind to talk about their prophet? They have obviously nothing to hide. Of course I believe Jesus is a mythological personage. Nonetheless, he is a saintly figure. So why are you so embarrassed to talk about Muhammad? You say let us examine his claim only. That is fine. Let us do that. Can you tell us what makes you believe that he was a prophet of God and not a messenger of Satan, for example?
Well as I quoted above, he actually did claim to be exalted above other prophets in degrees (2:253); and a “Mercy to the worlds” (21:107). These contradictions can be easily explained when you see him as a pathological narcissist.
The narcissist flaunts his virtues such as hi humility or his generosity as bait. He impresses others with his selflessness and virtues and thus lures them into his lair, entraps them, and manipulates and brainwashes them into subservient compliance and obsequious collaboration.
Furthermore you are forgetting that Muhammad of Mecca and Muhammad of Medina were two different persons. In
Round VII -26
I asked you to explain sure 111 and 38:41-44 without hadith and you wrote:
Let us compare the above translations (which are already different among each other) with Shakir’s
38:41 And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment.
42. Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink.
43. And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding.
44. And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent in returning (to Allah).
Compare the verse 44 in both translations. They are certainly not the same. Which one is correct? Let us see the Arabic version.
وَخُذْ بِيَدِكَ ضِغْثًا فَاضْرِب بِّهِ وَلَا تَحْنَثْ إِنَّا وَجَدْنَاهُ صَابِرًا نِعْمَ الْعَبْدُ إِنَّهُ أَوَّابٌ
If you understand Arabic a little you certainly can see that Shakir is accurate and Khalifa is completely off the mark.
However the story is not clear at all. Why it is not clear? It is because it was Muhammad’s habit to ALLUDE to the stories that everyone knew passingly without giving any details. If I tell you the emperor is nude you know what I am talking about because you know the story of the emperor and his invisible mantle. But if you had never heard that story, you would not understand what I am talking about. Everyone knew about the story of Job. Job was a saintly man described in the Bible. Muhammad erroneously thought he was a prophet. The tale of his suffering was known to the Arabs as it is known to us.
As for the verse 44 Ibn Khatir in his commentary explains:
“(And take in your hand a bundle of thin grass and strike therewith (your wife), and break not your oath.) Ayyub, peace be upon him, got angry with his wife and was upset about something she had done, so he swore an oath that if Allah healed him, he would strike her with one hundred blows.”
This is really the context of that verse. Of course ضِغ means fresh bouncy brunch. This is much more painful than the rigid branch. Ibn Khatir is playing apologist by translating it as thin grass. Without knowing this context, it is not possible to know what the oath was, who should be beaten and why. In fact the entire story remains an enigma. Obviously Rashid Khalifa did not know this background and not properly understanding the meaning of that verse he made up some thing that still makes no sense. That is why you need the Tafseer and the sha’ne nozool and can't dispense the hadith.
This is already discussed and you are not adding anything new to the discussion. I see you are quoting from that "distorted" book of Bible. Obviously you have no problem using any "fabricated fairytale" as long as it suits your argument. Please know that when I quote the hadith or the Bible I am doing with the same spirit.
The Quranic verses are not making a comparison of Jews with apes. They are saying "be ye apes" and "they were transformed into apes". All one needs is to understand English or if you like Arabic, to see there is no allegory here.
Round VII -27
Obviously many Muslims realized this is plain nonsense and did their best to explain it off, but the text is clear. The metaphor of ass carrying book is a clear metaphor and the verse saying Jews were transformed into apes and swine are clearly not metaphors. Expression “like an ape” is used in all languages and it is clearly a derogatory comparison but saying they were transformed into apes is a different thing.
No I certainly did not miss your statement. Nonetheless I quoted the verse2:78 were Muhammad calls the Jews ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ. Are you telling me that Muhammad thought that Jews were gentiles?
Round VII -28
Let us discuss this word in detail.
Muslims call themselves Ummah. This word is of the same root of Ummi. Ummi is how Muhammad referred to himself and it means unlettered, unschooled, uneducated.
Therefore Ummah means the community of the unlettered followers. In the case of Muhammad this implied that his knowledge was of a divine source. However that distinction does not apply to the Ummah. Hence Ummah, by definition means the ignorant mass of believers.
The verse 3:20 reads:
وَقُل لِّلَّذِينَ أُوْتُواْ الْكِتَابَ وَالأُمِّيِّينَ أَأَسْلَمْتُمْ
And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned:(Ummiyeen) "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?"
Here the word Ummiyeen الأُمِّيِّينَ which is the plural of Ummi is translates as:
Yusuf Ali: those who are unlearned:
Pickthal: those who read not
Shakir: the unlearned people
Let us take another verse (Imran 3:75):
قَالُواْ لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا فِي الأُمِّيِّينَ سَبِيلٌ
"They say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans).(Ummiyeen)"
Yusuf Ali translates this word in this verse as ignorant.
Pickthal translates it as Gentiles.
And Shakir translates the word as unlearned people.
The noun "gentile" is generally applied to an individual who is ignorant of the Scriptures. In English the synonym for "gentile" is "pagan".
Historically, the term gentile was used by the governing Romans for the non-Romans (foreigners); it was adopted by the Jews to denote the non-Jews; in turn the Christians used it for the Pagans. In the Qur'an the term al-Ummiyeen, is generally translated as "the Unlettered folks". The verse 62:2 reads,
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ
Yusuf Ali translates this thus:
"It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves,"
And in his commentary he writes: "The Unlettered: as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book..."
وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَابَ
And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book,
The root of Ummi is "Um" (mother). A literal translation of that into English would be “Natural”, although the two words have taken different meanings in time. Etymologically, Ummi is the natural state of being ignorant and unlearned, as when born by mother.
So Ummah is the uneducated and unlettered mass of people who are ignorant of the scriptures and hence unable to find their way. The Ummah is in constant need of guidance. Imam, also from the same root, is one who leads the Ummah. This is basically the concept of sheep and shepherd. The entire community of Muslims is deemed to be sheep in need of shepherd.
And you wrote
Of course you are not required to care or explain anything. The whole purpose of this exercise is to show that when you deny the historic background of the Quran, it become illegible and incomprehensible. You say the Quran is not supposed to be a book of history, but it refers to historical events. But when I ask what those events are, you shrug. Now what is the lesson of Sura 33? All we see are references to some enemies withdrawing and Muhammad slaying some people and enslaving some. What is it all about? What is the spiritual lesson in this Sura?
Round VII -29
No Edip, not all the hadiths are important and certainly not all of them are true. Nonetheless this is all we have if we want to understand the phenomenon of Muhammad and Islam. It is through these hadiths and their consistency that the picture of Muhammad emerges. A picture that you dread looking at for what you see is the countenance of a monster. You may close your eyes or dig your head in the proverbial sand but you can't change the truth. You have no chutzpa to look at the real Muhammad and prefer to keep your mental image of him intact, but he is looking at you with a very nasty sneer.
You can't keep your head under the sand for ever. Sooner or later you have to pull it out to breath and then you'll be very sorry for having wasted so many years of your life doing everything possible to keep yourself fooled.
Round VIII -30
Dear Edip. In your website http://www.yuksel.org/ On the top of your handsome picture it says "The Islamic Reformer". So what is it that you want to reform? No I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by"Reform in Islam" and "Islamic Reform". Can you please explain? If what you mean is to change the world according to Islamic precepts that is not reform. That is propagation of Islam and all other Muslims are hard at work doing it. Why then you are the reformer and not them? If you mean to reform Islam, then let us know what is your authority. You must have some divine rank and revelations to be able to reform what Muhammad wrote.
Martin Luther reformed the church not the Bible. But your problem is the Quran and not the Ummah.
Round VIII -31
Ibn Ishaq gives us the historical context for verse 9:29 and Jizya.
Then He said (v. 28): “The polytheists are nothing but unclean, so let them not approach the sacred mosque after this year of theirs, and if you fear poverty” that was because the people said “the markets will be cut off from us, trade will be destroyed, and we shall lose the good things we used to enjoy,” and God said, “If you fear poverty God will enrich you from His bounty,¨ i.e. in some other way, “if He will. He is knowing, wise. Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day and forbid not that which God and His apostle have forbidden and follow not the religion of truth from among those who have been given the scripture until they pay the poll tax out of hand being humbled,¨ i.e. as a compensation for what you fear to lose by the closing of the markets. God gave them compensation for what He cut off from them in the former polytheism by what He gave them by way of poll tax from the people of the scripture”.
