The Qur’an: The Mountains are Extra Terrestrial

Islamic scientific blunder

It doesn’t take long for an objective reader of the Qur’an to notice that the entire book is dominated by a theme of repetitions and contradictions. Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the third Caliph, once described the Qur’an as a multi faced book because it can be interpreted in many different ways (1). Ali’s judgement is of exceptional significance because it came from a pious Muslim with undisputed fluency in Arabic. Ali is generally considered as the most ‘intellectual’ of Mohammed’s companions. Mohammed also made a similar confession, in the Qur’an itself, when it was pointed out to him that some of his later verses were contradicting other verses revealed in earlier years (2).

However, the Qur’an still describes itself as the clear book in a number of verses (3), and I must say that there are occasions when the Qur’an lives up to that description. Such unusual clarity in the book, where the general theme is ambiguity, exists in some of the so called ‘scientific verses’. When Mohammed expressed his scientific knowledge in the Qur’an, he often did using a clear and simple language that was comprehensible to all his followers. There are no records at all that the Arabs ever asked for clarification of any of the so called ‘scientific verses’ in the Qur’an. Equally true, there are no records at all that the Arabs ever expressed their disapproval to any of those verses. We can safely draw two conclusions from the above historical evidence:

The first conclusion is that the verses were clear enough that all the Arabs understood them well. There can be no excuse at all for today’s Muslim scholars to twist the language and invent more acceptable meanings.

The second conclusion is that the Arabs accepted the information contained in those verses as common knowledge with nothing new in them. That is why they didn’t ask questions or express their disapproval.

All the above is a clear indication that the Qur’an was in total agreement of the prevailing scientific knowledge in the seventh century Arabia.

The Qur’an’s cosmology
According to the Qur’an, the earth and the mountains are two separate entities, just like the earth and the skies are also two separate entities. The Qur’an asserts that the mountains did not originate from the earth, but were brought from ‘outside’ and then erected on the earth to fix it and stop it from swaying!

The creation and structure of the universe are repeatedly described in the Qur’an in simple language that is easy to understand and difficult to twist, even by the Muslim scholars who twist anything. Unlike the Greek, the seventh century Arabs were far behind in science and discoveries; their knowledge was mainly based on the myths that reached them through the hundreds of religions practiced in Arabia. The ancient mythologies of Mesopotamia, India and Persia were also echoed in Arabia. The Arabs, like many other nations at the time, believed that the world was a massive flat land that was attached to the sky until separated by a god. The Arabs believed that it was Allah, their moon god, who did the separation. The Qur’an confirms this myth in verse Q.21: 30 “Do not the unbeliever’s see that the skies and earth were stitched (retkan) together, and then we separated them ….”. The wording of the verse suggests that the Qur’an was referring to already known information. When somebody says to a group of people “don’t you see that the doors are painted red?” we understand that the group already know the doors are painted red and that the speaker only reminded them with a fact they all agree about.

Verse Q. 21:30 is crucial in Islamic science because it is seriously believed by the so called ‘miracle scientists’ to be the basis of the ‘Islamic big bang theory’ which is not exactly the same as the real Big Bang theory. As it is clear from the verse, the Islamic theory describes an already formed earth that was attached to an already formed sky until both were separated by Allah. That belief is in sharp contrast to the real Big Bang theory, which discusses the birth of the universe before the existence of the earth or the sky. I am afraid that in verse 21:30, the Qur’an only repeats the same old pagan myths that were already in circulation in Arabia; separating the sky from the earth and raising it high up!

To make sure that the ‘Islamic cosmology’ never meets with the infidels’ cosmology, the Qur’an goes into more details and describes the sky, which is only emptiness in the real world, as a solid structure that was raised high up by the almighty Allah who keeps it in place using a system of invisible pillars. “Q.13:2 Allah is He who raised the skies without any pillars that you can see”. To make sure that everybody gets the message clearly, the Qur’an reminds its readers that the sky would fall down on earth if it were not to Allah’s mercy. “(Q.22:65) ..He withholds the sky from falling on the earth except by His permission for Allah is most kind…”

Those invisible pillars, described in verse 13:2, must be resting on the earth, which implies that the earth must be flat. Just in case some people did not get the point, the Qur’an went on describing the earth as flat using all the words in the Arabic language that can possibly mean flat, and still the Muslims don’t get it!

