Is Islam Really A Religion Of Peace?
By Roshan Nisar
Even before I delve into critiquing the collection of excerpts entitled “Islam Is A Religion Of Peace” I hasten to asseverate that the purpose of this article is NOT to hurt any religious sentiment or libel any community. However, the objective of this article, quite ostensibly, is to, in the arena of rationality and veracity, disembowel those arguments that are either cloaked in the ostentatious garb of fallacious reasoning or swaddled in the smooth linen of unconscionable mendacity and by so doing, I intend to lay bare facts and call a spade a spade. Woefully, we live in an age that goads us to sacrifice truth on the altar of political correctness and by succumbing to such prodding, we actually end up composing our own elegy.
It is imperative that we, having purged our minds of prejudice and having enshrined our hearts in objectivity, ought to be willing to gauge our cherished beliefs against the nonchalant and disinterested dictates of facts, truth and reality and be humble enough or at least sincere enough to abdicate them when proved erroneous. I opine that a man ought to have no personal stake in any of the beliefs that he holds except in the rational assurance that all the beliefs that he does hold are consonant with truth and correspondent to reality. I’m convinced that this is of paramount necessity because ideologies have germane consequences. After all, the manner in which we conduct our lives is but the logical outworking of the worldviews we subscribe to.
I do not have an iota of doubt that multitudinous Muslims practice their faith peacefully but when the Islamic advocate adduces their example so as to ratify his standpoint, we ought to ask ourselves what the objective point of reference, for assaying an ideology, is. Should an ideology be appraised by the relative and subjective interpretation of an individual / group of individuals or by the absolute and objective truth claims that it makes for itself? Rather than betray the incompatibility (if any actually exists) between terrorism and Islam and divulge the error that certain Muslims commit when they use their own religious texts as their motivation for unleashing heinous acts of terrorism, the issue is completely sidestepped by merely discounting Islamic terrorists as not being true Muslims at all. This is an apposite example of the No True Scotsman which is a logical fallacy by which a person eschews being identified with a reprehensible deed by asserting that no true member of the class, he is a part of, would ever do such a thing.
When one quotes a text in isolation of its context, one runs the risk of committing the cherry picking fallacy (The act of pointing to a part of a case that seems to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of it that may contradict that position.) After all, a text, bereft of its context, can end up as a basis for pretext. In order to eschew such an occurrence, I have adopted the indispensable method of exegesis while dealing with the verses of the Quran (A collection of citations that Muhammad claimed were revealed to him by Allah (The Arabic word for God) through the angel Gabriel). I shall consider the historical context – so we may be aware of origins, references and reasons; the literary context – so we may understand semantic aspects and finally, since it is alleged that Islam is misrepresented and that the Quran is misquoted and misinterpreted by Islamophobes, especially Jews and Christian missionaries, I shall establish as my pedestal the well transcribed citations and their interpretations by those very Islamic scholars and historians who were instrumental in documenting the Hadith (A collection of narrations of the life and deeds of Muhammad) and the Sira (the recorded biography of Muhammad). Hence, I cannot possibly be accused of misconstruction as the interpretations, stated here, are not mine but actually theirs and obviously, no Muslim can find fault with his own Islamic texts that comprise the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira. The Ahadith (plural for Hadith) are of utmost importance to the Muslim as they are the basis for the Sunnah (The perfect example of Muhammad) from which the Sharia (The Islamic law) is derived.
It is enjoined upon every Muslim to emulate the Sunnah. Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages
much in the Praise of Allah. (Quran 33:21)
I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that all Muslims are terrorists. Whoever does so would be guilty of committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. I believe that benevolent and vile people exist everywhere irrespective of their religion, class or nationality. In fact, this article is not so much about Muslims as it is about Islam as a religion, a philosophy, an ideology and a theology. The focus is such because an apparent dichotomy exists in the Muslim world in that a part takes recourse to gory violence and bloodshed while the other refrains from the same. The violent class indicts the peaceful class of duplicity, disobedience and pusillanimity while the peaceful class, reassuring non-Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace, arraigns the violent one of not merely transgressing but perverting Islamic doctrine. The non-Muslim, utterly bamboozled, is pitifully ensnared in the vortex of these discrepant versions of Islam, failing to realize that an objective analysis of the Islamic texts is all that it takes to either manumit himself from the thraldom of his befuddlement or disabuse himself of any awry or subjective opinion. After all, it is the precepts of Islam and NOT the actions of Muslims, whether benign or bellicose, that define it.
