Leaving Islam




Ali Sina's 2nd response to Wissam Nasr

(This is in response to  Wissam Nasr's 2nd letter) Please read Mr. Nasr' rebuttal first.



Dear Mr. Nasr, 

You started your letter by accusing me of filling my message with “mostly insults”. However as everyone can see I have not insulted you. But if you think the facts that I give about Islam are insults then you better check those facts. Nevertheless you are the one who filled your letter with insults and ad hominem. But I do not mind that. Bragging and insults are the weapon of the weak. Obviously you feel the heat and you have to vent yourself by insulting me. Please feel free to do so if it helps you feel better.  

You wrote Where are you getting these ideas? Show me your claims corroborated by any book and tell me which book. If you have an opinion, that's fine. But we want facts here”. 

Obviously you did not pay attention to anything I wrote. I backed everything I said with Haidth, Quran and the gave source of the quotation.  On the other hand your only source was The Oxford History of Islam, a book written by a bunch of Islamic apologists who are biased and you take that book as authoritative. Do you really expect the apologists of any faith give you an impartial account of that faith? 

You wrote: In your entire letter, you have not cited even one single idea that you put forth. That is in stark contrast to my letters.”

In my letter I quoted the Quran and the Hadith. I also quoted the Azhar scholar Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, who wrote "The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them….” But you dismissed it claiming this is al-Buti’s personal view. I also wrote about the Pakistani Mullah who gave the fatwa that Bangali women can be raped and I showed you the verse of the Quran were this despicable act is sanctioned. You denied this story but added that even if this is true it does not represent the true Islam. So there is no use quoting others because you will brush them off as not Islamic. That is why I prefer to quote mostly from the Quran and Hadith. As a matter of fact many Muslims even go as far as to discard the Hadith claiming them to be fairytales and forgeries. They even ignore some of the verses of the Quran asserting that those were for another time and the moral standards of today should not be applied to the 7th century Muhammad. However, my friend: were you get your facts? The only source you quoted so far is your favorite Oxford History of Islam. Where did the authors of this book got their facts from? 

The only sources available are the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirat Rasul. As far as I know all the books written on Islam are based on these original sources. Is this Oxford History of Islam based on these reliable sources or not? You did not convince me why should I leave aside the original sources and content myself with the regurgitation and the interpretation of Islamic apologists. Isn’t logical to assume that the apologists of any religion will not tell you the whole truth but they will tell you only what corroborates their biased views 



Definition of Faith: 

You claim, Believing can obviously be based on facts. For example, if I see a car crashing into a street pole, I believe it happened. I just saw it happen in front of me, so I believe it.” 

Mr. Nasr, If you see a car crashing in front of you, you don’t “believe” that it crashed—you "know" it did.  

There is a difference between knowing and believing. Beliefs are based on suppositions; guess works and conjectures while knowledge is based on facts. If I ask you what is the time, you’ll look at your watch and say 3 pm. But if you don’t have a watch you may say, “I believe it is 3 pm”. If you have a watch and you know it is working properly you don’t say, “I believe” because there is no need to believe when you know something is true. In the second case you say you believe and that is because you are not sure.  

Let us make another example. Some people “believe” that the Bigfoot exists. But no one says I “believe gorillas exist”.  Everyone knows that gorillas exist! We have seen them. But as for Bigfoot, some “believe” that they exist and others don't. By the same token, some people “believe’ in aliens invading the Earth, some believe in ghosts, some believe in Jinn and some believe in Allah.  All these are beliefs because they are not based on facts. I am not saying all beliefs are necessarily false. All I am saying is that beliefs are not based of facts. Belief is acceptance of something without evidence. And faith is absolute belief is something for which there is absolutely no evidence. In another example, when Darwin presented his theory of evolution some people believed in that because it made sense. But today we no more believe in evolution because after 150 years we have enough evidence to KNOW that evolution is a fact.  

Now this is the definition of belief and faith as much as it concerns our debate. There are other meanings to these words that are beyond our discussion, like believing in one’s own (or someone else’s) capability, like trusting someone. But that is another subject.



Absurdities of the Quran  

I asked you to explain whether the beliefs in Miraj, in Jinns, in splitting the Moon or in the Quranic story of creation are factual. You tried to explain in the best of your ability the myth of Mi’raj, Jinns and the naïf story of creation as mentioned in the Quran. But you bypassed the Islamic claim of splitting the moon.  

Splitting the Moon:

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830:

Narrated Abdullah bin Masud:
During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, "Bear witness (to thus)."


See also:

Sahih Bukhari

004.056.830 004.056.832 005.058.208 005.058.209 005.058.210 005.058.211 006.060.387

Sahih Muslim

039.6724 039.6725 039.6726 039.6729 039.6730


Obviously this is a tough one and even you know that it would make you look ridiculous if you tried to explain it. The best you can do is to evade or to deny it as most Muslims are starting to deny the Hadithes. You were wise enough to evade the question altogether. However I insist to know whether there is any scientific explanation for this claim?


Now let us see how much sense the Jinn, the Mi’raj and the Creation make.



You wrote: “Jinn (better known as demons), for example, do exist and this is a scientific fact The Jinn can be proved through exorcism, which is proven to exist. It is based on evidence from hospitals--such as public records from Georgetown Hospital in Washington, DC. --which has hosted exorcisms in the past….”


Do you understand the meaning of “scientific fact”? These stories of exorcism that you count are pure nonsense. Show me one reputable scientific review that gives any credence to exorcism. Of course I am not a denier of the spiritual world. I do believe that there is a spiritual reality overlapping the material world. I believe that humans have souls that “mount” (I could not find a more appropriate word) our bodies. The relation of soul with body is comparable to  the relation of the software to the hardware. It is what makes the body work. These appear as auras that envelop all living beings. This is a phenomenon of which we know little and it needs to be studied further . However to claim that this has anything to do with the childish tales of Jinns is absurd. Let us see what are Jinns according to Muhammad’s understanding and then you'll see why they have nothing to do with the spiritual world nor anything to do with your fiction tales of exorcism.


 Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 200
Narrated Abu Huraira:
That once he was in the, company of the Prophet carrying a water pot for his ablution and for cleaning his private parts. While he was following him carrying it(i.e. the pot), the Prophet said, "Who is this?" He said, "I am Abu Huraira." The Prophet said, "Bring me stones in order to clean my private parts, and do not bring any bones or animal dung." Abu Huraira went on narrating: So I brought some stones, carrying them in the corner of my robe till I put them by his side and went away. When he finished, I walked with him and asked, "What about the bone and the animal dung?" He said, "They are of the food of Jinns. The delegate of Jinns of (the city of) Nasibin came to me--and how nice those Jinns were--and asked me for the remains of the human food. I invoked Allah for them that they would never pass by a bone or animal dung but find food on them


This story is certainly a joke. It amazes me that any intelligent person can believe in such ridiculous things. But of course intelligent Muslims do not know about these asinine stories and those who know and do not mind are not intelligent people.  

Muhammad even mentioned that he visited the Jinns and expended a night in their town and they converted to Islam.

Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qur'an). They said, 'We have really heard a wonderful Recital!
 2) 'It gives guidance to the Right, and we have believed therein: we shall not join (in worship) any (gods) with our Lord.
(click on the link to read the rest of ayas)

No wonder, creatures who eat dung also find Quran to be a "wonderful recital".(Read about the conversion of Jinns to Islam here)  But that explains why the Jinns are so mischievous. Their human Muslim brothers are terrorists. This is all because of Islam. I hope the Jinns use the Internet and can log in to my site. If I can make them get rid of Islam I bet they turn to become nice spirits again.  

In your “scientific” explanation of Jinns you claimed that they are kind of spiritual beings that possess people and make them do crazy things. This is also confirmed in Quran Q. 37: 6/10 where it calls them "evil spirits", which in itself is in contradiction with the above Hadith where Muhammad says "how nice those Jinns were".  But tell me how can spirits eat the remains of human food or dung? Bones and dung are material things made of atoms. How can they feed Jinns and demons that are immaterial or as Quran says, spiritual beings?


But the bizarre imaginative power of Muhammad did not end there. He claimed that:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 432
"The angels descend, the clouds and mention this or that matter decreed in the Heaven. The devils listen stealthily to such a matter, come down to inspire the soothsayers with it, and the latter would add to it one-hundred lies of their own."

Then he goes on saying:

Q. 72: 8
And (the Jinn who had listened to the Qur'an said): We had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors.
And we used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But he who listeneth now findeth a flame in wait for him;"

He repeated the same absurd idea again.

Q. 37: 6/10
”We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,
(For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,
 (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side,
Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,
Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness. 


Q. 67: 5
“And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.” 

Now, do these things make sense?

Are the stars in lower heaven?

Are meteors really stars that are hurled at the Jinns who strain their ears to listen to the conversation of the "Exalted Assembly"? Muhammad did not know the difference between stars that are suns thousands and millions of light years away from us and the “shooting stars” that are small spatial debris entering our atmosphere and burning in the impact.

If Jinns are “spirits” as Q. 67: 5 indicates, (or made of fire as other verses indicate) can you hit a spirit with a stone (meteorite?)

These are not facts. These are insanities. They were lore and legends of ancient people. They are hallucinations of a sick mind. The fact the Muhammad was mentally insane became known even to his own mother and wet nurse.

Here is the story told by Halima, Muhammad's foster mother related in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq, page 72: 

"His [Muhammad's friend's] father said to me, "I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so take him back to his family before the result appears. ..... She [Muhammad's mother] asked me what happened and gave me no peace until I told her. When she asked if I feared a demon had possessed him, I replied that I did." 


The Arabs of the seventh century were a superstitious folk but even to them Muhammad was an extreme case and they thought that he was crazy or possessed, which the Prophet, on behalf of his imaginary Allah tried to deny.

81: 22-25, "No, your compatriot [Muhammad] is not mad. He saw him [Gabriel] on the clear horizon. He does not grudge the secrets of the unseen, nor is this the utterance of an accursed devil."


 69: 41-42, "It [the Quran] is no poet's speech: scant is your faith! It is no soothsayer's divination: how little you reflect! It is revelation from the Lord of the Universe.


Of course mad people think of themselves to be sane. The fact that Muhammad denies his madness putting the words in the mouth of his imaginary friend to witness on his behalf is no proof of his sanity. One wonders how a sane person could see mythological creatures like Jinns or angels? But there are hadithes that cast more shadows of doubt on the mental sanity of the Prophet. The Apostle of Allah was indeed delirious. This was admitted by him and is reported in hadithes that are considered by the majority of the Muslims to be Sahih.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400
Narrated Aisha:
Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490
Narrated 'Aisha:
”Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One day he invoked (Allah) for a long period and then said, "I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons came to me (in my dream) and sat, one by my head and the other by my feet. One of them asked the other, "What is the ailment of this man?" The other replied, 'He has been bewitched" The first asked, 'Who has bewitched him?' The other replied, 'Lubaid bin Al-A'sam.' The first one asked, 'What material has he used?' The other replied, 'A comb, the hair gathered on it, and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.' The first asked, 'Where is that?' The other replied, 'It is in the well of Dharwan.' " So, the Prophet went out towards the well and then returned and said to me on his return, "Its date-palms (the date-palms near the well) are like the heads of the devils." I asked, "Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?" He said, "No, for I have been cured by Allah and I am afraid that this action may spread evil amongst the people." Later on the well was filled up with earth.”

Don’t these hadithes prove that Muhammad was mentally insane? The insanity of Muhammad however becomes obvious when we learn that he attempted suicide on several occasions. Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111:   Read this narrative and compare Muhammad’s esoteric experiences with hallucinations of a schizophrenic. These stories reveal the truth about Muhammad’s state of mind that most Muslims do not want to acknowledge. 



