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
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
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.
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:
4, Book 56, Number 830:
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)."
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
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.
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
even mentioned that he visited the Jinns and expended a night in their
town and they converted to Islam.
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.
“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
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?
bizarre imaginative power of Muhammad did not end there. He claimed that:
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:
“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
”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
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.
“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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400
Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had
done a thing which in fact he had not done.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 490
”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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
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
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.
"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
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
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
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.
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
7, Book 71, Number 660:
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
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.
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
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.
1, Book 12, Number 795:
(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.
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?
In your letter you repeated the ridiculous
challenge of Muhammad known as “Produce a Sura
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
Muslims out of Mecca?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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?
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
“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:
are very harsh words against his own followers who did not leave Mecca and
stayed behind. In other part he presses further this point.
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:
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
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.
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.
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:
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:
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
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
| 6 | 7