The author of the Qur’an likened the earth to a carpet (Q.71:19) that, when used in the open, requires some stones, or pegs, to secure it against the blowing desert wind. Similarly, the flat earth, which was thought to be floating on water, also required some mechanism to stabilize it. The problem of the Earth’s instability was fixed by erecting massive pegs, called mountains, which Allah dropped on its surface and erected to function as stabilizers. Therefore, the mountains were not part of the earth!

The Qur’an’s geology:
The Qur’an doesn’t agree with our the established knowledge that the mountains are integral parts of the earth that were formed as a result of tectonic forces and have no role at all on the Earth’s stability. Instead, the Qur’an’s declares that the mountains were extraterrestrial objects that were added to the earth, after its creation, to stop its imaginary swaying movement.

In verses 88:18-20, the Qur’an calls people to think of three of Allah’s major creations; the sky, the mountains and the earth. Sura88 is clear evidence that the Qur’an considers the three creations as separate structures. Read this: “Q.88:18-20 And at the sky, how it is raised? And at the mountains, how they are erected? And at the earth, how it is spread out?” It is disgraceful that the writer of the Qur’an, who obviously knew nothing about the nature of those structures, could claim to have created them. Just like a person who knows nothing about computers and still claims to have invented them!

Verse 19:90 claims that even the skies, the earth and the mountains are full of rage because some people claim that Allah had a son. The Qur’an describes the ‘feelings’ of those three structures and doesn’t miss the opportunity to confirm its ignorance about the nature of those creations: “At it the skies are about to crack, the earth about to split, and the mountains about to fall and crumble”

More evidence that the mountains are different from the earth comes in verse Q.13:31 “If there were a Qur’an with which mountains were moved, or the earth cut into pieces…” and in verse Q.18:47: “And the day when we shall cause the mountains to pass away, and you see the earth prominent….”.

Verses 56:4-5 and verse 73:14 describe what will happen to the Earth and the mountains on the Last Day; the earth will be shaken while the mountains will crumble. The different treatment received by each creation is an indication that both were different entities in the mind whoever wrote the Qur’an:

Q.56:4. “.. the earth shall be shaken. 56:5 and the mountains shall be crumbled”
Q. 73: 14. “One day the earth and the mountains will shake, and the mountains will be as a heap of flowing sand”

It is impossible to justify the blunders in the above verses and remain in the area of sanity, but the Muslim scholars would come up with something and claim that the verses contain no errors, but miracles! They would use the same tactics of twisting the language and claiming that Allah didn’t mean what he said.

Well, it seems that Allah did mean what he said because verse Q.15: 19 tells us how the mountains came to the flat earth: Q.15:19 “And the earth we have spread out; and thrown thereon mountains…” therefore, the mountains were dropped on the earth after its creation. Verse 16: 15 goes even further and explains that Allah decided to add the mountains to the earth to stop it from shaking: “And He has thrown down mountains on the earth, lest it should shake with you…”

In case somebody did not hear well, the Qur’an repeats the same information with the same consistency in verses 31:10 and 50:7

31:10. “He created the skies without any pillars that you can see; He thrown down on the Earth Mountains, lest it should shake with you…”

50:7. “And the earth- We have spread it out, and thrown down thereon mountains…”

In verses 70: 8-9, the Qur’an speaks about the mountains in a similar way it speaks about the sky. These two verses describe what will happen to both structures on that same day, which is the Last Day. However, that scientific consistency we praised in the beginning of the article seems to have broken, but we cannot expect the Qur’an to avoid contradictions every time. The sky, according to verse 70:8, will become like molten brass, but the mountains, which were supposed to crumble in verse 56:5, now will become like cotton wool!

70: 9. “And the mountains will be like wool”
77: 8. “Then when the stars become dim”

It is an extraordinary irony that the Muslims read the Qur’an but do not notice any of the above colossal errors. They read appalling blunders like the sky is a solid structure, or roof (Q. 21:32) that has the potential to fall down on the earth without noticing anything wrong there. The Muslims’ brains have been numbed and became insensitive to all those errors; the only word that matters to them is the word ‘awtad’ (pegs), which the Qur’an once used to refer to the mountains (Q.78:7). When some Muslims happened to learn that some the mountains have deep roots underground they quickly remembered the word ‘awtad’ because the pegs are also partly underground. Thousands of articles and books were published about this ‘scientific miracle’ of the Qur’an. Radio and television programmes and scientific conferences were organised to celebrate the discovery. All this without any Muslim scholar ever noticing that the Qur’an also referred to the Pharaohs’ pyramids as ‘awtad’, not once but twice (Q.38:12, Q.89:10).