So according to Ibn Ishaq, Jizya is the reparation paid to Muslims for losing the money they would have made from the pagans coming to trade and buying in their markets. Your own definition of Jizyah serves to prove my point, namely that this is reparation Muslims receive from the subjugated people in place of the financial loss they would have experienced due to Allah preventing the pagans from coming to
Umar ibn Al-Khatab is reported to have said: "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) " Bukhari 4. 53.388:
But of course you may not know who Umar was since there is no mention of him in the Quran.
Forget about Ibn Ishaq and Umar. Let us stick to your own word: "reparation". Reparation means compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation as indemnity for damage or injury during a war. Now in this case the aggressors were the Muslims who still demanded remuneration from their defeated victims. Would it be fair if the non-Muslim countries to charge reparation from their Muslim subjects? Won't you cry foal and call us fascists? What if they attacked the Muslim countries and demanded reparation from them after defeating them? This is what Islam did to its victims and what the Sura Bara'a instructs Muslims to do.
If you do not read the Quran in its historic context you won't be able to understand it. The Quran is not a novel, it is not a how-to book, it is not a scientific dissertation and it is not a philosophical exegesis. The Quran is a collection of many verses that were written in response to certain events in the life of Muhammad. A great part of the Quran refers to episodes happening to Muhammad and his followers. If we disregard this historic context or what the Muslim scholars call the sha’ne nozool, we miss the whole point. For example the Surah 111 about Abu Lahab makes completely no sense unless one knows the context in which this Sura was written. Only when we read the tafseer and the sha’ne nozool of these verses we can understand why in one place Muhammad says:
73:10 Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously.
And in another place he says:
9:123 Oh ye who believe! Murder the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.
The idea of abrogation is confirmed in the Quran itself.
16:101 “And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.”
2:106 “Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?”
This verse shows that some verses of the revelation were abrogated and replaced with allegedly better ones.
13:039 Allah effaceth what He will, and establisheth (what He will), and with Him is the source of ordinance.
The word used in Arabic is Yamhoo يَمْحُو This is translated by various translators of the Quran as blot out, make to pass away, erase, abolish and abrogate. The correct word of abrogation is naskh, but the word mahv used above also conveys the same meaning.
17:086 “And if We willed We could withdraw that which We have revealed unto thee, then wouldst thou find no guardian for thee against Us in respect thereof.”
Apparently there were also verses that were abrogated but never replaced. This information comes to us from hadith. You are not required to agree with it and in fact you may skip this part. I am only quoting it as a matter of interest. If you are allowed to write a book describing the details of the life of Muhammad using the hadith without placing any particular importance them, why shouldn't I?
Aisha is reported saying:
"The Prophet invoked evil upon those (people) who killed his companions at Bir Mauna for 30 days (in the morning prayer). He invoked evil upon (tribes of) Ril, Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. Allah revealed a Quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma'una, and we recited the Verse till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was:) 'Inform our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him."Bukhari 5.59.421
Round VIII -32
I can't see how could anyone benefit from fabricating this hadith. The reason that verse was blotted out obviously is the source. This “revelation” came from the martyrs and not God. Obviously the Prophet in his zest to fool his followers, received this revelation from the martyrs telling other Muslims how pleased they are but he forgot that the Quran is supposed to be the word of God and not that of martyrs.
The case of the Satanic Verses were scandalous. In Sura 53:19-22 we read.
19. Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza,
20. And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
21. What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female?
22. Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!
But Ibn Sa’d and Tabari, p. 140 report that the verses 21 and 22 were originally the following:
21. These are the exalted Females,
22. And verily their Intercession is to be hoped for.
This open concession and the acceptance of Lat, Ozza and Manat, the three goddesses daughters of Allah, surprised and pleased the Quraish who unanimously bowed in prostration when Muhammad ended his speech with these words: “Wherefore bow down before God, and serve Him.” Quraish were happy and avowed to end hostility.
Some narrators say that on the very night of that day, Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and said: “What is this that thou hast done? thou hast repeated before the people words that I never gave unto thee.” And Muhammad realizing that these verses were put into his mouth by Satan, retracted from what he said, disowned the whole proceeding, and called those verses “Satanic Verses”.
However, the fact that the tidings of the reconciliation between the Muslims and the Quraish reached Abyssinia and many of the immigrants returned to Mecca makes us deduce that Gabriel did not appear to Muhammad on the same night and this state of peace between the Quraish and the followers of Muhammad went on for a while.
Obviously Edip who is in utter denial of all the history of Islam does not know any of this and I am not holding him accountable of that either. Nonetheless, he must explain the gross contradictions in the Quran that forced the early scholars to invent an entire “science” called nasekh wa mansookh (the abrogators and the abrogated) just to study which verses are abrogated and by which ones.
Take for example the punishment of the adulterers.
”If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.16. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
Now compare that to:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
Clearly these are two different injunctions?
In the "Dictionary of Qur'anic Terms and Concepts", pages 5, 6, by Muntasir Mir, it says, "Quranic injunctions themselves may be abrogated, as has happened in a few cases. An example of this abrogation is 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, (q.v.) stated in 4:15-16. A study of the Quran shows first, that only a limited number of Quranic verses have been abrogated, and second, that the abrogation pertains to legal and practical matters only, and not to matters of doctrine and belief."
But the abrogation does not pertain only to legal and practical matters. What about the verse:
5:69 “Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”
49:15 "Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones."
9:29 “Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior"
Are the people of scriptures believers in God or not? Can they live in peace or they should be fought? Can they live without the fear of the Muslims or should they pay tribute for their safety? Are their religions going to be accepted or not? These two verses obviously contradict each other and there are many more. That is why the Islamic scholars studied for years to understand the science of nasekh wa mansookh. If such science exists, it is because some of the scholars saw the discrepancies and tried to make sense of them.
We discussed this pint in round V page 16 too.
I asked you to please engage in debating with me instead of copy pasting and you wrote
You call the hadith and Sira “story books” and dismiss them as fairytales and yet you want us to believe that Islam suddenly fell from the sky and it is irrelevant to know anything about its author and its history. Now isn’t this the most fabulous fairytale of all?
Round VIII -33
I do condemn any act of aggression, terrorism, atrocities and violence. However I am not blinded by religious hatred and not completely bereft of decrement. I am not an "evangelical crusader" or a Zionist. I am a humanist and I am religion blind. I see no differences between people and do not hate a particular group because of what they believe. I condemn the acts of aggression, terrorism and violence and I condemn those who perpetrate them. The Zionists or evangelical Christians are NOT terrorizing people like your Muslim brothers do. If their beliefs are based on fairytales, that is up to them. I am not here to right everybody’s faith. I am not a religious crusader and I want to live in a world where everyone is free to believe in the Faith of his choice. My fight is only against aggression, terrorism, violence and doctrines of hate that promote these evils. With all fairness I see only Muslims as the aggressors, the terrorists, who are violent and who commit atrocities all motivated by an ideology of hate. Of course no one is saint and everyone is guilty of something. Others also commit terrible things. But only Muslims do it because of their ideology. Only Muslims think bombing innocent people, massacring children, ramming planes into buildings and killing some clerks, or beheading innocent people, truck drivers or health care givers are divine acts. Everyone else commits atrocities, but only Muslims praise Allah while doing it, consider it an ultimate act of worship and believe they will be rewarded for it.
If the American soldiers mistreat and humiliate a bunch of terrorists in Abu Graib, the entire population of
There is something fundamentally wrong with Islam. That thing is the belief in the hatemongering book of Quran and the monster called Muhammad.
I am not distorting any facts. I am presenting them truthfully. I am convinced that only truth can set us free. The person who is distorting facts and tries to masquerade them with denials is you. What fantasy is more comical than claiming that Muhammad is utterly irrelevant to his message and even if he was a mass murderer, assassin, pedophile, thug it has no bearing on his message? Forget about Muhammad. What is the message of the Quran? Isn’t it anything but hate, terror and violence?
You say “Don't you know that your hatred might justify genocide against Muslims in the minds of some of your followers?” First, I have no followers. People who read this site are rational and freethinking people with independent minds. Following is for the sheep. Second, I do not promote hatred. I try to awaken the Muslims so they leave the cult of hate and join the fold of humanity. There is nothing in it for me except the peace of mankind and a better future for our children. This is my contribution to humanity. It was Muhammad who promoted hate. It was he who divided mankind into Kafirs, vs. believers; “us” vs. them. I want to end this dichotomy. I want to bring the misguided followers of this mad man of the seventh Century back to the fold of humanity. I am a foot-soldier of love and unity of mankind and not a warmonger and hate monger. Thirdly, it is not me who is justifying genocide. It is Islam that justifies genocide. The Quran is filled with violence and terror. What do you think is the effect of verse that say:
9:5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them
8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.