In defense of the Quranic story of creation you wrote: “Islam is STILL compatible with evolution, nonetheless. It is said that God created human beings—so it must follow that humanity must have started at some point in earth’s history.”

It seems that you have no understanding of the concept of evolution and apparently you don’t know what you are talking about. Evolution precludes creation. Therefore the claim that “humanity must have started at some point in earth’s history” is absurd. 

You wrote;  the Quran does not specify when Man was created—it could have been at anytime, but the point is that at some point some original man and woman must have existed. We are descended from an original pair of human beings that must have been the first of our species, and any anthropologist would tell you that.”

Please understand that there is no “starting point” for humanity. There are no “original man and woman” that acted as the genitors of all humanity. The process of evolution is a continuum. You cannot point to a couple in any moment of the Earth’s history and say these two are the first humans. Your claim that Islam is compatible with evolution is just silly. You either believe in the childish story of creation as was believed by very ancient people in Babylonia, Hittite, Canaan, etc. and rehashed in the Bible and the Quran or you believe in the evolution.


As for the Mi'raj (the ascension of Muhammad) you claimed, “it is a fact because it is based in an incredibly credible source—the Prophet Muhammad.”


Thank for being so honest (at least in this case) you don’t try in vain to prove that this ridiculous tale of Mi'raj has any scientific or logical base. You admit that you believe in this fairytale because Muhammad said so and you accept anything that Muhammad says. In other words according to your "logic" what is in accordance with your religion is logical. That is a weird definition of logic. You do not investigate the truth of Islam through logic but you let Islam define for you what logic should be. I wonder if this is your standard of logic and truth by what authority you bash Christians for believing in Trinity and ascension of Jesus to Heaven when they use your own method and let religion define for them what is logical and what is not? 

In your previous email you quoted the Oxford History of Islam saying: “Faith is never blind in Islam”. Isn’t your belief in Mi'raj a blind faith? If not, then what is the definition of blind faith? Doesn’t blind faith mean accepting a claim without investigating the veracity of that claim because you trust blindly the person who says so? 

Now don't think that I say blind faith is wrong. I my self have blind faith in my doctor and do what he says even though I do not understand. The reason I trust my doctor even with my own life is because he has earned his degrees and my government has certified to his ability. I would never trust someone is he claims to be a doctor but cannot produce a certificate. I would not mind believing even in Muhammad if he can show me his credentials. But he does not have any credential. He wrote his own credential. Wouldn't it be crazy to follow a man like him blindly. Whatever he said is wrong. He has proven to be an ignorant man. Also he lived a very indecent life. Would any man in his right mind believe in such person?  

This is basically the essence of Islam. Muslims accept Islam as the truth without any proof and then strive to manipulate the facts and interpret them in a way to justify their belief. Hence we have a herd of Islamic apologists trying hard to manufacture “evidence” in order to justify their beliefs.

Well tell you the “truth” I also had a Mi’raj of my own. I was taken to heaven and met Allah in person. I wrote about this in an article. I am looking for foolhardy credulous people like you to take my word for it and believe in my story. To my credit, unlike Muhammad who said many lies I never said any other lie than this one. So my story should be more credible than his. Read it. It is funny. God loves laughter after all.  http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/my_mi'raj.htm


Muhammad’s honesty:

You say that Muhammad was an honest man and as evidence you bring forth the testimony of the writers of The Oxford History of Islam. (I am starting to wonder whether you read any other book beside this one) This reminds me of an anecdote I heard when I was a child (and partially remember) A fox was caught stealing grapes. He was taken  to the qadi (judge) for trial. He pleaded innocent. The qadi asked him whether he had a witness. The fox responded:  “Yes, my tail is my witness”. Now you are asking me to take the words of a bunch of Islamic apologists who testify to the honesty of Muhammad?

We know for a fact that Muhammad assassinated his opponents like any gangster. We know far a fact that he ambushed merchant caravans and robed like any bandit. We know for a fact that he raped a 9 year-old child like any pedophile. We know for a fact that he raided civilians, murdered, looted, and massacred them even after they surrendered without putting up any fight. Would these "unbiased" scholars admit to the facts that Muhammad was a thief, a murderer and assassin or a pedophile?  If not, why should I believe them when they say this pervert was honest? You people are making a mockery of justice. You have created a culture of lies. If every Muslim lies to defend Islam and he knows that he is lying but he is compelled to lie because in defense of his religion anything including lies is acceptable, why should anyone believe that Muhammad was an honest man? 

Imam Ghazali's authority in Islam is indisputable. See what he says about lying:  

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible " (Ref: Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745).  

I guess this is clear. Muslims are allowed to lie when they cannot achieve their objective by telling the truth. The first part of his statement is irrelevant. No one will lie when he can achieve his objective by telling the truth. So there was no need for him to state the obvious. What is relevant is the fact that Muslims can lie when they cannot attain their goal by telling the truth. this is the standard of truthfulness as explained by a man whose influence in shaping the Islamic world was only second to Muhammad. 

Now. should anyone believe anything that a Muslim says? As anyone can see Islam is founded on lies. How can a founder of a religion be honest when lying is the culture of his followers? How can we trust a man who believes that even God lies and is deceitful (Kkairul Makirin)?. 

No, my dear! I do not trust Islamic apologists whose main goal is to save face for Islam and sell it to the gullible as a “religion of peace”. To learn about Muhammad and his character I go to the source.

Through Quran and Hadith I discovered a Muhammad, who far from being a "Mercy of God in the world", was a liar, a pervert, a sadistic tyrant, a ruthless murderer, a thief and an assassin. I need not John Esposito, or other apologists if Islam, tell me who Muhammad was. I can find that out on my own when I read the Quran and the biography of this man narrated in Hadith. This veiled face of Muhammad is what we are trying to unveil.