In the past, the Muslim scholars had no problems in the interpretation of the above verses or any other verses in the Qur’an. They only had to provide a simple and straight forward explanation of the language without any external pressures. It was only in the last century when they realised that the Qur’an, which they long claimed to be the perfect book, was actually at odds with proven scientific knowledge. To pre-empt any criticism to the Qur’an, the Muslim scholars adopted their strategy of ‘attack is the best defence’. By focusing on the ‘miracles’ of the word ‘awtad’, the Muslim scholars succeeded in diverting the attention of the Muslims’ minds and raised the standing of the Qur’an; rather than talking about Qur’anic errors, the Muslim scholars now talk about scientific miracles!

During my preparation of this article, I looked at the available English translations of the above verses and noticed the deliberate deception. I wasn’t surprised; this observation has become a regular pattern whenever I look at the English translations of the Qur’an. In the example of the above verses, the Muslim scholars deceived the readers when they avoided the proper translation of the Arabic word ‘alka’, meaning threw or dropped (the mountains), which they translated as placed or erected (the mountains) to conceal the obvious error.

As an example of extreme deception, one of the verses (73: 14) quoted above reads like this: One day the earth and the mountains will shake, and the mountains will be as a heap of sand”, but some Muslim scholars translated it like this: “The day is coming when the masses and the wealthy tyrants will shake and the leaders will be as a heap of sand” (5)!

Is there any point in debating Muslims when they are so determined to lie?

References:
1. A famous statement by Caliph Ali“The Qur’an is a multi faced book” which means it lends itself to multiple interpretations.
2. Q.3:7
3. 12:1 “these are the Verses of the Clear Book…”, 26: 2 “these are the Verses of the Clear Book…”, 28:2 “these are the Verses of the Clear Book…”
4. Q.71:19 And God has laid the earth for you as a carpet (bisata).
5. Translation by ‘OXP’ seen on islamawakened.com

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/10/28/the-Qur’an-the-mountains-are-extra-terrestrial/

IHS

The Sexual Powers of Prophet Muhammad

Many Muslims believe that the prophet Muhammad was a man endowed with super human powers in the realm of sexuality. Muslim males are especially proud of this Islamic tradition and often use it as material for jokes and boasting.

During my days in Islam, I remember a product being sold in an Islamic book store that was designed to give men extra sexual energy. It was a glass jar containing a mixture of pistachio nuts and honey as well as some other ingredients.

The guy working the cash register was grinning from ear to ear trying to make fun while explaining that studly Muhammad had the sex drive of thirty men and used to bed all of his women in one night when the horny little freak got the urge. I just smiled back at the guy and laughed at his stupidity.

Here is an authentic hadith documenting the great sexual prowess of one Muhammad of Arabia:

Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268: Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

See, Muhammad really was a playboy who scored with the ladies! So what if some of those women were in actuality slaves and concubines, right? It is likely that both Muhammad’s slave and non-slave women would have left (…) were it not for fear of losing their lives. After all, he had killed some of their husbands.

Jihadis are blowing themselves up and killing both Muslim and non-Muslim peoples on a daily basis trying to get to “the goodies” waiting in Paradise that “Muhammad promised them”. Those deluded fools think that Mr.Allah up there in 7^th heaven is going produce an endless supply of perfect virgins for them.

These programmed robots are trying to kill their way into Paradise so that they can “get busy with all of those willing cuties”. The Qur’an, (…) contains many passages describing the carnal rewards of Islamic heaven. Here is a small sample of what Muslim males expect to enjoy when they die:

Qur’an, 056.012-039: They shall recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruit of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds…We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand…

055.054-059: They shall recline on couches lined with thick brocade, and within reach shall hang the fruits of both gardens. Which of your Lord’s blessing would you deny? Therein are bashful virgins whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before. Which of your Lord’s blessings would you deny? Virgins as fair as corals and rubies. Which of your Lord’s blessing would you deny?

055.072-075: Dark-eyed virgins, sheltered in their tents (which of your Lord’s blessing would you deny?), whom neither man nor jinnee will have toughed before. Which of your Lord’s blessing would you deny?