9:14 Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame,
9:29 Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior"
3:85 Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers."
9:28 O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year, …”
And hundreds of other fiery verses like these?
But look at you! You are pouring your unbounded vituperation on the Zionists and the Christian “crusaders”, with sheer lies and slanders and instilling hate in the hearts and minds of the impressionable and benighted young Muslims. It is you who encourage them to join the terrorist camps and become human bombs. You and your anti west, anti American, anti Semite and anti human rhetoric are the culprit, the hate monger and the corrupter of the minds not me. Talk about self-projection.
Scientific evidence and reason is exactly what I am using to reject that hodgepodge of absurdities of the book you call miracle? What is scientific about this book of idiocy? Quran is an insult to human intelligence. Let us discuss the “scientific evidence” of the Quran. It is time to dismantle all the lies and remove all the veils so haply some of the Muslims wake up and see how much they have been mislead and become part of the human family of mankind. Islam sustains itself through brainwashing. There is noting logical or scientific in this book of terror.
I am not asking you to defend the hasith and Sira. I am asking you to skip all the hadith and Sira that I quote. Disregards them completely. Those are for the benefit of the readers to show the fallacy of your position. You are not required to even acknowledge them. Keep your head in the sand and defend Islam in that position. Just respond to my accusations of the Quran. Can you tell us what did Muhammad mean when he said unbelievers are najis (filthy, impure, untouchable)? 9:28 or explain all the hundreds of other verses that do nothing but foment hate and violence? Can people become najis by virtue of what they believe. Is that scientific? Let us talk about science.
I am interpolating your words and mine. Everything you have written is posted. This is the easiest way for the readers to follow this debate. This eliminates the need of me quoting you and you quoting me, as it is done in the forum, which only creates useless duplications and repetitions and waste of people’s time reading the same things twice. I delete my words when you quote me but your text is clear. I leave them when your text is not independently clear. Unlike you I am fully aware of the importance of the “context” as we already discussed in this debate. Furthermore your entire articles with my quotes are in the forum of this site as posted by yourself.
Now please bring forth the "scientific evidence" of the Quran. I am sure our readers can't wait to see how can such a book of terror be scientific and logical.
Round IX - page 34
Before we read your “analysis” and your “surprise”, let us be clear that the accusation that I “have not been able to get my nose out of the trash of hadith” is a not true. I attacked the Quran and what I asked you is to explain the Quran only. At no time I held you responsible for any haidth. You wrote a book even before knowing me and you based your entire history of Muhammad on the same "pile of trash" of haidth and sira books that you decry. Then you said you did that to trap me. I can’t see how this affects me. You said the details of that history are not important and what is important is the Quran. I did exactly what you did. My questions hinged around the Quran and never any hadith. You did not answer any of the charges I brought against the Quran and your only line of defense has been accusing me of relying on haidth. Anyone who reads our debate can see this is not the case.
You seem to have a very high estimation of yourself. This was typical of Muhammad who killed and looted so many innocent people and had the guts to call himself the best of the creation and a perfect example. As I explained during this debate, Muhammad was a narcissist and every one of his followers, to the degree that he or she is influenced by him shows the same pathological traits.
Dear Edip, what you say about yourself count very little. After all everyone thinks to be a superior person and them more he or she is a narcissist the more the holier than thou attitude is manifest in him.
I am afraid; you did not come across as a man who stands against violence, terror, human rights abuses or suppression of freedom. You are a staunch defender of the Quran and there is no question that this book advocates violence, terror and human rights abuses and it suppresses the freedom of its followers and particularly its opponents. You have been abused and persecuted but this is normal in Islam. All the Muslims are victims and victimizers in their own rights. This is the nature of Islam. Muslims have killed and persecuted many more among themselves than the non-Muslims. We can’t say all the victims of Islam are innocent. When the tables are turned, they do the same things with others. Your total devotion to the cult of terror of Muhammad proves that you are far from being a peaceful and non-violent person.
Furthermore you poured your unbounded vituperation on Jews and the Christians whom you disparagingly call “Evilgelical”. The interesting part is that you have escaped persecution from your Muslim brothers and here in
You seem to be obsessed about thinking of yourself as distinguished from other Muslims. That distinction exists only in your mind. In fact show me one Muslims who does not think he is distinguished from other Muslims by virtue of the fact that he interprets the Quran differently. It is the nature of Islam to make people haughty, self-righteous and arrogant. I see you as a Muslim and a Muslim is a Muslim. As long as you follow and worship a terrorist you are a potential terrorist. This debate has helped us see the real nature of the Submitters and show to the world that their claim of reformation is bogus and it is nothing but a cheap propaganda. In fact when I pressed you to explain what this reform means you were evasive and all you could say was to call me ignorant for confusing “Islamic reform” with “reform of Islam”. You refused to explain what you mean by Islamic reform because you knew you would expose yourself to further attacks.
Round IX - page 35
Let us analyze this “surprise analysis”. Actually I am not surprised at all. You refused to answer the charges that I brought against the Quran. You kept hiding behind your favorite line of defense, accusing me of using the “trash of hadith”, when clearly that has not been the case. So you had two options. A) Do the honorable thing and admit that the Quran is a book of terror and violence, take the side of the truth and denounce Islam, or B) find an excuse to save face and weasel your way out of this debate. Regrettably you chose the second option - the less honorable route. Nonetheless, you are too transparent.
My statement contains nothing racist or fascist. I do not believe people who murder, innocent people are humans. Our humanity is not defined by our physical appearance. What makes us humans is our humanness. A few days ago, in
The culprits of this horrendous crime have not been found but the act has the signature of Islamic terrorism all over it. But this is not an isolated case. Everyday Muslims commit monstrosities across the world. Where do they get their inspiration from? They get it from the Quran. I already quoted many verses that incite terror and asked you for explanation. You never answered. All you said so far is that these are hadith trash.
I reiterate once again. “The sign of humanity is in our humanness. No person who believes in those inhumane teachings of the Quran that calls for killing and murder of innocent people deserves to be called human. This is a war between humanity and a spiritually underdeveloped subhuman species. The actions of Muslims are barbaric. Their thoughts are beastly. They have no human conscience and they are preying on us humans. So this is a war between humans and a subhuman species called Muslims.”
Now you accuse me of including in this all the Muslims. Not so! I have stated time and again that most Muslims are not aware of the barbarity of the Quran and if they come to see what the Quran says they will not remain Muslims. One such example is
The majority of Muslims are good people. They are merely born in a wrong cult. They are not expert in religion and are unaware of what the Quran teaches. You can’t call these people “subhumans”. They are simply misinformed. I always talk about my Muslim grandmother whom I consider to have been a saint. I am sure there are millions of saints among Muslims like her. So the title of inhuman does not apply to all those who think they are Muslims. These people don't know Islam. But if a Muslim believes in the inhumane teachings of the Quran, defends them and puts them to action, he can’t be called human.
I asked you to define your position. Which side are you standing? Are you on the side of humans or are you a subhuman. This can be easily determined by your degree of adherence to the Quran.
Do you agree with the following:
8:12 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
3:28, "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers"
4:84, "Then fight in Allah’s cause"
8:17, "It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah"
8:65, "O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight".
9:5, "Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,"
9:14, "Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame"
9:23, "O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith"
9:28, "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean"
9:29, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day"
9:123, "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you"
47:4, "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks; At length"
3:85, "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)".
8:39, "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere."
This is just a token. The Quran is filled with this kind of trash. Now tell me! Do you believe in them? If so how shall we call you a human? Nay, rather any person who believes in these barbaric verses of the Quran is a barbarian and a subhuman.
You called me a fascist. Let us see how Dictionary.com defines fascism:
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
Islam tries to establish a centralized authority under the dictatorship of a Khalifa. The socio-economical rules of Islam, i.e. the laws of Sharia are extremely stringent. No opposition to Islam is tolerated and terror is exerted to silence any dissent or opposing voices and censorship is heavily practiced. This is all according to the explicit mandates of the Quran. Islam is belligerent by its nature as it is clear from many verses such as: 2:216where it says fighting is prescribed for you and it is good for you. Islam is also “racist” in a religious sense. The supremacy of the cult members is not determined by the color of skin but by their belief and submission to the cult. Another good definition of fascism is the following verse:
48:29, "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."