You challenge me to show you one source that says Muhammad was not honest. How can I do that when Muhammad killed all his critics? Who was left that dared to tell the truth? Does the name Ibn Abi Sarh ring a bell? He was one of the scribes of the Prophet He found out that Muhammad was making up his revelations so he left him and revealed this secret to others. Muhammad got up to him and wanted to execute him. Othmnan was Sarh's foster brother. He intervened and Muhammad kept silent and thus Sarh's life was spared. But later Muhammad nagged that his followers misunderstood his silence. That they should have killed Sarh. He explained that his silence was due to the fact that he did not want to say no to Othman but he expected his men to kill Sarh anyway. (Talk about hypocrisy!)

The Prophet forced everyone to accept his cult and killed all those who resisted. Even if someone dared to leave behind a true story of this man, how could his book survive 1400 years of repression and censor? What happened to the book of Zakaria Razi? If it weren’t for an apologetic book of a Muslim who quoted him to rebut him, we would not have even known that such book ever existed. The claim of the truthfulness of Muhammad is contradicted by Quran itself. As we saw in the above Quranic verses (81: 22-25, 69: 41-42) Muhammad was known to be a lunatic and not an “honest” person. Islam is built entirely on lies.

Nevertheless, the truth can be extracted by reading between the lines of Muhammad’s own supporters and his own book, the Quran. And the truth that is coming out is extremely disturbing. It is this truth that is going to eradicate Islam not me. What I do and what my comrades do is to bring to light the truth and unveil the facts. And we bank on the fact that the majority of Muslims side with the truth even though that truth may be bitter at first and they will abandon Islam eventually. The end of Islam is very near. Much sooner than anyone can imagine. Blame it on the Internet.


Muhammad’s Knowledge:

You wrote; “Muhammad is a Prophet—not only because the Quran says so—but also because this man had almost no knowledge of any monotheistic ideas, didn’t know how to read or write, and was a shepherd and businessman for the first 40 years of his life and still came down preaching about the original religion and monotheism of Abraham and told stories of earlier prophets which he could not have possibly known through his very limited contact with Christians and Jews.

First of all this “knowledge of the Quran” that you are talking about is pure gibberish. There is no knowledge in that book. The Quran is a pile of garbage. Where is that “knowledge”?

Secondly those tales of monotheism and stories of the Bible are false. There is no truth in monotheism. Said so, you should also know that these Biblical fables were already known amongst the Arabs. These people had no TVs or other forms of entertainment but to sit around and count stories. Stories of the Kings of Persia and Byzantine and the stories of the prophets were the favorite ones. Muhammad, as s loner and a schizophrenic was particularly fond of religious tales.

The bits and pieces of the Biblical stories that Muhammad narrated in the Quran were nothing that other Arabs had not heard.

The Arabs used to meet once a year in a big fair at Ocaz. There, each person brought his goods for sale and the poets, preachers and storytellers found a relaxed audience to listen to them. Muhammad attended the fairs in Ocaz and he was mesmerized by a particular Christian preacher named Coss, the bishop of Najran, who as Sir William Muir wrote, “preached a purer creed than that of Mecca, in accents, pregnant with deep reason and fervid faith, which agitated and aroused his soul. And many at that fair, besides the venerable Coss, though perhaps influenced by a less catholic spirit, and more by prejudice and superstition, yet professed to believe in the same Revelation from above, if they did not actually preach the same good tidings”. [Muir; The Life of Muhammad Book 2 Chapter 2 Page 7]

As the matter of fact it is very probable that the success of Coss in rallying around himself a big crowd and his influence on his listeners was what stirred in the attentive mind of the youthful Muhammad, an orphaned boy who was spurned by his own mother and craved for attention and recognition, the desire to emulate him and become a spiritual leader.

The stories of the Bible were not unknown in Arabia. In fact Waraqa the paternal cousin of Khadija was a Christian monk. Muhammad must have been going to him and listening to his stories. In polytheistic Mecca many believed in Christianity and the statutes of Jesus and Mary were kept in Kaaba along with other gods. This is the beauty of polytheism. In polytheistic societies all religions are welcome—all beliefs are tolerated. This is a far cry from the intolerant society that Muhammad built with the introduction of Islam—a society that even after 1400 years cannot tolerate someone owning a copy of the Bible.

The Biblical stories of the Quran are not complete. Muhammad alludes to these stories summarily as if talking to people who already know them. Despite that Muhammad’s memory failed in many occasions. Quran contains several mistakes when it deals with Biblical stories. The most conspicuous of all is Muhammad’s confusing Myriam (Maryam in Arabic) the sister of Moses and Aaron with Mary (also Maryam in Arabic) the mother of Jesus. Muhammad actually thought that Mary and Myriam are the same person. In actuality there is a gap of 1500 years between the two. 

Another obvious mistake of Muhammad is in his belief that Jesus was not crucified but it “appeared” so to the spectators. In other words god played a magic just like any good magician who makes you believe he is chopping his assistant in three pieces when in reality he is not. Where Muhammad got this weird idea? Remember he did not read the Bible. His knowledge of the Bible was hearsay. 

 John Gilchrist explains: 
"There are some who suggest that Muhammad was aware of the Nestorian/Monophysite controversy of his time which centred on the actual nature of Christ's personality. The Monophysites argued for a single divine character, the Nestorians for a double nature, one human and the other divine. From these disputes it is supposed that Muhammad may have derived the idea that Jesus came only in a human semblance, or that it was only such a semblance that appeared to them when he was crucified. This was indeed very much the belief of the early Gnostics and one writer argues:

But in teaching his followers that Christ was not really crucified by the Jews but miraculously delivered from their hands, some one being substituted in His stead, Muhammad was merely following in the footsteps of Basilides, the Valentinians, the Manicheans and other heretics of early times. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p. 168).[The Christian Witness to the Muslim] 

Muir suggests that perhaps Muhammad had friends among the Jews who narrated to him the tales of their scriptures. He writes: “

Whether the "Witness," and other Jewish supporters of Mahomet, were among his professed followers, slaves perhaps, at Mecca; or were casual visitors there from Israelitish tribes; or belonged to the Jewish residents of Medina (with the inhabitants of which city the Prophet was on the point of establishing friendly relations), we cannot do more than conjecture.