Muslim males actually expect 72 virgins each when they die and go to heaven! Muslims believe this nonsense because it is specified in a Hadith contained within the Al-Tirmidhi collection: (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, Hadith 2687).

“The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: ‘The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana’a [Yemen]‘.”

The sensual pleasures that Muslims expect to experience in Paradise have been described in graphic detail by Egyptian scholar and Islamic theologian, Imam Al-Suyuti (died 1505). He wrote:

“Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas.”

Though fear and hatred are the real engine of Islam, sex and other luxuries are a damn close second! No wonder so many Muslims are eager to kill and die and go to heaven!!

Saleem Smith is a Canadian Ex-Muslim. He has his own site in which he expresses his views on Islam and other issues. Here is a link to his site: http://www.considerationsofacanadianex-muslim.org

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/10/25/the-sexual-powers-of-prophet-muhammad/

IHS

Muhammad and Dogs

Idiosyncrasy at its extreme

Some years back I started to begin my journey of renouncing my faith and love of god. This happened while a good Muslim friend of mine started to relate to me how great Islam is and how I would be rewarded into heaven of being the ashraful maqluqat. This all started when he visited my house for dinner and when he is being greeted at our doorsteps by my dog –roady, he started to say ass-traffullahs… This led to his ranting about how I am not being blessed by angels and that my house is haram for him. He left after a short while and did not take dinner with me… The following when I enquired about his sudden change of attitudes towards me, I was given a big rude Islamic lecture about keeping dogs as pets and what is forbidden in Islam. By now, I was so shocked to find him to be so naïve…? That’s when I started to search for answers on the internet and came upon this website called http://www.answering-islam.org

I wanted to share this with you so here is that wonderful article by Silas…

MUHAMMAD AND THE DOGS

By Silas

INTRODUCTION

Muhammad made strange and harsh statements about dogs and these edicts affect dogs in a tragic way until this very day…! His teachings may have come from cultural bias, Pagan concepts, or his own imagination, but wherever they came from they led to the cruel treatment of dogs.

None of the statements regarding dogs are found in the Qur’an but they abound in the various collections of Islamic traditions (hadith). These traditions are a primary foundation of Islamic theology and are the basis of many Islamic laws. They render dogs as “impure” and worse. As per Muhammad’s orders, most dogs were to be killed and all dogs of a specific color (black) had to be killed.

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God and as such, his word as to be dearly obeyed. With the teeth of Islam, biting worldwide it is vital that Muhammad’s teachings to be scrutinized to determine if he were a nut or a prophet…???

STATEMENTS FROM THE HADITHS

Below are a number of Hadiths on various aspects involving dogs. All Hadiths are from the Sahih collections of Bukhari^[1] and Muslim^[2], or the Sunan of Abu Dawud^[3]. After the Qur’an, Bukhari’s set of Hadiths are regarded to be the second most important books in Islam, followed closely by the Hadiths of Sahih Muslim. I quote from these sources to prove that these Hadiths are not just a few isolated or unsupported cases. I have sorted Muhammad’s statements concerning dogs into 5 (five) categories. All of these illustrate different facets of his beliefs regarding dogs.

1) KILL THE DOGS

From Bukhari Vol. 4, #540; Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.

From Abu Dawud #2839; “Abd Allah B. Mughaffal reported the apostle of Allah as saying: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.

The Hadith’s note for #2839 says, “The prophet did not order the killing of all the dogs, for some are to be retained for hunting and watching. He ordered to kill the jet-black ones. They might be more mischievous among them”.

From Muslim #3814; “Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah’s messenger ordered the killing of dogs and then said, “What is the trouble with them (the people of Medina? How dogs are nuisances to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds… [and for] for the protection of cultivated land”.

From Muslim #Number 055; “Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? And then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time”.

From Muslim #3813; “Abu Zubair heard Jabir Abdullah saying: Allah’s messenger ordered us to kill dogs and we carried out this order so much so that we also killed the dog roaming with a women from the desert. Then Allah’s apostle forbade their killing. He said: “It is your duty to kill the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes) for it is a devil”.

The note for #3814 says, “The Hadiths gives us an idea why the prophet commanded to kill dogs. There must have been an excess of stray dogs and thus the danger of rabies in the city of Medina and its suburbs. The prophet therefore ordered to kill them. Later on when it was found that his Companions were killing them indiscriminately, he forbade them to do so and told them that only the ferocious beasts, which were a source of danger to life, should be killed. The word “Devil” in the Hadiths clarifies this point. Here devil stands for ferocious”.