Fascism conquers by dividing people and uses victimization and hate to that end. It is an ideology of hate. It needs a scapegoat and a perceived enemy to unite people through their collective hate.
Muhammad promoted unbounded hatred of unbelievers to rally believers around himself. Anyone who compares the Quran with the Mein Kampf would be surprised at the similarity of these two books.
However, I reject your characterization of me. I am not a fascist. I fight Islamic fascism. Just as it is absurd to call the Allies who fought against Nazism, war mongers and hate mongers, it is equally ludicrous to decry those who fight against Islamofascism as fascists. Islamic fascism is very much obvious to anyone who reads that tedious book of Quran. On the other hand our message at FFI is unity of mankind and abolition of all racial and religious hatred.
Islam is an anti human cult. This is clear from the Quran. Naturally we can’t tolerate it. Tolerating intolerance is absurd. Civilized societies must not only tolerate but celebrate human differences. Variety is good. Different races, different cultures and even different religions are like different flavors or different hues. The beauty is in diversity. At the same time that we celebrate this diversity, we have to protect it. Islam wants to eliminate this diversity. It wants to take away our freedom of thought and choice. It wants to enslave all of us under one fascistic rule of domination and mind control. It wants to establish a Borg society. Islam is not another color of the rainbow. It is the darkness of the night that eliminates all the colors. We have to unmask this wolf in sheep’s clothing and slay it. This is not intolerance. This is protecting tolerance. It is protecting our freedom, our diversity and our lives.
In my previous write up I suggested that Muslims should not be treated according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but rather according to the mandates of the Quran. Don’t they think the Quran is divine and perfect while the UDHR is manmade and imperfect? So they should be pleased if we treat them in exact same way that the Quran says the non-believers should be treated. Aren't they striving to make the Sharia the law of land in non-Muslim countries? We have to make sure they get their wish. But when I suggested this, you and your friend were horrified and called me a fascist and a hate monger.
All I am proposing is to take the verses of the Quran and replace the “unbelievers” with “Muslims” and vice versa. Let us see how they look:
8:12 We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
3:28, Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims.
8:65, Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims.
9:5, Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them,
9:14, Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame.
9:23, O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.
9:28, O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean.
9:123, O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you.
47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks; At length.
Now, you think this is horrible? You think I am “the real subhuman, a vampire who is thirsty to suck the blood of more than a billion humans on this planet.”? Are you totally shocked of my inhumanity? Do you think this is horrendous?
I wonder why! In writing these new laws I have tried to emulate the man who called himself "the best of the creation" and "a good example to follow". I tried to be as “compassionate” as he was. Don't you say the Quran is a miracle?. Don’t you say the Quran is the Message of Salvation? So why you call me a subhuman and a blood sucking vampire when I say exactly the same things your holy prophet said?
When I said anyone who truly believes in the Quran is subhuman you called me a fascist. But looks like you agree with me after all. In fact you went even one step further and wrote:
"To the coward vampire, who is instigating wars and genocides: You are the real subhuman, you are a vampire who is thirsty to suck the blood of more than a billion humans on this planet." You said a person who can write "such rabid and diabolic words" is a "monster using the mask of humanism" who "cannot be a human but a hatemonger and bloodthirsty creature that needs a leash around his neck”
Very well said. I fully agree with you. Only a blood sucking vampire and a monster can have such diabolic mind to write such verses.
Do you realize the absurdity of your stance?
After calling me all these things for merely saying what the Quran says, you proceeded extolling your own virtues and your “uncompromising standing against violence, terror, wars, human rights violation and suppression of freedom”, etc. etc. What a great person you are dear Edip! Now can you please explain how a person of your caliber, someone who has an uncompromising standing against violence and terror, can think that the Quran is the word of God? Can you please explain to us why when these words are used against the non-Muslims they are divine and when I suggest we switch role and let the Muslims taste the very medicine that they prescribe for others, I am a monster and a bloodsucking vampire?
When I said Muslims should be treated the way the Quran says non-believers should be treated, your fellow cultist said I am not following the Golden Rule. Well, maybe I am not! Who cares about me? I did not claim to be a prophet of God! But are you following the Golden Rule? Are the teachings of Muhammad based on the Golden Rule? How can you follow a religion with teachings such as these that only the mention of reversing the roles sends shiver down your spine and you call the person who makes that outrageous suggestion a vampire, a bloodsucking monster, a hate monger that needs a leash around his neck? If this is so bad, why you prescribe it for others? If this is so evil why you follow it?
This is a very straightforward and simple question dear Edip. It has nothing to do with hadith. Can you please answer it?
Round X - page 36
Edip yuksel's writings are in gray boxes
Ali Sina's in white pages
So the constitution of the
Let us see just take one example and compare:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now let us see what the Quran says in respect of freedom of faith and speech.
3:85, If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
2:193 And fight them until there is no more fitnah (sedition), and religion is for Allah
2:257 those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).
Is there any similarity between the American constitution and the Quranic principles? I don’t see any?
In what ways Islam advocates separation of church and state? The whole concept of Islam is to bring Islamic rule and establish the Quran and Sharia as the law of land. Doesn’t the Quran talk about the right of women being half of that of men and their testimony also being worth half? Doesn’t the Quran define the ordinances for thieve and adulterers? This is interference in the secular law. How can Islam advocate separation of church and state then? Probably you mean Islam advocates the separation of the “Christian church” from state, so that the Muslims can control everything.
Then you talk about justice, equality, liberty. You must be joking. Is imposing Jizyah and humiliating the unbelievers, justice? Are people free to have a different religion other than Islam? Are Muslims and non-Muslims, or men and women have the same rights in the Quran? You simply throw any fancy word you find without ever paying attention to their meanings. The concept of justice, equality and liberty do not exist in Islam.
You have been looking for excuses to get out of this debate. Everyone can see this excuse is not warranted.
I have no comments about the above. These are all your subjective observations of me. But we already talked about abrogation. I quoted several verses of the Quran that are contradictory. Without trying to refute what I wrote on this topic you just repeated your original statement. You also keep accusing me of using the haith, when my entire criticism was about the Quran.
I wish you engaged in some debate and tried to refute my arguments instead of making psychoanalysis of me. Even if your prognosis of me is found to be true, in no ways it disproves my argument. In logic this is called ad hominen. Ad hominem is when you, instead of discussing the subject, direct you attack at your opponent. Here you and I are discussing Islam and the claim of Muhammad. The topic is Quran. I have laid some charges against this book. You must refute these charges. But you have not done that, not even once. First you falsely accuse me of using hadith and now you are finding faults about my person. Since this debate is not about me (or you) but about Islam and Muhammad, I present no defense of myself. What is clear is that you are dodging the questions that I am raising. You have not refuted even one of my arguments.
Round X - page 37
These are childish explanations that satisfy only the already convinced. I only quoted two examples, one about Abu Lahab and the other about Job. But there are many other examples where the Quran is not clear unless the sha’ne nozool of those verses are known. A good example of that is the Surah Bara’a that I quoted in page 15 of this debate. For example the Verse 5 of that Sura says when the “forbidden months are passed, then fight and slay the Pagans”. What are these forbidden months? This is not insignificant. This Sura is instructing Muslims to shed blood. So it is a matter of life and death to know what those forbidden months are. The Quran does not make this clear. Therefore without the tafseer the Quran is incomprehensible. I can bring hundreds of examples like this. No person can make sense of the Quran without the knowledge of the events surrounding it, not even you. That is why in you book, you relied extensively on hadith.
The verse 7:166 is completely asinine. Of course not all Muslims are dumb. It is natural that some of them see the stupidity of this verse and try to reinterpret it. For example Miraj is an absurdity and many Muslims like Rumi gave “spiritual” meaning to it. Nonetheless the verses about Jews becoming apes are not allegorical. That is why Rumi could not change them even though he was a brilliant man. Some scholars, like you, claim they are allegorical. But the verses are very clear. If these scholars insist that black is white that does not change the truth. There are also scholars that say, the Quran is a tolerant book. Does it make any difference? They are simply lying. Anyone can see the Quran is not a tolerant book just as anyone can see that those verses are not allegorical.
I asked you to explain what do you mean by "Islamic Reform". You are beating around the bushes but not answering my simple question. Why instead of accusing me of being dishonest, you just don’t explain what you mean. I asked you a simple question. What does Islamic Reform mean? I understand it as reforming Islam. You say I am ignorant and my understanding is wrong. So please explain it so even an ignorant person like me can understand.
You are following a pattern of evasion by resorting to ad hominem and introducing red herrings.