But whoever his Jewish friends may have been, it is evident that they had a knowledge-rude and imperfect perhaps, but comprehensive, - of the outlines or Jewish history and tradition. These, distorted by rabbinical fable, and embellished or parodied by the Prophet's fancy, supplied the material for the Scriptural stories, which begin to form a chief portion of the Coran. The mixture of truth and fiction, of graphic imagery and of childish inanity, the repetition over and over again of the same tale in stereotyped expression, and the constant elaborate and ill-concealed effort to draw an analogy between himself and the former Prophets by putting the speech of his own day into their lips and those or their pretended opposers, fatigue and nauseate the patient reader of the Coran.” [Muir V2 Ch 5 p.185]

But as I said these stories of the Bible were common knowledge among the Arabs. There was no need for Muhammad to have a Jewish friend (although this hypothesis is very likely) to learn about the stories of the Bible. He could have heard them from anyone who knew how to read. In the absence of books, the religious scriptures were the only books available. Also the knowledge of Muhammad about the Bible is so rudimentary that is quite obvious he did not read that book. Nevertheless Muhammad was interested in religion. He was not a man who liked to work. He stopped working after he married his rich wife. And he did not like to fight.  

Muir writes "In one of the battles  (fought between the Hawazin and the Quraish) Mahomet attended upon his uncles; but, though now near twenty years of age, he had not acquired the love of arms. According to some authorities, his efforts were confined to gathering up the arrows discharged by the enemy and handing them to his uncles."

His love was religion. This was the passion of Muhammad and he would listen to those who had read the Bible and could narrate Biblical storeis.  


The schizophrenic messenger. 

A schizophrenic is torn apart between two forces. One is his religiosity and the other is his sexuality. On one hand he is pulled by his sexual appetite, has constant sexual reveries and on the other he is filled with guilt for his secret thoughts and tries to compensate and even deny his cravings by being critical and disdainful of sex. On one hand he fantasizes about sex that to him seem quite real and on the other he hallucinates meeting and conversing with prophets, angels and God. Both these fantasies were very much part of the psyche of the Prophet. The following Hadith reveals the sexual nature of Muhammad’s psychotic world: 

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:
Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect, (click on the link to read the rest of the story) 

If we accept that Muhammad was hallucinating (or as he and the unlettered people of his time though, was "possessed") why not consider the fact that his epiphany in the cave of mount Hira and his vision of Angle Gabriel were also a hallucination?

The schizophrenics live in a dichotomized prison. The battle of good and evil in them translates into a tug-of-war between their sexuality and their spirituality. Muhammad was a textbook example of that. This explains why he thought sex is dirty, why he disdained women who in his skewed mind were responsible for his sinful reveries and why he was so impotent to contain his lustful thoughts. Muhammad gave free rein to his sexual cravings, marring a dozen of women and having sex with his maids, raping captives and others who just “gave’ themselves to him and still was hankering for more. The Prophet was obsessed with sex as much as he was with religion and God. The following story demonstrates clearly the impact of these two forces tearing apart Muhammad and dominating his psyche. 

Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:
Narrated Abu Usaid:
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, "Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift." She said, "Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family." Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses. (See Hadith No. 541).

Let us analyze this affair and see if we can have a glimpse into the mind of the man who called himself the prophet of God. In this story Muhammad is attracted towards a beautiful lady of a noble linage. And just like a spoiled child who sees a beautiful toy, he wants her for himself. In this translation the translator has places (in marriage) in parenthesis. Such word in original text does not exist. The word “give” in Arabic is Habba. This word is not used for marriage but for soliciting sex.

Apparently the practice of women giving themselves to men just for sex was not that unusual amongst the Arabs at that time. We recall that in another episode a woman tried to offer herself to Abdullah the father of Muhammad because according to the narrator she saw a special light in him. But instead Abdullah goes to his wife first and on this way back asks the woman whether she is still interested to “give” herself to him. But this time the woman declines saying that she does not see in him that light anymore. The narrator obviously has fabricated this story to say that Abdullah was emanating some sort of light when he carried the sperm of Muhammad and when he deposited that sperm in Aminah’s womb the light disappeared in him. However neglecting the inanity of this story this shows that the practice of women giving themselves to men just for sex was not that uncommon amongst the Arabs.

In the above story, when Muhammad asked that lady to give herself to him, he had already several wives. Despite that he was impelled by his libido and solicited that lady to make love with him. But when that woman rejects Muhammad his ego is hurt and he loses his temper and raises his hand to strike her. This story tells us a lot about the psychological trait of Muhammad. We see in Muhammad a man who is not in control of his sexual impulse nor can he control his temper. Muhammad was a narcissist and narcissists cannot take rejections

What happens next is what makes us see that the self-acclaimed prophet was indeed swayed between his lower nature and his higher self. In this story, the victim fortunately pronounces the magic word "I seek refuge with Allah from you" And Muhammad suddenly comes to his sensed and is stricken by guilt. He tries to compensate his sinful behavior and sooth his remorseful conscience by bribing his victim with gifts.

The schizophrenic is constantly battling between sin and guilt. This explains the harshness of the teachings of Muhammad. He hates sinners because he hates his own sinning self. His hell is tormenting because he is filled with guilt and in denial of his sinful nature. This explains his obsession with “believing”. The message of Muhammad is not about being loving, forgiving, kind or compassionate. It is about “believing”. According to Muhammad god can forgive every sin except the sin of disbelief. 4:48 The belief in God is not a gateway to accept his good teachings and become a better human being by putting those teachings into practice but it is an end in itself. This idea that belief in God takes precedence over all good deeds was perhaps inculcated in the mind of the youthful Muhammad when he used to listen to the sermons of Coss or heed the preaching of other Christians. He was convinced that the belief in God could save him from his sins. The stories told of him reveal a Man who was haunted with the fears of hell and punishment in the grave.