From the Islamic vantage point, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim or a radical Muslim for a Muslim is one who confesses the shahada (la ilaha ilallah muhammadun rasulallah-There is no God but God and Muhammad is the final messenger), submits his will to Allah and follows the Sunnah. He does not even have a choice but surrender himself in unwavering obedience to Allah’s commands that are mentioned in the Quran and meticulously imitate the Sunnah which is portrayed in the Hadith and the Sira. It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (Quran 33:36)
Apart from a theological reason, the following lines will divulge profound insight into the argument concerning why all Muslims do not resort to violence if Islam propagates it. A confluence of three criteria (belief, knowledge and obedience), in the mind of an individual, is required for an ideology to translate into action. These individuals can be classified into three categories. The first are those whose overwhelming zeal for their belief in an ideology is, quite appallingly, inversely proportional to the penury of their knowledge of that ideology. Eg: There are many pious Muslims who despite being exceedingly ardent about their religion are painfully nescient of not only the contents of the Islamic texts but also the tenets of Islam. The second are those the firmness of whose belief in an ideology is in accord with the profundity of their knowledge of it yet their obedience to it is in severe discord with the first two parameters. Eg: There are Muslims who focus only on those teachings of the Quran that they find appealing and turn a blind eye to the rest. Their moral discretion takes precedence to their obedience. The third are those in whose spirits you find a coalescence of belief, knowledge and obedience. Eg: In one of the most unsettlingly sinister videos (the viewing of which would cause any decent and rational human being to burn with indignation) released by an Islamic terror outfit, a girl is seen hollering hysterically as her captors, with bestial callousness, rip her clothes off while chanting Allah Hu Akbar (Allah is greater). The girl, in a vain bid to conceal her nakedness with her hands, weeps inconsolably and implores them to stop but they yank her by her hair, slap her and ravage her. One of her captors then, with psychopathic disdain and a sadistic sense of fulfilment, cites this aayat (verse): And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. (Quran 4:24)
Lest these terrorists should be censured for quoting the Quran out of context and twisting Islam to justify their own insatiable concupiscence, abysmal turpitude and macabre violence, let us look at the context of this prescriptive verse in light of the Hadith.
“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.”
(Sunan Abu Dawud volume 2, Hadith no. 2150, p.577)
If the Islamic polemicist, avid to indulge in intellectually emaciated casuistry, asks us to think why all Muslims are not violent if Islam is a religion of violence then should he not also be alacritous to ponder, by using that very yardstick, why all Muslims are not pacifistic if Islam is a religion of peace? Let him unravel why striking congruity exists between the diabolic acts of terrorists and most open ended commands of the Quran.
The claim that Islam means peace is egregiously inaccurate from the perspectives of not only Arabic but also the Quran. Both the words Islam and Muslim are derived from the same Arabic root verb Istaslama which means ‘to submit’ or ‘to surrender.’ Islam means submission and Muslims are submitters (To Allah). The desert Arabs say, “We believe.” Say, “Ye have no faith; but ye (only) say, ‘We have submitted our wills to Allah,’ For not yet has faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Quran 49:14)
Islam began in Saudi Arabia!!! Well, let us set the record straight. Islam began in 610 AD in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula while Saudi Arabia came into existence in 1932 AD. I must admit that the emotive words of the second paragraph about the “intolerance” of the Meccans and the “persecution” (as a byproduct of “intolerance”) of Muhammad are indeed quite poignant except that there is only one problem and that is that none of it is factual in light of either history or the Islamic texts. The people of Mecca were quite tolerant of religions as they were polytheists and the introduction of a new god or religion hardly made any difference to them. Let us see what Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulallah, the most authentic Sira, says: When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy.