We already discussed the word Jizyah and from the text of the verse 9:29 it is clear that this is not something desirable. It says: fight them “until they pay Jizyah with their own hands and they are humiliated”. The word saagher means subdued and humiliated.
حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
We have not yet discussed the verse 18:86 or other absurdities of the Quran. This I hope we start doing in our next phase of debate. So far we discussed the incomprehensibility of the Quran and its inhumanity. The absurdities of the Quran require a dedicated discussion.
Round X - page 38
The first two paragraphs are mere ad hominems and there is nothing to say about them. But as for the Meccan and Medinan verses, they ARE different. I showed the difference and asked you to explain the discrepancy of the verses that I quoted. You are totally avoiding the question and repeating your refuted assertion. You may repeat this a thousand times, but as long as you don’t answer the questions those questions remain unanswered. Often Muslims use this fallacy. They dismiss your question and say, “these are old”. Yes they are old. But what is the answer? These old questions have never been answered.
You have tried to weasel your way out of this debate after the third round when instead of responding you posted two irrelevant cut and pastes from your book. In this debate I never used any hadith to prove the fallacy of the Quran. I challenge you to show exactly when this breach happened. Every hadith I quoted was confirmed by the Quran. For example I quoted verses of the Quran talking about raid and then I quoted the haidth as the confirmation. I quoted verses about rape of the captive women, and only then I quoted the hadith showing what the Quran says actually did happen. There are hadiths that cannot be confirmed in the Quran. For example from the Quran we can’t know about Muhammad’s pedophilic relationship with Aisha. I never made mention of those hadiths. Your excuse it unfounded. You use this as a face saving pretext to get out of the debate because obviously you are intelligent enough to realize Islam has lost. But you can’t admit that because you stand to lose a lot. You call yourself “The Islamic Reformer” and envision yourself as the Martin Luther of Islam. No doubt you think a few hundred years from now you’ll be celebrated and remembered like the Christian reformer. I am sorry to shatter your sweet reveries. Islam is not going to be around for long. After this debate many of your own sect members will come to see the indefensibility of the Quran and after getting over the stage of shock and denial, that may take a while, they eventually will leave Islam. There is a limit to which we humans would go to fool ourselves especially if there is no gain for us. For you of course there is a gain. You dream to be the Islamic Martin Luther.
The truth is that it’s not just the religious leaders who mislead the masses but the masses also mislead the religious leaders. As long as these religious leaders find a host of followers paying homage to them, they will not be able to detach themselves from their position. But once they find themselves deserted by their followers, they too will have to admit the truth. I believe this debate will cause many submitters who are not in the position of leadership to rethink their faith in the absurdities of the Quran and leave Islam. But you can’t do such thing because you have a lot of vested interest.
So far I used logical evidence against the Quran. My attack of the Quran had nothing to do with hadith. Now let us continue and let us talk about the so called “scientific evidences”. Here is where we have to talk about science. So far we had no occasion to talk about science. There is nothing unscientific about killing, raping or looting.
Yes dear Edip. I have proven the Quran to be a book of terror without any need to rely on hadith. Your repetition of this lie proves how little you can say in defense of the Quran. You are attacking a straw man.
More ad hominem and more straw man, now spiced with a dash of ad baculum or threat of lawsuit. All you have to do is to disprove my charges against the Quran and all you have done so is avoiding it and engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies.
I look forward to that. You already heard my line of defense in round IX. This would give us an opportunity to bring the fascistic nature of Islam to the public attention. Maybe this is the nail in the coffin of Islam.
Round X - page 39
These are ludicrous charges. There is no such thing as evangelical (or as you put it “evilgelical”) crusaders today. Some Christians are fanatics but even the most fanatical Christian is not killing innocent people indiscriminately as Muslims do. As we see, no response to the charges I made against the Quran, but more straw man argument.
I find your accusations against Jews and Christians fallacious and nothing but typical Islamic hate mongering. Furthermore they have nothing to do with this debate which is about the Quran and Islam. You are using tu quoque and red herring Logical fallacies.
Just to show how your Islamic mind is biased and unable to see the facts, the Serbs were punished by a coalition of other Christian countries who came to help the Muslims. Such thing for Muslims is inconceivable. Can one even imagine that a few Muslim countries join force to fight another Muslim country that is oppressing a non-Muslim population? This is unthinkable. The entire Muslim world is united against
As for your diatribe on the Jews, this is typical Islamic hate. Jews are not murderers. They have occupied their own ancestral land after they were systematically persecuted and expelled from Islamic, communist and Nazi countries. If the Palestinians had stopped their relentless terror on the Jewish civilians, they would have had their country and land long time ago.
Islam is a violent religion. No one needs to "depict" it as such. To see this truth all one has to do is to watch the Muslims and read the Quran.
You are now talking nonsense. The preemptive war is needed. We can’t live with those who think of nothing but to kill us. This is a war that you people started and we must fight it or we would be killed. We did not start the 9/11 you did. Now don’t start with this nonsense “reformed Muslims, terrorist Muslim”. In the course of this debate it has become obvious that as long as you believe and follow those barbaric verses of the Quran you are Muslim and terrorist. Islamic terrorism is redundancy.
These are mindless ravings of a hatemongering Muslim whose brain is on Islam, whose reasoning is marred by his hate and is unable of rational thought. Tell me why the Americans should keep enemies like you in their country. Your rabid squall at the country that has given you asylum is typical Islamic betrayal and ungratefulness. It is a disgrace that Islam rubs the humanity of its victims and an educated person such as you lets his passion take a better hold of his rationality.
Yes the Westerners and especially the Europeans are guilty of supporting the dictators and stealing from the poor countries. There is a nice poem in Farsi. I don't know who is the poet. I will try to translate it as faithfully as I can because it beautifully describes the deplorable condition of the Muslims.
Spoke on the way to his master, a donkey:
You are mean, cruel and a callous hunky
For how long will you keep me oppressed?
Till when, won't you let me have some rest?.
I pray God that you die and leave me in peace
For your ordeal has brought me to my knees
His master told him: Oh you miserable beast
Why in my death you haste and make a feast?
Find a way so you won’t be a donkey anymore
And won’t have to be loaded and used for such a chore
For as long as a beast of burden you remain
If not me, one else will charge you in this vein.
Lesser than donkey are the lethargic and ignorant masses
Who are always under someone’s load like asses.
Until you don't wake up from your ignorant slumber
Your back won't rest from the burden and the cumber
خری با صاحب خؤد گفت در راه
كه ای بی رحم بی انصاف بد خؤاه
مرا تا چند با جان كار داري
مرا تا كی بزير بار داري
خدا مرگت دهد آسؤده گردم
كه بار مهنتت فرسؤده كردم
بدو گفت صاحبش كه ای حيوان بد بخت
چرا در مرگ من نو ميكنی رخت
علاجی كن كه ديگر خر نباشي
كشيدن بار را درخؤر نباشي
و الا تا تو خر باشی به ناچار
چه من چه ديگرانت ميكنند بار
كم از خر ملت خواب و خمؤدند
كه دائم زير مهميزرنؤدند
نگردی تا ز خواب جهل بيدار
نبينی پشت خؤد را خالی از بار
The problem of Muslims is because they are ignorant. This ignorance is Islam-induced. Islam does not allow people to think independently, be critical and question theories and authorities. Islam does not encourage dissention but enforces compliance. When there is no dialogue, and all contrary thoughts are censored, people remain ignorant and when they are ignorant anyone can take advantage of them.
Yes the Europeans are shameless opportunists. But if you leave your door open you can’t blame the thief. The solution to the problem of Muslims is not to plead the Europeans to be good and honest. This won’t happen because it is the nature of man to be dishonest. The French, the British, the Germans are not bad people, but when you show them money they will forget everything and will sleep even with devil. They are not prostitutes; they just do it for money.
The problem rather should be solved at home. Why these European countries can take advantage of Islamic nations? It is because these Islamic nations are run by dictators. You can’t pillage democracies. In democracies the governments have to respond to people. So if you want to buy or sell anything you have to compete and this competition ensures that people get the best deal. In dictatorships, you can bribe the ruler and sell something twice or three times its value and no one would ever know or can protest.
So as you see the problem is in dictatorship and the solution is democracy. But Islam is against democracy and in favor of dictatorship. This is why Islamic countries will remain dictatorial and poor. The Europeans won’t change. They are the children of colonialists. Stealing is in their blood. This is the basis of their civilization. Muslims did the same thing when they could. It is the Islamic counties who have to wake up, liberate themselves from the shackle of Islam, build democracies and stop being taken advantage of. Once we get rid of Islam, we will get rid of dictators and their European accomplices.