Volume 1, Book 12, Number 795:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle used to invoke Allah in the prayer saying "Allahumma inni a'udhu bika min adhabil-qabri, wa a'udhu bika min fitnatil-masihid-dajjal, wa a'udhu bika min fitnatil-mahya wa fitnatil-mamati. Allahumma inni a'udhu bika minal-ma thami wal-maghrami. (O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the punishment of the grave and from the afflictions of Masi,h Ad-Dajjal and from the afflictions of life and death. O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the sins and from being in debt)." Somebody said to him, "Why do you so frequently seek refuge with Allah from being in debt?" The Prophet replied, "A person in debt tells lies whenever he speaks, and breaks promises whenever he makes (them)." 'Aisha also narrated: I heard Allah's Apostle in his prayer seeking refuge with Allah from the afflictions of Ad-dajjal.


In Quran we find verses where Muhammad’s Allah bestows upon his messenger all women “in order that there shall be no difficulty” for him.

 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Then again we come across verses that indicate Muhammad is overtaken by guilt for  marrying so many women and like a child rebuking himself not to be gluttonous he prohibits himself from taking more women in marriage. 

 It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.

But as it can be seen even then the Prophet is dragged down  again by his debauchery and leaves himself a loophole to satisfy his wantonness with “any thy right hand should possess” i.e. the women captured in his raids. As if those women were chattels and not humans.



The Quran:

As for your claim that Quran is the best-written book, of course is a ridiculous claim. 

But I agree with you that this book has been influential. However the reason of the influence of this book has nothing to do with any truth that it may contain. Any ideology or book can be imposed on people by force and deceit and can become influential in their lives. Communism was extremely influential in the last century. Nazism also was influential in its own time. Though these ideologies influenced millions of people, their influence was harmful. The question is whether the influence of Quran is a positive one or a negative one. A brief review of the impact of Quran on its believers shows how pernicious has been the influence of this book on those who followed its instructions.

With some exceptions, unquestionably  the Muslims are, as a lot, the poorest, the most ignorant, and the most barbaric nations of the world. This is the influence of Islam. Is there anything to brag about it?


Quran’s Challenge:

In your letter you repeated the ridiculous challenge of Muhammad known as “Produce a Sura like this.”

In my site I have challenged Muslims to prove me wrong and if they do so successfully I promised to remove my site. Some Muslims, including you, have answered to this challenge and have written to refute me. But I have published all of those replies. I am not afraid of these challenges. I do not censor them. I answer them and counter them. Mine is a genuine challenge, which by itself is proof of my sincerity.

But how sincere was Muhammad and how sincere are his followers as far as their challenge is concerned? Do you allow people to come forward and meet this challenge? No!...You would kill them instantly! For 1400 years no one dared to say a word against Islam. Now that we are in the West and we want to exercise our freedom of expression, a gift of the secularism,  and criticize Islam you are doing everything possible to stop us. Your Mullahs issue fatwas against those who criticize Islam. And your assassins roam around hunting the critics. In the West Muslims like you try to change the laws in their favor and ban the criticism of Islam. Muslims become hysteric when someone criticizes their religion claiming, “their sensibility is hurt” and want to shut him/her up. Now that we have the Internet and can write with safety you Muslims coerce and even threaten the web servers to remove anti Islamic sites. My site was originally hosted at Tripod.com. Muslims compelled them to shut it down. Some one wrote a couple of Surahs in the style of Quran and posted them on a site. Muslims were furious and made that site shut down too. 

This bogus challenge of Muhammad and the consequences suffered by those who attempt to respond to it shows clearly the moral bankruptcy of Islam. It actually reminds one, of the presidential “elections” of Iraq where people are called to come to the polls and they are given the choice to agree or disagree with Saddam. But the vote is open and those who vote no, are actually voting for their own death. No wonder 99.98% of the voters always approve of Saddam. Of course the 0.02% who disagree are not real people but apparently Saddam wants to show that there are also oppositions in his country. Therefore as his bounty he gives a fraction of a percent credit to his opponents. This challenge of Quran is no better. It is a joke Sir. 

But if you really want to see something superior to Quran read the articles in my site. Read Ismahan’s responses to our antisite; read Abul-kasem’s writings. Read Hikmat’s article on Debunking The Miracle of 19. This young lady is a university student from India living with her Muslim family. It doesn’t matter whose article you read. All of them are superior to Quran. These articles appeal to intelligent people. Quran appeals to ignorant people. This is the difference.  But the age of ignorance is over and thus the days of Islam are numbered. It will be through these superior writings that we are going to eradicate Islam. “Indeed the truth has come and the ignorance has gone. And ignorance was bound to go”.  

You challenge me to show you the mistakes of the Quran and assert that it is a “book that is widely acknowledged to contain absolutely no mistakes or contradictions”.

Acknowledged by whom? By brainwashed Muslims? Is that proof? 5 billion people of the world do not agree with that preposterous statement of yours. If everyone agreed that Quran contains no mistakes, everyone would be a Muslim by now. There are many mistakes in the Quran. It would require a book to talk about them. I give you a link so you can see that Quran is full of mistakes.  http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/


Conversions to Islam:

You braged tens of thousands of people convert to Islam every year in “advanced” societies like America and Europe. And many of them are found to be normal, rational, thinking people, even by your own skewed definitions.

I do not believe any “normal rational” person can be attracted to the idiotic hate-laden message of Islam. Therefore if those who convert to Islam appear to you as such it is due to YOUR skewed definition of rationality not mine.  Who are those “normal rational” people you are talking about? Those who convert in prisons and then when they come out build dirty bombs to kill innocent people? Are the shoe bombers your “normal rational” people? Don’t you read the news? These people who convert to Islam are attracted to it because they find in it a cause to express their innate desire to kill and be violent. They flock to Islam because they are violent people and Islam not only nurtures and approves their violence, it also gives them a justification. See this article (American Muslim convert's memoirs about killing in jihad:).  