We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him. (al-Tabari, Volume 6, p.101)
[The leading men of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca] went to Abu Talib [and said] “Your nephew has
cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error.
Either you must stop him or you must let us get at him”….The apostle continued on his way… In
consequence, his relations with the Quraysh deteriorated and men withdrew from him in enmity.
(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 168)
[Muhammad’s chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: “You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we
will have ours.” (Ibn Ishaq)
Since Quran 2:256 and Quran 109:2-6 have been quoted to bolster the claim that Islam promotes tolerance while Quran 4:75 has been quoted to buttress the claim that Islam advocates fighting ONLY in self-defence, let us look at them exegetically so we may understand their context and see what bearing they have in the Quran today. When one studies the Hadith and the Sira one finds, during the unfolding of Islam, four stages in the life of Muhammad.
Stage 1: The inception of Islam and Hijra-Emigration from Mecca to Medina. (610-622 AD)
When Muhammad, secured by the affluence of his first wife Khadija, lived under the aegis of his very influential and powerful uncle – Abu Talib (the leader of the Banu Hashim, a clan of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca), he received, as he alleged, 86 of the 114 Suras (chapters) of the Quran. These Suras (known as Meccan Suras), having begun in a spirit of seemingly apparent tolerance steadily became increasingly more derisive of the beliefs of the Meccans. Sura 109:2-6 belongs to the earlier part of this period. He proclaimed himself the final and the greatest of all the prophets of the God of Jews and Christians and claimed that their scriptures had prophesies about him. The revelations he claimed to have received at this point referred, very respectfully, to Jews and Christians as Ahl Al-Kitab (The people of the Book). When Muhammad, divested of security by the deaths of Khadija and his chief protector Abu Talib, suffered the backlash of his disparagement of the Meccans he sought an alliance with the Arabs of Yathrib to fight for him. When the leaders of Mecca learnt of this they sought to seize him. Alerted, Muhammad fled to the city of Yathrib which was later renamed as Madinat Al-Nabi (The city of the prophet) and much later as Medina.
Stage 2: Introduction of Islam as a religion of tolerance.
Yathrib was populated with Christians, a very large number of Jews and several pagan tribes all of whom utterly outnumbered Muhammad and his miniscule coterie of Muslim immigrants. He continued, as he alleged, to receive revelations from Allah and interestingly, their tone, unlike the contemptuous one of those he had allegedly received during the latter period at Mecca when Abu Talib was alive, was quite congenial. He cited Sura 2:256 at this juncture. The Jews rejected his claims of prophethood because firstly, he was not a Jew and secondly, his knowledge of the Torah (The Jewish scriptures and also the first five books of the old Testament of the Bible) was garbled and incomplete. The Christians, having perceived, in his renditions, umpteen inconsistencies, revelations contradicting historically established facts and a gross misunderstanding of basic Christian theology, rejected Islam and his claims. However, the pagan tribes embraced Islam.
Stage 3: An outcry of oppression and a call for self-defence.
When the adherents of Islam grew into a considerable number, Muhammad claimed that Allah revealed Quran 4:75 to him. He spurred them on to fight in self-defence and in the cause of the “oppressed” who were being browbeaten by the “intolerant” Meccans. When some of these neophytes evinced their averseness to fight he averred that he had received the following revelations: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (Quran 2:216)
Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with
you. (Quran 47:35)
Stage 4: Islamic hegemony and consequent subjugation or annihilation of non-Muslims.
There was an irrepressible outbreak of utter shock and considerable brouhaha among the converts of Islam when Muhammad cited alleged revelations that completely contravened the previous ones. These revelations addressed those very Jews and Christians (who were earlier referred to, respectfully, as people of the book) as apes and pigs; non-Muslims were addressed as the vilest of animals; Muslims were required to abominate non-Muslims, strike terror into their hearts, fight them until they confess the Shahada, decapitate them in the event that they refuse to embrace Islam despite compulsion and kill Muslims who abdicate Islam. The Muslims who, being overcome by shame and pangs of conscience, were reluctant to rape non-Muslim women in the presence of their captured, non-Muslim husbands, were told that Allah decreed it for them. These “revelations” came to Muhammad ONLY after several pagan tribes embraced Islam as an act of which it became a predominant religion.