Anyway, this entire charade about “Evilgelical” Christians, the crusaders and the Jews has nothing to do with our discussion of the Quran. This debate is about the Quran. You have talked about everything else but the subject that we were supposed to talk about.
Round XI - page 40
Mr. Edip Yukesl has completely stopped debating the Quran. The rest of what he has written has nothing to do with the Quran.
In the round (if it can be called that way) He explains why at first he accused the person who tried to make public what he thought to be my private information and when he realized this person was his own friend, he changed position, defended him and even apologized to that person.
Then he copy pasted the comments of the disgruntled Muslims who were defeated in the debates in the fourm of the site and went to Alexa.com to post their venomous comments about Faith Freedom International and myself. The vituperations of my enemies about me have nothing to do with our discussion of the Quran.
Usually we send this kind of discussion to a special forum we call "garbage can".
At the end he writes a “The SURPRISE NOTE and THE GREAT PROPHECY”. It is not clear what is this "prophecy" but according to the new risen prophet something is going to happen to me on February 19. I hope this is not an assassination. I suspect it is not because this “prediction” can be used against him to establish his culpability. But if this “prophecy” has nothing to with what he or his cronies are planning to do to me, I don’t think I should be very concerned. A man who has missed the basics of the truth, certainly has no “prophetic” powers to predict anything. If he was endowed with any insight, he would have realized that Islam is a false and would not have clung to that book of ignorance.
The following is a message I received from a writer and his impression of this debate.
As for Edip, he will never leave Islam unless his followers come to see how he was defeated and leave him. Only then, he will be able to see the truth. As long as he enjoys the respect and adulation of other submitters, he will keep seeing himself as the Martin Luther of Islam, without actually reforming anything. Martin Luther, actually did reform the Christianity. What Edip is going to reform is not clear not even to himself. Nonetheless the title of "Reformer" sound too attractive.
I wrote to you once earlier. After much deliberation, I expose myself for the first time to you. My life is in your hands from now onwards, not that I am scared of this life lost. It is just that I feel I could help many more. And maybe I love my kids too.
Knowing the truth all along, I have been trying to beat them at their game by quoting from their Book. But the ones who have their heads buried in the sand only dig deeper. I have been following 'faithfreedom' very closely whenever I get a chance. Unfortunately it is blocked in the country that I am residing in.
Now, a matter of great urgency.
I am following your discussion with the founder of 19ers very closely. He, in my opinion, is all but beaten. I have a similar 19er rolling on the mat. I went through the same stages myself. I request you to forward your scientific i.e. 19est refutation of the Quran asap as that would greatly enhance the armament that I already have. It cannot wait for the 19ers boss to respond and you to refute. I already am using your write-ups, albeit without your permission. I hope you would forgive that for the cause.
I have more to request, and discuss, but that can wait. You can write to me in the meanwhile for any queries/guidance.
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious, if one must have a religion, duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. Now what religion do I have?"
Round XI - page 41
I defended Ali Sina:
Someone who supported me in debates with others, posted information about Ali Sina's website and his affiliation with FFI, an Evangelical organization. Not knowing that the information was available in public, I condemned his action with harsh words:
"Exposing" or more accurately unveiling the identity or whereabouts of a person who is out there not to create a personal cult, but to debate important theological issues with great political and social ramification is irrelevant.
But, it is more than irrelevant, it is irresponsible and even evil, since it may jeopardize the live of a person whose all crime is to express his faith and opinion. Putting the life of such a person at risk contradicts diametrically with what I stand for. I stand for freedom of faith and expression. If God Almighty let even Satan express himself and let people choose whatever religion, opinion, philosophy, or faith they want, then it would be against God's system and will to create a hostile environment and conditions that would suppress dissent and oppress some people because of their belief or disbelief.
So, I condemn the acts of those who want to indulge in detective or police work, rather than intellectual debate.
If I want freedom and security for myself, I have to want the same thing for others, including my enemies who are not in act and mindset of physical hostility. To do the opposite is hypocrisy.
I believe that Ali Sina's voice, regardless of its truth-value, is precious and should be protected. We cannot find truth without people like Ali Sina.
Personally, I do not care a bit, whether Evilgelical organizations, Zionist organizations, CIA, or any other power pays or uses Ali Sina. To me, it is not relevant and important, since Ali Sina is raising important issues, and voicing important problems with a religion that is followed by more than a billion people.
We are all brothers and sisters from Adam and Eve. We cannot be muslims (submitters to God alone, and men of peace) if we do not act like humans. To be a human, and care about the life of every single human being is a prerequisite of being a muslim. I have no connection with those who ignore and violate this sacred bond among human beings, a bond that was established by our Lord and Creator in the moment and fabric of our creation.
I Scolded Ali Sina
But, after learning that the information was public and no additional harm could be done by something already given to the public by Ali Sina himself, I criticized Ali Sina and his attack dogs for accusing and insulting the person who posted that information:
Dear Ali Sina:
It seems that your hatred and emotions have turned you to those who you claim to hate.
Here is the difference between you and me:
I do not ally with a vampire or vampires to kill another vampire. I do not ally with Evilgelical Christians (you know which Christian groups I am referring to) who are supportive of wars and invasions that have been taking the lives of so many innocent people. I cannot. Throughout history they have been on the wrong side; they have been involved in many bloody and dirty tragedies in history.
However, it seems that you are following the Machiavellian path of
The guy who posted information allegedly proving your connection with Christians might have endangered your life, but with your propaganda of hatred and general condemnation, you are putting the lives of millions and perhaps billions of people at risk. You even show the audacity to put me in the same category of terrorists! I very rarely use this word. But, I think you deserved until you notice your problem: "shame on you, Ali Sina!"
It is hypocritical to applaud the massacres, terrorism, occupations, exploitations, covert operations around the world supported by super powers and its supportive Evilgelical Christian organizations, while condemning the terrorism, violence committed by a group of Sunni or Shiite extremists. This is a diabolic double standard!
If you are a humanist as you claim, you should join me to fight ANY act of terrorism, violence, injustice, regardless the identity or religion of the criminal.
Justice and peace cannot be accomplished by holding one hand of the multy-handed Devil against another hand. You become just a pawn.
I condemned the action of the person who tried to "expose" you, and similarly I condemn the actions of USA-Inc's secret agents that have secretly kidnapped and tortured many innocent people in
What others say about Ali Sina and his cause?
Finally, I would like to finish this last article with a potpourri of impression by various visitors of faithfreedom.org. You will find the SURPRISE NOTE in the end of these excerpts:
Nursery of Fascism: Disguised Voice of Christian Far Right:
Faith Freedom International (FFI) , a self-styled "rationalist" website, preaches: "A good Christian becomes Mother Teresa; but a good Muslim becomes Khomeinii and Osama." What a facile analogy! Let someone enlightern FFI that a "good" Christian can also become Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was faithful Catholic after all and wanted all women to attend Church punctually( a historical fact). Adolf Hitler did not exist in isolated continuum of European history. The Jewish holocaust of Nazi Germany was merely rerun of systematic pogrom of Jews conducted by pious Christians for two millenia. All of these Christians were also "good and faithful" Christians. It is the Christian holy figures like "Saint" Augustine and Martin Luther (founder of Protestantism) who had written testaments of santimonious hate against Jews that led to genocides against them by pious lay Chrisitans. So FFI's claim that Islamic piety only produces evil like Osama and Christian piety produces good like Mother Teresa is not only ignorant but entirely stupid in light of recorded history. In
Please do not take me to be some disgruntled Muslim. I am not even remotely Islamic to have any soft corner for it. I am normal 43 year old agnostic person (with Western ethnic background) who happens to have travelled and read a lot. FFI is no rationalist website but a rather motley collection of self-seeking third world "intellectuals" and elements of Christian far right in West who have happened to become bedfellows for political reasons. This website's agenda stands diametically opposite to the minority interests in Western countries (let all blacks, Jews, Hindus,Sikhs and New Agers who visit this site be cautioned along with Muslims). FFI is firmly against religious and ideological pluralism in politics as well as culture. The heavy element of Christian apologists, and people with evangelical leanings disguised as "rationalists", make this website suspicious to its core. One would not be surprised if FFI's connection with Christian Coalition or a similar lobby would be fully exposed. FFI is catering to the agenda of the malevolent right wing forces in
A review from a seasoned visitor:
Over the years, as both a non-muslim participant in the forum and an avid reader, I have watched this site evolve. It began as a rationalist critique to LITERAL readings of the Quran, originally derived from one man's journey out of Islam - Ali Sina, the sites founder - to a compendium of contributions arraigned against Islam from "ex-muslims", religionists of various hues, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists etc etc. While some of the better critiques are well constructed on a reading of the associated texts, none of the arguments are really informed by a believers SEMANTIC on the texts proferred. Such treatments, in the final analysis, must be considered faulty, for they do not admit an adherents view to "breathe life" into the texts concerned. There have been numerous debates on the forum of this site between muslims and non-muslims, but the modus of the dialogue is to hammer the muslim opposition into a corner on some issue of contention and then to discredit them as "inhuman" etc if they have a view that differs from the prevailing view on the forum. The dialogue is forced down to the lowest common denominator and does not emerge from there. Psychologically manipulative tools of mockery, contempt, shaming and thinly veiled hate are employed to batter dissenters. The site has decayed down to a one-point agenda, that of being ideologically opposed to Islam. Thus, it is not what it claims to be - rationalist - but really, an ideological site of it's own, defined in anti-thesis to Islam. And while it is denied by participants, the site has become a conduit for jaundiced views and hate towards Islam and it's adherents.