HOWEVER, THE REASONING WITHIN THE NOTE ABOVE IS INCORRECT –READ BELOW.

From Muslim #5248; “Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad mood. Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening, Gabriel met him and he said to him: You promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields or big gardens”.

COMMENT
These Hadiths tell the story of Muhammad’s order to kill dogs. Muhammad said he would like to have all dogs killed. He wanted them killed, NOT because packs of dogs were tormenting the citizens of Medina, but rather, because a puppy stopped the mighty angel Gabriel. Muhammad’s solution was to kill the dogs. He first said he wanted all dogs killed but then made exceptions for dogs that are used for farming, hunting, or watching (outside). Further, he ordered that all black dogs be killed and called them “a Satan”.

2) COMMERCE IN DOGS

From Bukhari Vol. 3, #299; Narrated ‘Aun bin Abu Juhaifa: “My father bought a slave who practiced the profession of cupping. (My father broke the slave’s instruments of cupping). I asked my father why he had done so. He replied, “The Prophet forbade the acceptance of the price of a dog or blood, and also forbade the profession of tattooing, getting tattooed and receiving or giving Riba, (usury), and cursed the picture-makers.”

From Bukhari Vol. 3, #482; Narrated Abu Mas’ud Al-Ansari: “Allah’s Apostle regarded illegal the price of a dog, the earnings of a prostitute, and the charges taken by a soothsayer.”

From Muslim #3803; Abu Masud reported that Allah’s messenger forbade the charging of price of the dog and earning of a prostitute and sweets offered to a kahin.

COMMENT
Muhammad believed that money made from the sale of a dog (for other than already mentioned purposes) was considered as evil as the money made from prostitution, witchcraft, or usury. Something about dogs disturbed Muhammad deeply.

3) LOSS OF REWARD OF GOOD WORKS FOR OWNING DOGS

From Bukhari Vol. 3, #515; Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah’s Apostle said, “Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle.” Abu Huraira (in another narration) said from the Prophet, “unless it is used for guarding sheep or farms, or for hunting.” Narrated Abu Hazim from Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “A dog for guarding cattle or for hunting.”"

From Muslim Number 3815: Ibn Umar reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: He who keeps a dog other than that meant for watching the herd or for hunting loses every day out of his deeds equal to two qirat.

From Muslim Number 2062: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: He who attends the funeral till the prayer is offered for (the dead), for him is the reward of one qirat, and he who attends (and stays) till he is buried, for him is the reward of two qirats. It was said: What are the qirats? He said: They are equivalent to two huge mountains. Two other narrators added: Ibn ‘Umar used to pray and then depart (without waiting for the burial of the dead). When the tradition of Abu Huraira reached him, he said:” We have lost many qirats.”

COMMENT
Having a dog as a pet is prohibited in Islam. In fact, if a Muslim keeps a dog as a pet God will take away some heavenly reward for his good deeds! Notice that the amount taken away changed from one to two qirats.

4) DOGS ANNULLING PRAYER

From Bukhari Vol. 1, #490; Narrated ‘Aisha: “The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him.”"

From Muslim Number 1032; Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of ‘Allah said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.

From Abu Dawud Number 0704: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw.

COMMENT
These hadiths state that if a dog passes in front of people praying it annuls their prayer. Annul means, “to reduce to nothing”, or “to make ineffective or inoperative”. If a group of people are praying and a dog walks in-between them and the Kaba (in Mecca), then their prayer is made null.

5) DOGS STOP THE ANGELS

From Bukhari Vol. 4, #448; Narrated Abu Talha: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying; “Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal).”"

From Bukhari Vol. 7, #843; Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet but he delayed and the Prophet got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, “We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog.”"

From Muslim, #5276: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: Angels do not accompany the travelers who have with them a dog and a bell.

From Muslim, #5279: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: “The bell is the musical instrument of Satan.”

COMMENT
The story behind these hadiths was mentioned earlier. A little puppy stopped an angel from entering the house because it was “unclean”. Note that angels do not enter a place with a dog, or accompany people who travel with a dog.

THE TOMES

The tomes also details the same aspects found in the traditions. We’ll start with the Reliance of the Traveler^[4] which is a compendium of Shafi’i law.