1. Say (O Muhammad (SAW) to the people of the Scripture): Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines. (Quran 5:60)
2. O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends ; they are friends of each
other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (Quran 5:51)
3. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which
has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Quran 9:29)
4. I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. (Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith no: 4366)
5. Allah’s apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith no: 177)
Did you wonder why digs were made at Jews and Christians in “Islam is a Religion of Peace” or why Islamic organisations, like HAMAS, engage in antisemitism or why Palestine fires missiles into Israeli cities, killing innocent civilians? The verses, mentioned above, tell us why. Don’t they?
6. Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve , then they would not believe.
7. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (Quran 8:12)
This is precisely what ISIS is doing. Isn’t it?
8. So is it other than the religion of Allah they desire, while to Him have submitted [all] those within the heavens and earth, willingly or by compulsion? (Quran 3:83)
What unecessary pother about Sura 2:256 (There is no compulsion in religion.)!
9. They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper. (Quran 4:89)
10. The Prophet said, “If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith no: 260)
The pandemonium was so great that some of Muhammad’s followers, calling him a fabricator, abjured faith both in him and in Islam. He then received, allegedly, yet another opportune revelation that assuaged the tumult that had prevailed among these early Muslims. He claimed that Allah sent down a revelation of the doctrine known as Al-Nasik wal-Mansukh (The abrogator and the abrogated). This doctrine of abrogation teaches that, in the event of a contradiction between two verses, the one that was revealed later rescinds the one that was revealed earlier. In other words, the violent, Medinan Suras, that were revealed when Islam became a dominant religion and the faith of the majority, nullify the seemingly tolerant and peaceful ones that were revealed at Mecca and at the early stage at Medina when Muhammad barely had a few hundred followers and Islam was an insignificant religion practiced by the minority.
And when We change a Verse [of the Quran, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: “You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar).” Nay, but most of them know not. (Quran 16:101)
It is preposterous, therefore, on the part of Islamic proponents to even quote Sura 2:256 and Sura 109:2-6 for they stand recanted by later Medinan Suras that call all Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they convert to Islam or subjugate them under the suzerainty of Islam or kill them if they reject the first two options.
The claim that the Quran teaches universal brotherhood, kindness and equality of all human beings
(whether Muslim or non-Muslim) may aptly be termed as a by-product of “divinely inspired alderdash.” What the Quran actually teaches is that:
1. The Believers (Muslims) are but a single Brotherhood (Quran 49:10)
2. Muhammad (SAW) is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. (Quran 48:29)
3. Ye (Muslims) are the best of peoples. (Quran 3:110)
4. They (non-Muslims) are the worst of creatures. (Quran 98:6)
The argument that Jihad cannot possibly imply offensive warfare, in the cause of Allah, merely because, etymologically, it stems from the word Jahada (strive or struggle) is as ludicrous as stating that the word “Nice” (pleasing, agreeable, delightful) cannot possibly bear a positive connotation because, etymologically, it stems from the Latin root-nescius (ignorant or unaware). The Islamic proponent seems to have a problem deciphering the difference between semantics (literal meaning) and pragmatics (intended meaning). There is an utter fiasco, on his part, to realize that the conceptual/denotative meaning of a word can be quite different from its own associative/connotative meaning.
Eg: 1. I have ten pins (small, slender and pointed pieces of metal).
2. He is on pins and needles (A state of nervous anticipation).
When the most deplorable evils such as rape, torture and murder are themselves nestled in the very bosom of Islam, through divine sanction, I wonder what other “evil inclinations” the Islamic apologist claims that Jihad is a fight against. Rather than be wooed by his rosy exposition of Jihad let us turn to the Quran and the second most authentic Hadith for its rightful definition.
1. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others
besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. (Quran 8:39)
2. The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith no: 33)
Muhammad’s alleged revelations about Paradise as a place of gardens and vineyards filled with gorgeous virgins with whom Muslims could have sex perennially, titillated the baser instincts of his proselytes whose irrational enthusiasm was piqued by the belief that they would acquire rewards and war booty (if alive) or enter Paradise (if killed in Jihad).
1. They will have gardens and vineyards, maidens with pears-shaped breasts who are of equal age (to
their spouses). (Quran 78:32-33)
2. Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse) before them. (Quran 55:56)
3. The smallest reward for the people of Paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives…. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi Hadith 2562)
4. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 56, Hadith no:6)
Frenzied mobs of Muslims, convinced that they were actually rendering a service to Allah, waged Jihad with non-Muslims and set themselves on a killing spree. Their acts are indelibly etched in the annals of history: Raids on Meccan caravans (623AD), Battle of Badr (624AD), Battle of the trench (627AD), Massacre of the Qurayza Jews (627AD), decimation of Khaybar Jews (628 AD), surprise attack (A breach of a truce signed in 628AD) on Mecca and its expropriation (630AD) and the count continues till date. The Ahadith and the Sira are replete with umpteen chronicles one of which is as follows: Then a man drew his sword and cut off his son’s foot so that he fell down and Umayya (the boy’s father) let out a cry such as I have never heard… They hewed them to pieces with their swords until they were dead.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham)
Is Sura 5:32 really a divine teaching of the Quran? Has it been quoted exactly as it is mentioned in the Quran or has something, amply vital, been omitted? One couldn’t have asked for a better example of the cherry picking fallacy than this. Let us look at it, in its entirety, as it is mentioned in the Quran: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be for
murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Quran 5:32)
The underlined parts spill the beans. Since when exactly did Muslims become the Children of Israel? The indefinite pronoun “anyone”, in this context, implies anyone of the children of Israel. This aayat is NOT a divine teaching of the Quran but a mere recounting of an edict of the Jewish Talmud that was given to Jews (The children of Israel) way before Muhammad was even born. Do not be veered by the word WE. It does not denote a plurality of persons rather it is an instance of pluralis majestatis (Majestic/Royal plural) that refers to God. This alleged revelation, reminding Muslims of the Jewish precept that was given to the Jews and accusing them of rejecting the prophets of the past, prepares grounds for the punishment that believers (Muslims) should accord to the infidels (Jews). That punishment is vividly and graphically elaborated in the very succeeding verse which the Islamic polemicist did not unearth. It is highly ironic that this verse has been used to advocate the antithesis of what it actually advocates. This Sura is responsible for most of the sanguinary killings perpetrated in the name of Islam. While the word “murder”, in this aayat, is well defined, the word “mischief” has been left open to the subjective interpretation of individual Muslims, down through the ages, some of whom categorized even a questioning of the integrity of the alleged revelations of Muhammad as mischief and administered, to those “mischief makers”, the punishment recommended in the subsequent verse which is as follows: The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Quran 5:33)
This Sura, far from condemning murder, incites profound antagonism against Jews. Did the Islamic apologist inadvertently omit the first part of aayat 32 and the whole of aayat 33 or did he do it because he is exercising Kitman? Islam divides the world into two parts viz. Dar Al Islam (The House of Islam – filled with Muslims) and Dar Al Harb (The House of war – filled with infidels). Do not be swayed by the dictionary definition of “infidel.” According to Islam, every non-Muslim is an infidel and any non-Muslim land is Dar Al Harb. The doctrines of Taqiyya (saying something that isn’t true) and Kitman (Lying by omission) endow Muslims with divine sanction of legal dispensation and permit them to lie to the extent of not only gainsaying their faith in Islam but also indulging in blasphemous acts only so long as they don’t mean that in their hearts. These doctrines permit a Muslim to do so when the greater purpose is to