This review is an honest appraisal of how I view the site as an ongoing, non-muslim, agnostic participant. The site, while still containing a large amount of rationally well argued treatises against Islam, appears to have succumbed to an ideological fanaticism of it's very own. Even sympathetic dissent is dismissed as "PC" or being the product of "weak-mindedness" and ridiculed without examination. Such are the trademarks of a cult in methodology. I remain a participant, to study what I consider to be the interesting phenomenon of an internet site being the core of the formation and reinforcement of a cultish mentality. Take note of this if you wish to visit or participate in this site.
A Pioneer site:
faithfreedom.org is a very honest web site telling the whole truth about islam and it's violent teachings. Most islam apostates lives is threatened by fanatics. This site gives them a chnace to speak out for their rights and tell the true story of oppressions of islam as it is.
Faithfreedom should continue its journey:
I am a secular humanist. Though I do not subscribe with Ali's view, I think Fithfreedom should continue it's jourey. It is indeed a very rare and couageous effort from muslim comunity.
We should be grateful that Ali Sina exists:
This site, to the contrary of the other reviewers, is one of the only accesible resources that people can access by former Muslims. The articles go through various aspects of Islam, Islamic countries, and Islamic life as experienced by people. I for one am glad that this site exists because there is a forum where views can be aired without fear, daily updates with news articles on the web, and op-eds on important issues that concern everybody. Ali Sina is not out to kill people or hurt anybody, as some other reviewers have claimed. It is a small and growing community of people from Muslim origin (by birth) and converts who have left.
This site is very important because they are not allowed to live in Muslim countries because they are supposed to be killed. They can only live safely in the Western countries where their rights are protected and their lives. We should be grateful that Ali Sina and others like him exist otherwise we would not know the danger we are in.
This site has it all!, December 14, 2003
Cheap attention seeker:
I honestly believe that Ali(as) Sina has a personality disorder in which he collects contact with famous people and he gets off on this. He immediately publicises his contact with those of high reknown or high repute. He has debated/interviewed the younger Pahlavi, James Randi, etc and I believe that he is just a cheap attention seeker.
His arguments are on the whole weak, and he is completely insincere… Here is an excerpt that i found amusing - Ali(as) Sina is telling a 'friend' :
"I told him about a strange incidence that happened to myself when I was a university student. One summer night I was reading a book while my sister was sleeping in the adjacent room. I heard noises coming from her room. She was groaning as if having a nightmare. I went to her room to wake her up. What I saw took me by surprise. I saw a globe of orange light about three feet in diameter suddenly moving away from my sister's bed and hovering in the middle of the room. I stood at the door watching this strange thing. I got the impression that this thing was also startled. This thing seemed to have a thought of its own. For a moment we both were paralyzed gazing at each other. Then the thing zoomed out of the window and disappeared in the adjacent field practically in thin air. I woke up my sister and told her what I saw. She said she was having a bad dream and in her dream a bad being wanted to hurt her while someone good had come to her rescue. Well, people have dreams and nothing is strange about that. However, what to me seemed to be strange is that I possibly saw one of the protagonists of my sister’s dream. Even if that is not the case, that thing was strange on its own. "
Seeing orange balls of light after hearing his sister moan in the next room... hmmm.
The SURPRISE NOTE and THE GREAT PROPHECY:
I recommend every person who followed my debate with Ali Sina (which is available at both 19.org and faithfreedom.org) to share this note and this instruction under the "The Surprise Note and The Great Prophecy" with as many people as possible. You may share this encoded message with your friends via email or you may post it in other forums.
As the audience knows, Ali Sina has finally unveiled his real mission; promoting genocide against ALL Muslims, in a much bigger scale than even Hitler or Stalin had envisioned.
I will declare the KEY of the coded note, and decode it on February 19, 2005 at 19.org/forum. With the original text unveiled, you will witness a fulfillment of a great prophecy regarding Ali Sina and ditto-heads. The issue will not end with the fulfillment of the prophecy; in fact, it will just start.
If Ali Sina is scared from this message, his fear will not help him. Even if he hires several bodyguards and inform FBI, CIA, al-Qaida, Taliban, or his Evilgelical friends; he will still not be able to escape from the fulfillment of this prophecy! He and his cult members might speculate with paranoia and fabricate any lie they want. Their deception and lies will be exposed one more time the day of the prophecy: February 19. Wait and I am too waiting.
Here is a portion of the great prophecy:
Round XII - page 42
Evolution in Quran
Edip Yuksel wrote:
There is no miracle this verse. (19:67) The concept that a deity created man out of nothing predates Islam. This story is reported in Genesis and that book was written if not 2000 years, at least 1500 years before Islam. The Quran does not add anything to the story of the Bible but merely repeats it. The story that God created man out of nothing actually predates even Judaism and is found in the Sumerian and Babylonian religious lore. Even if this tale is true, taking credit for an idea that existed before is plagiarism and dishonesty.
The verse 2:19-20 has no reference to evolution. The Quran is talking about something obvious to any man living thousands of years ago who was completely ignorant of the concept of evolution. One does not need to have any knowledge of evolution to believe God created man and then this creation is repeated each time a pair gives birth to a child. The verse says “'Roam the earth and find out the origin of life”. If Muhammad knew about the origin of life why he did not say it? He could easily say man has evolved and the origin of all life on earth was a tiny (single celled) creature from which all creatures have evolved. This verse is not a miracle. The only miracle is in the imagination of Muslims that can see science in purely asinine statements of the Quran.
Around 520 BC, The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called "On Nature" in which he introduced an idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time.
Around 500 BC, Xenophanes studied fossils and put forth various theories on the evolution of life.
Around 350 BC, Aristotle studied marine animals and developed an epigenetic model of evolution. He also developed a classification system for all animals.
If 1100 before Muhammad, Anaximander could speak about evolution why Muhammad couldn’t?
Now let us read the verses 71:14-19
Verse 24 says He created you in stages. Does this have anything to do with evolution? No! Here Muhammad is talking about the stages of creation stated in the Bible. These stages are described in Genesis 1.
When Muhammad talks about the creation taking place in stages he is talking about this biblical description of creation and not of evolution.
A confirmation of that can be found in verse 7:54 where it says:
"Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne: He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command.
10:3 "Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth insix days"
11:7 He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters
The above is an old myth that predates Islam and it is plagiarized from the Bible. It is also scientifically wrong.
Verse 11:7 says God's Throne is over the waters. It presumes that God is an anthropomorphous deity who sits on a throne and whose throne is over the waters. There is no room to interpret this verse allegorically.
The origin of this myth can be found in the Genesis 1:2 that says: "Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". But before that this very concept appears in the pagan beliefs of the Sumerians.
Enki is the god of water, creation, and fertility (semen). He is also the god of wisdom. He holds dominion over the land and is the keeper of Me, the divine law and consequently he is the Ruler of the Universe. (Kramer & Maier Myths of Enki 1989: pp. 2-3) http://illuminati-news.com/sumerian-mythology.htm
The Quranic tale that the throne of God is established over the waters is originated from the fable of the Sumerian deity Enki.
Enki walks out of the water to the land.
Enki is attended by a god with two faces called Usmu (Isimud).