Normal rational people are not attracted to Islam. Normal rational people are abandoning Islam. Look at the forum in faithfreedom.org. See what kind of people is leaving Islam. These are intelligent people. They are articulate, coherent, sensible, educated people. They are scientists, educators, doctors, and writers. They are the crème de la crème of the society. Who is the great brain that has converted to Islam? Give me a name? Muhammad Ali Clay the boxer?… Cat Stevens, the singer?…  Mike Tyson the ear eater? .. or  Jose Padilla  the criminal? Are these the normal rational people you brag about? You can only fool a bunch of wayward kids who do not know better. Can you compare Ismahan Levi to John Walker Lindh?



Violent expansion of Islam:

You wrote, “your claim that Islam advanced through “violence” is wrong. First of all, regarding the Prophet Muhammad’s “raids”, these were actually done during a time of war that was declared—not by the Prophet Muhammad—but by the Quraish Tribe that wanted the destruction of the Muslim community.”

It is amazing how you are capable to fool yourself. Tell me who declared those wars? They were declared by Muhammad. As a matter of fact sometimes the Prophet did not even declare any war. He raided the civilians without warning them. He took them by surprise--people who had gone to the fields after their daily work. He was the one who initiated the wars. He was the one who murdered unarmed people. How can any decent human being read the shameful stories of Muhammad’s traitorous and murderous raids and not cringe? Did you read the story of the raid of Muhammad at Kheybar? See how the narrator brags about the fact that the civilians were taken by surprise.


Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367
Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. ..."(click on the link and read the rest of this story. It gets very hot at the end) 


I am not sure whether these bogus statements of yours are based on total ignorance of the real history of Islam or something else. You call yourself a “scholar” and I wonder how an Islamic scholar does not know the history of Islam and the way it expanded. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually don’t know and have not read the proper history of Islam. This is possible since you do not go to the source and instead trust what the apologists tell you. Here I am going to quote you the facts and back them by proper Islamic sources to prove to you that Islam DID advance through violence.

When Muhammad escaped to Medina, he was a penny-less man.  He destroyed all the wealth of Khadija through mismanagement. After marrying Khadija he stopped working and started drifting to the caves relying entirely on the riches of his wife. His constant taunting of the religion of the Quraish forced the people of Medina to boycott him and those who supported him. In his first days of arrival at Medina he was so poor that he relied on some dates given to him by the Ansar and the Jews for his sustenance. Although other immigrants went to work for the Jews and other Arabs of Medina Muhammad found working demeaning, but instead he staged several raids at merchant caravans. (As courageous as he was he never took part in any one of them personally) His early forays were not successful. But as time passed he got better at it and finally at Nakhla his men headed by Abdallah ibn Jahsh, the first person who received the title of Amir al Mo’menin, the commander of the faithfuls, deceived the few merchants carrying goods from Taif to Mecca, ambushed and killed one of them in the sacred month when fighting was prohibited and took the booty and the rest of the men as hostages to Muhammad. Muhammad asked the families of the captives to pay ransom and threatened to kill them. A ransom was arranged and the men were released. This was the sixth robbery attempt of Muhammad and his first successful one. From there on he staged more attacks at bigger caravans and kept collecting the booty and making money by taking hostages. Then he turned his attention to the Jews not before alienating the rest of the Arabs from them and rendering them vulnerable and indefectible. He raided, looted, enslaved and massacred them and banished the elderly and sick to their unknown destiny.   

Arabs were a bunch of uncultured and harsh people. Yet they were people of honor who prided themselves for keeping their words. There were four sacred months during which people had pledged not to fought with each other. When Muhammad’s men committed the despicable act of treachery, pretending to be pilgrims and ambushing the caravan and spilling blood, the followers of Muhammad were taken aback and criticized this action.

But as usual, Allah came to the help of his messenger and revealed these verses:

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. (Q. 2:217)  

As it can be seen in this verse, Muhammad justifies robbery, murder, treachery, terrorism and breaking the long-standing tradition of no hostility during the sacred months claiming that Quraish’s prevention of Muslim entering the sacred mosque is a bigger sin. But he does not assume any responsibility and conveniently overlooks the fact that this prevention was due to his disrespect of that mosque and the deities housed therein. He ignores the fact that his constant taunting and raiding the Quraish’s merchant caravans made the Quraish lose sympathy for his followers who were robbing them and killing them. The hostility did not start with the Quraish; it started with Muhammad.  

After promulgating this verse, Mohammed kept a fifth of the booty for himself and divided the rest among the captors.

Muir says, “The thoughts of Mahomet, indeed, from the day of his flight, were not thoughts of peace. He had threatened that condign vengeance should overtake the enemies of his Revelation, - a vengeance not postponed to a future life, but immediate and overwhelming even in the present world. He now occupied a position where he might become the agent for executing the divine justice, and at the same time might triumphantly impose the true religion on those who had rejected it. Hostility to the Coreish [The Life of Muhammad V. 3 Ch. 11 P. 63]

Hostilities against the Meccans continued. Muhammad’s men did not miss any opportunity to raid the merchant caravans. But despite all this Meccans demonstrated forbearance. No retaliation was contemplated and no Muslim suffered from the hands of the Meccans. But Muhammad was not satisfied with his robberies. He wanted to attack Mecca and impose his religion on those who rejected it. Muhammad was not a man who could accept rejection. He was a narcissist and like other narcissists he was vengeful, single minded and relentless. To achieve his goal he could sacrifice anything. For a narcissist other people’s lives have no value. Anything that stands between him and his ambitious goals must be eliminated. A narcissist has no heart. He can kill millions of people if he feels he has no need for them. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, Khomeini, Mao, Idi Amin are examples of what a narcissist is capable of. 

It is at this time that Muhammad started to compose verses preparing his followers for the attack on Mecca.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
40- (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).


Who forced Muslims out of Mecca? 