On filth, page 95; e14.0 FILTH (NAJASA); e.14.1 Filth means: (8) dogs and pigs, or their offspring

On purification, page 98; e14.7 Something that becomes impure by contact (def: below) with something from dogs or swine does not become pure except by being washed seven times, one of which (recommended not to be the last) must be with purifying earth (def: e12.1 (b)) mixed with purifying water, and it must read all of the affected area. One may not substitute something else like soap or glasswort in place of earth.

(n: The contact referred to is restricted, in the Shafi’i school, to contamination by traces of moisture from dogs or swing, whether saliva, urine, anything moist from them, or any of their dry parts that have become moist…)

On trade, page 382: k2.2 It is invalid to transact something that is impure in itself (najasa, def: e141) such as a dog or something affected with filth that cannot be purified (O: by washing), like milk or shortening, though if it can be, like a garment, then it may be transacted.

The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam^[5] entry on dogs (Kalb).

Page 215: Kalb (the dog), is also in Islam one of the “unclean beasts” (hence kalb as an abusive word, specially to unbelievers), primarily because its flesh may not be eaten (al-Nawawi ..) and further because, according to the Hadiths, there are several special regulation regarding it. For example dogs render food which they lick impure and render unavailable water intended for ritual purifications…) Vessels, likewise, which have been licked by dogs, require to be cleaned several times including once with sand. In a certain way they render impure the whole room in which they are; for angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog and Muhammad had first to sprinkle the place on which a young dog had lain concealed with purificatory water before Djibril would appear to him….)

Dogs “cut off the salat”, i.e. they make the salat worthless when they come into the immediate vicinity of the man at prayer (Ibn Madja, Ikama, bab 30), and one is all the more inclined to attribute this rule to the impurity of the dog as it also holds for menstruating women. The Arab commentators, however, explain it by saying that the dog frightens the worshipper and distracts him from his devotions (al-Sindi commentary on Ibn Madja as cited above). This is especially true of the black dog, for “he is Satan”). This saying is either to be interpreted literally as meaning that Satan occasionally appears in the form a black dog (cf. Faust) or it only means that black dogs in general are considered particularly dangerous. Dogs in general are considered noxious and should therefore be exterminated (al-Nasa’i, Said wa’l-dhaba’ih, bab 9-14_, but as “Allah does not create anything in which there is not a trace of His wisdom” (al-Sindi, commentary on this passage), this rule is applied only to black dogs.

It is only permitted to keep dogs for hunting, for herding and for watching (al-Nasa’i, op. cit.); whoever keeps a forbidden dog has to forfeit a portion of his possession daily (cf. Babylon. Talmud Shabbath, fol 63: “whoever possesses a dangerous dog keeps good fortune away from his house”). Dealing in dogs on the other hand is strictly forbidden (al-Bukhari, Buyu’ bab 25).

But in spite of its impurity and dangerousness the Arabs are able to appreciate the good qualities and services of the dog. Muhammad himself promises a woman a divine reward for a kindness which she had done a thirsty dog (al-Bukhari, Wudi, bab 33), and al-Kazwini (p. 403) characterizes the dog as “a particularly intelligent, very useful animal, patient in hunger an on the watch, whose cleverness and fidelity are shown in many ways”. …

COMMENT
The tomes echo the hadiths statements. That’s’ because the hadiths statements are theological bedrock for Islam’s denigration of dogs, hence the scholars detail the rulings in their books of jurisprudence or theology. Islam has a formal, establish, legal position that dogs are unclean and it rejects dogs as pets.

OTHER SOURCES
There are many Muslim sites that discuss dog ownership. Real Muslims believe in obeying the Islamic law – the Sharia’h, which states that keeping dogs as pets is not permitted. Below are a few samples.

The Muslim Q&A site Albalgh^[6] answers a young Muslim’s question regarding keeping a dog as a pet:

Q.) I am a 15 year old Muslim American and my mother is buying a dog. I heard that if I touch the dog, I cannot pray. Is this true? What should I do?

Similarly Allah Taãla created the dog from among His creation. This does not mean that we should love the dog. It is perhaps the indoctrination of the Western culture that ‘The dog is Man’s best Friend’. The theory that ‘dogs are very dependent on Human affection’ is a myth – again culture and custom has helped to develop this unnatural behavior.