Enki presided over the assembly of gods. In Psalms 82:1 we read that Yahweh presided over the assembly of gods. This shows that when Pslams were written, monotheism was not a tenet of the Jews. Muhammad founded his mission on the premise of monotheism nonetheless, influenced by the language of the people, he had a slip of tongue and talked about "the Exalted assembly" الْمَلَإِ الْأَعْلَى in the Quran. Talking about Jinns he wrote:
37:8 (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted assembly but be cast away from every side,
Also in the Quran Allah often uses the plural pronoun when he refers to himself. This is the relic of divine language of a time when gods spoke to men in plural.
Verse 71:15 says the heavens are created in seven layers one above another. This is a very old belief and it dates back to the time when humans thought seven gods inhabit the heavens. The idea crept into Judaism and Muhammad borrowed this old pagan idea. For a detailed study of this myth see this article.
Verse 71:16 is a replica of Genesis 1:16 that says:
"God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars".
Of course moon does not have light and both the Quran and the Bible are mistaken. The Quran repeats this mistake in two other places:
25:61 "Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a lamp and a moon giving light;" َقَمَرًا مُّنِيرًا
71:16 "And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) lamp?" وَجَعَلَ الْقَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُورًا
The verse 71:17 says: “And God has produced you from the earth growing”(the word “gradually” is Yusuf Ali’s interjection).
Is this a hint to evolution? Why should it not be interpreted as people growing from infancy to adulthood by eating the fruits of the Earth? Based on Occam's Razor principle, this is the more likely explanatio. In fact the Quran says that the creation of Adam was at once and not gradual.
3:59 "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was"
The verse 71:18 talks about the Resurrection and rising of people from their death. This is of course an absurdity and a scientific heresy and it denotes the fact that Muhammad's paradise and hell are physical places. The concept of a spiritual world was alien to Muhammad.
Verse 71: 19 says the earth is like a carpet (spread out),
وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْأَرْضَ بِسَاطًا
The same erroneous belief is repeated in verse 15:19
This is clearly another mistake. Note that every one of the verses that we discussed from this Surah was scientifically wrong. Can God possibly be so ignorant?
The verse 15:26 is saying that God created human beings from mud likepotter’s clay. The same scientific fallacy is expressed in verse 6:2 where it says “He it is created you from clay”
.What is the origin of this error?
Enki in Assyrian Babylonian period came to be known as god Ea. He was the god who created the first humans: "In those days, in those years, The Wise One of Eridu, Ea, created him as a model of men. His name was Adapa" http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
Compare the above to the tale of creation given in the Old Testament from where Muhammad borrowed his story of creation. In the Biblical story of creation God created Adam in His image. The Quran does not specify this similitude but a Hadith-e Qodsi does.
Creation of first man by Anunnaki.
Laboratory vessels and Tree of Life.
The images and the tales of the Sumerians demonstrate that the origin of the Quranic tale of the creation of Adam with clay, the tree of life and Adam's expulsion from Paradise are in the fables of ancient men and not in science. http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
The claim that the Quran talks about evolution is ludicrous.
The Sumerian and Biblical notion of Adam and Eve, and the belief that all men derive from a single prototype are dominant in the Quran.
2:35 We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
7:19 "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
6:98 "It is He Who hath produced you from a single person:"
7:189 "It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her."
4:1 “O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women."
The above verses make it clear that the Quran does not talk about evolution but it stipulate that all humans are off springs of a single person is called Adam who was created from clay and he was the prototype of all humans. The creation of Eve is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran. She is referred to as Adam's mate but her name isn't mentioned as if she was not that important.
Round XII - page 43
The fact that life depends on water is too obvious and does not require any divine knowledge or laboratory research.
Thales [ Miletus , 624-546 BC] went even further and stated that the origin of all matter is water. Although this sounds a bit odd, there may be some truth in it. As we know today, the largest constituent of the universe is hydrogen, which makes two of the three atoms in water (H2O). The missing oxygen atom was added later when our planet formed. Scientists believe that liquid water is prerequisite to life, and we know with certainty that the first life forms flourished in the oceans, so water is indeed a primordial substance. [source]
As for the Quran talking about the Big Bang, this is a ludicrous claim and it is refuted in this article.
The verse 24:45 says “Some of them [creatures] walk on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four” Isn’t this obvious? Why should such a banal known fact be even mentioned? But isn’t it ludicrous to claim that there is a hint of evolution in this verse?
The verse is saying that God made Adam from dust like a potter makes a doll with clay and this Muslims’ wild imagination makes him talk about the " essential elements of life contained in earth". Muslims are desperate to find wisdom even in the most ludicrous verses of the Quran.
Description of Embryo
Verses (75:37), (16:4) and (96:2) do not contain any information that can be defined as miraculous. Even animals must know that their off springs are born with the help of semen. Isn't this why male animals take care of their off springs. Doesn't this show that even animals are aware of the male contribution in coming to world of their babies?
Verse 22:5 however, contains some interesting information. It says that we created you from dust and subsequently from semen.
What is Muhammad is saying here? Why “subsequently”? The use of the world “subsequently” make it clear that Muhammad is talking about the creation of Adam that took place from dust and then the birth of each child that takes place from semen. Obviously this is all mistaken. There is no such thing as the first man and Adam never existed and no one was created from dust. Also sperms are not turned into hanging embryos. In the Quran there is no mention of the egg. Obviously Muhammad, like other ignorant men of his time did not know about the role of the egg in the creation of the embryo and there is no mention of that in the Quran.
It says that this embryo “becomes a fetus that is given life or deemed lifeless” This is scientifically wrong. It makes one to assume that the semen (that Muhammad thought is embryo) is lifeless and it is given life after it becomes fetus. This is of course not true. In fact both sperm and egg are alive before they meet.
The rest of the verse is sheer garbage. It states the obvious. "We then bring you out as infants, then you reach maturity. While some of you die young," What is so great about this verse? But it is also wrong when it says: "others live to the worst age, only to find out that no more knowledge can be attained beyond a certain limit." This is foolish. Knowledge is endless and humans will never stop learning and discovering new things. Only this verse should suffice to prove Muhammad was an ignorant man and not a prophet of God.
To respond to this I am going to quote AE an Arab ex Muslim Medic. He quotes the verse 23:14 and says:
ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ
The way we could put this in English is "Hence we (god), created the sperm into (or made it turn into) clot (or whatever it is) then created from it a lump then we created out of it bones (plural) then we covered the bones with flesh"
Now, in addition to the fact that many thinkers for 1000's of years had theories and also some experience on the stages of embryo development, the above mentioned description is no more than what an ordinary person could imagine, ...building the structure first then hang the other parts on it or cover it with them...just like erecting a tent.
This explanation is not true. The development of the embryo as explained by MS Encarta 1998 is:
“The implanted embryo consists of a hollow sphere, the blastocyst, containing a mass of cells, called the embryonic mass, attached by a stalk to one side of the encircling membrane. In a blastocyst less than two weeks old and measuring 1 mm (0.04 in) in diameter, the microscope reveals the amnion (a sac surrounding the embryo), chorion (a membrane that develops around the amnion and lines the uterine wall), yolk sac, and distinct germ layers.
In the third week a closed tube appears in which the brain and spinal cord are to develop. Another tube, folding on itself, is developing into the heart, and at about this stage a portion of the minute yolk sac is enclosed in the body of the embryo to form a part of the embryonic alimentary canal. At the beginning of its fourth week the embryo, now about 4 to 5 mm (about 0.16 to 0.2 in) long, has the rudiments of eyes and ears, and each side of the neck shows four gill clefts. A tail is also present.
Early in the second month the buds of the arms and legs appear. The major internal organs begin to take shape, and in about the sixth week bones and muscles begin to form. By the third month the embryo is recognizable as that of a primate, and is now called a fetus. It has a definite face, with the mouth and nostrils distinct, and the external ears are forming. By the end of the eighth week the tail has usually been incorporated in the body, and in the 11th or 12th week the external genitals become evident. The human embryo is especially vulnerable to the damaging effects of X rays, of disease viruses such as measles, and of certain drugs during the fourth to the eighth week of gestation. These agents can result in the death of the embryo or in the birth of a child with deformed limbs or other abnormalities. By the fourth month an embryo is clearly recognizable as a human being.
The creation of the brain and the spine happen in parallel, (the brain is neither flesh nor bones) and then long after the "BONES" of the arms starts developing which contradict the Quranic verses that says all the bones are made first then it gets covered by flesh (only flesh as if we don't have members in our bodies!!!)."
As one can see the entire description of the development of the embryo explained in the Quran is wrong. It makes no difference how we interpret the word alaqa. Whether it is translated and "hanged" or "clot" this description is wrong.