It must be noted when these verses were "revealed" no one was making war against the Muslims. No Muslim was ever expelled from his home either. Meccans never persecuted the Muslims. They were angry because Muhammad used to insult their deities but at no time they hurt anyone nor banished any Muslim from town. On the contrary most Muslims had to escape Mecca because their families would not let them go. It was Muhammad who insisted that his followers should go. There are many verses of Quran that testify to this fact.

Even when Muhammad and his followers were in Mecca and despite the fact that he constantly insulted the religion of the Quraish and infuriated them with his abrasive behavior there is not a single incidence of physical violence or persecution against him or his followers recorded in the annals of Islam. 

The truth is that Meccans did not drive the Muslims out of their homes.  They emigrated on their own volition and because of Mohammad’s insistence. At first he ordered his followers to emigrate to Abyssinia and then when he found enough disciples in Medina, he sent them thither. 

Muslims today would not tolerate any criticism against their religion. They would kill at once any person who dares to question their belief. This is what the prophet taught them to do. But Arabs prior to Muhammad were more tolerant. They used to live with the Jews and Christians in harmony without any sign of religious animosity between them. The even intermarries and had alliances that overshadowed religious ties. Yet the ultimate test of tolerance came when Muhammad mocked their gods. Despite that kind of libeling the Quraish evinced incredible degree of tolerance and although being offended, never harmed Muhammad or any of his cohorts.  

Compare this to the treatment of the Baha’is in Iran. Baha’is do not insult Muhammad or his Allah, they do not reject the Imams nor disagree with any part of Quran. All they say is that their messenger is the Promised One of the Muslims. This is nothing compared to Muhammad’s affronts of the beliefs of the people of Quraish. Nevertheless Muslims have not spared any act of atrocity against this religious minority. They killed many of them, jailed them, tortured them, beat them, denied them of their rights and treated them with utter inhumanity. None of that was done against Muhammad and his followers in Mecca even though he constantly accosted their gods with showers of taunts and unbounded vituperations and would imprecate their sacred beliefs daring them to persecute. 

When the Meccans had enough of it and could no more stand Muhammad’s mocking of their deities, a body of their elders repaired to Abu Talib, the uncle of the Prophet and complained: - “This Nephew of thine hath spoken opprobriously of our gods and our religion: and hath abused us as fools, and given out that our forefathers were all astray. Now, avenge us thyself of our adversary; or, (seeing that thou art in the same case with ourselves,) leave him to its that we may take our satisfaction.” Abu Talib spoke to them softly and assured them he would counsel his nephew to be more deferential. But Muhammad would not change his proceedings. So they went again to Abu Talib in great vexation; and warned him that if he would not restrain his nephew from his offensive conduct, they would have to restrain him themselves. They added thus: - “and now verily we cannot have patience any longer with his abuse of us, our ancestors, and our gods. Wherefore either do thou hold him back from us, or thyself take part with him that the matter may be decided between us.” 

This is all that is recorded about the persecution of the Muslims in Mecca. The above is a warning but falls short of issuing a threat. In fact until Abu Talib was alive and even after his death until Muhammad stayed in Mecca no harm was inflicted upon him nor any of his followers suffered persecution. 

The only physical violence reported against a Muslim is the beating of Omar of his own sister who had embraced Islam, which led to his own conversion. This however cannot be called a real religious persecution but a family violence as Omar was an irritable man with an unpredictable temper who would lose his composure easily and resort to violence. Yet even this hadith may not be true because in another Hadith narrated by Omar he gives another tale of his conversion to Islam. 

So the question arises, if there were no persecutions against the Muslims, who forced them out of their homes? We know that many of them abandoned Mecca and emigrated first to Abyssinia and then to Medina. Why would they leave their homes if they were not in danger? 

The answer to this question can be found with Muhammad and what was going in his mind. It was he who asked them to leave. In fact he ordered them to leave making it a mandate from Allah. The Following verses clarify this perfectly. 

 “Lo! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them: these are protecting friends one of another. And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes; but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help (them) except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty. Allah is Seer of what ye do.”(Q.8: 72)

These are very harsh words against his own followers who did not leave Mecca and stayed behind. In other part he presses further this point.

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, (Q.4: 89) 

In the above verse Muhammad is ordering the believers of Mecca to forsake their homes and go to Medina. He goes as far as to instruct other Muslims to kill them if they decide to return home, which is consistent with the cultic nature of Islam but disproves the claim that Muslims were “forced” to emigrate. So as we can witness the exodus of the Muslims from Mecca was not due to any persecution by the idolaters. There was no such a persecution even though Muhammad exasperated the Quraish to their limit of forbearance with his triad of insults. The new converts left Mecca on the behest of Muhammad. His pressure tactics was so intense that he even told them that they would go to hell if they stayed behind and did not emigrate.  

Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were ye engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not Allah's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey's end;(Q.4: 97)  

The reason for this became clear later. Muhammad planned from the start to separate his followers from their relatives and set them against each other. The immigrants had a hard time living in self-imposed exile, they were poor and desperate. Now it was the time for Muhammad to take advantage of this much anger and use it to achieve his goals.

The following are some of the verses that he composed in this period. Here Muhammad is inciting his follower to attack Mecca and be violent and harsh with those who resist and fight back. But if they surrender, he advises his men, to stop killing them. Perhaps he felt necessary to reassure his men that they are not going to kill their own relatives in Mecca indiscriminately the way he killed the Jews of Bani Qurayza in Medina, a fresh memory in the minds of his followers.

2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

192- But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

193- And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

However, not all Muhammad’s followers were willing to take part in his wars and for them the idea of killing people for religion was not an attractive proposition. To them Muhammad had this to say:

2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you 

Muhammad knew how to divide and rule. And to make sure his followers do not befriend his enemies he made his Allah reveal: 

3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

And thus takes shape, one of the most violent and brutal cults ever to appear in this planet. More lives have been lost by Islam than in any other human calamity. Only in India the number of victims exceeds 90 million. As we read the news we can see that the victims of Islam are still counting.


back  1  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7    next  > 






Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.