1. Preserve himself when he suffers persecution at the hands of the infidels in Dar Al Harb.
2. Defeat the infidel in war in Dar Al Harb.
3. Deceive the infidel, in Dar Al Harb, so the cause of Islam may be advanced.
4. Appease his spouse.
5. Reconcile estranged members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Had the Muslim apologist studied the Ahadith diligently he would have known why Muslims kill fellow Muslims and bomb mosques. Let’s take a look at the following narrative:
The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) said: “What befell the children of Isra’il will befall my Ummah (The Muslim community), step by step………….do that. Indeed the children of Isra’il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect.” He said: “And which is it O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “What I am upon and my Companions.” (Jami al-Tirmidhi Book 38 Hadith number 2641)
Since the inception of Islam there has been a ramification of sects viz. Sunnis, Shias, Wahhabis, Sufis, Ahamadiyyas, Bahais etc The number long crossed 73 and Muslim religious leaders, in a desperate endeavour to prove Muhammad’s prediction right, began classifying those sects (in excess of 73) as sub sects of the 73 sects. Each sect believes that it is the one that will go to Jannah (Paradise) and that the rest will abide in the fire of hell. The members of some of these sects, considering the rest to be infidels, kill them and obliterate their places of worship. As though this mayhem weren’t enough, ISIS, calling as hypocrites those Muslims who denounced it or did not uphold it, began butchering them. So, firstly, “believers” are commanded to kill “infidels” until there is no more Fitnah and the whole world is Dar Al Islam and then these “believers”, out of their own conjectures that others among them are parts of sects that are destined to hell, begin slaughtering one another until mankind exterminates itself and death has the last laugh.
Is the act of burning people alive really unislamic? Let us have a look at the most authentic Sira so we may find the answer. When he (Muhammad) asked him (Kinana) about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr bin al – Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has, “so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead.” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515)
I wonder, out of sheer curiosity, whether the Muslim polemicist would abrogate his earlier statement (No sane human being would do such a thing and definitely not a true Muslim.) now that the above
revelation has come to him.
Although many people continue to embrace Islam (Kudos to those who convince them that it is a religion of peace!) the main contributing factor for its phenomenal growth is the relatively higher birth rate among the Muslims of the world.
The prophet (SAW) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the
peoples by you. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Hadith number 2045)
Truth is not a natural corollary of belief. Scores of people, quite despairingly, place their belief in a proposition without even investigating its veracity. Professing that an ideology is true merely because
myriad people believe it is a fallacy known as argumentum ad numeram. The truth of a proposition is
independent of both personal opinion and the number of people that subscribe to it.
I egg anyone, who may dissent with me on my critique, to disinter an error (if there is one) and in the event that he finds none at all, I urge him to introspect and ferret out the reason that restrains him from embracing verity. Disconsolately, I have known people, with procrustean hearts, whose partisan minds would rather remain ensconced in the womb of nescience than take birth into the realm of cognizance.
I concur that violent criminals do not speak for Islam. As a matter of fact, Islam needs no Spokesperson at all for it speaks quite eloquently and perspicuously for itself. Have terrorists besmirched the countenance of Islam or have they simply raised the Hijab that concealed the real visage of Islam? Is Islam really a religion of peace? The answer is quite patent. Isn’t it?
1. For false Christs and false prophets will appear
and perform great signs and miracles to deceive
even the elect–if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. “So if anyone tells you,
`There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out;
or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
(Matthew 24:24-26, The Bible)
2. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree
cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall
know them. (Matthew 7:16-20, The Bible)
3. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will
think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the
Father or me.
I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. (John 16:2-4, The Bible)
4. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and
because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image. (Revelation 20:4, The Bible)
5. There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. (Proverbs 6:16-19, The Bible)
6. The thief (Satan) comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I (Jesus Christ) have come that they may
have life, and have it to the full. (John 10:10, The Bible)
7. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her
in his heart. (Matthew 5:28, The Bible)
8. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9, The Bible)
9. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone
and give you a heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36:26, The Bible)
10. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16, The Bible)
11. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
(Romans 5:8, The Bible)
12. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your father which is in heaven: for He maketh His Sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 5:44-45, The Bible)
13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13, The Bible)
14. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, gentleness and self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23, The Bible)
15. If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Corinthians 13:1, The Bible)
16. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. (Colossians 3:12, The Bible)
17. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about
such things. (Philippians 4:8, The Bible)