Allah Taãla the Creator of this Universe – having created the dog would surely have known that the dog requires Human affection and love to exist in this world. Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) would have advised us to keep dogs as pets. On the contrary, we are instructed not to keep dogs as pets and ‘love’ them as exemplified by the non-Muslims. Remember our life is structured and bound by the Shariah i.e. The Noble Qurãn and the beautiful example of Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam). Consider these Ahaadith:

… Salaam) said that we, the group of Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or pictures. (Sahih Muslim Hadith no.3928)

In the light of these Ahadiths and other narrations, it is not permissible to keep dogs as pets. The household is deprived of the Mercy of Allah Taãla.

The website Islam-qa^[7] addresses a person’s question regarding owning dogs:

Question: What is the ruling on raising dogs in the house?

Answer…It is not permissible for a Muslim to keep a dog, unless he needs this dog for hunting, guarding livestock or guarding crops.

Al-Bukhaari (2145) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, a qiraat from his good deeds will be deducted every day, except a dog for farming or herding livestock.”

Muslim (2978) narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever keeps a dog that is not a dog for hunting, herding livestock or farming, two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.”

With regard to keeping dogs, this is haraam and is in fact a major sin, because the one who keeps a dog, except those for which an exception has been made, will have two qiraats deducted from his reward every day.

It is by the wisdom of Allah that like calls to like and evil calls to evil. It is said that the kaafirs, Jews, Christians and communists in the east and the west all keep dogs, Allaah forbid. Each one takes his dog with him and cleans it every day with soap and other cleansing agents. But even if he were to clean it with the water of all the seas in the world and all the soap in the world, it would never become pure! Because its impurity is inherent, and inherent impurity cannot be cleansed except by destroying it and erasing it altogether.

But this is by the wisdom of Allah, and the wisdom of Allah is that like calls to like and evil calls to Shaytaan because this kufr of theirs is by the inspiration of the Shaytaan and the command of the Shaytaan, for the Shaytaan enjoins evil, immorality, kufr and misguidance. So they are slaves to the Shaytaan and to their whims and desires, and they are also evil and love vile things. We ask Allah to guide us and them.

COMMENT
These Muslim sites are only stating what the Sharia’h teaches: You can’t own dogs. The site above says that not only is it not permissible for Muslims to own dogs, but that the dogs must be destroyed. And note that it ends with a denunciation of non-Muslims (kufr) and states that owning dogs comes from the inspiration of Satan and dog owners are slaves to Satan.

TO OBEY OR NOT OBEY MUHAMMAD? –THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Islam has branded the dog as unclean, speaks against owning dogs as pets, and ordered that they be killed. However, some Muslims know the joy of pet ownership and are caught in dichotomies: To kill or not to kill? Unclean or not unclean? To obey Muhammad or disobey Muhammad? That is the question. The Muslims that are honest and rational know that the commands in the hadiths are nonsense. That leaves them with two options: 1) deny the validity of the “authentic traditions” (Sahih Hadiths), or, 2) tailor the anti-dog commands to make them more palatable. We’ll sample a few of their arguments and provide brief responses.

ARGUMENT 1: THE HADITHS ARE FALSE –Variation 1.

One way to deal with the problem is to claim that the anti-dog Hadiths are false. Here is a quote from the Qur’an-Islam blog^[8]. The editor wrote:

It is traditional among Muslims all over the world to regard the dog as a dirty animal that when touched would void your wudu (ablution) and give you nagasah (dirty impurity!)

Sadly, this concept comes from fabricated hadiths which claims that the prophet ordered the killing of dogs and gave numerous hadiths that prohibit the keeping of dogs except for hunting and guarding, due to their dirty status!

However, by studying the Qur’an we find no such claims. Nowhere in the Qur’an are dogs prohibited. Consequently, we must dismiss all these hadiths that fabricate lies against the prophet.

And then an article written by Linda Kelly follows the above which supports the wholesomeness of dogs. Kelly refers to the “Seven Sleepers” story in the Qur’an, (that was taken from New Testament Apocrypha), and says that because there was a dog with them, God approved of dogs as companions. She wrote:

Hadiths tells us that angels won’t enter a room where there is a dog. That means that for 309 years that the sleepers were in the cave, no angel ever entered. Yet God says “We turned them….” The use of “we” clearly indicates the participation of angels. There is absolutely no reason to mention the dog as part of this story, except to make it clear to future generation that dogs are permitted to live among people, right “in their midst.” And 18:22 clearly shows that the dog was counted right along with the believers.

ARGUMENT 1: THE HADITH ARE FALSE –Variation 2.

The argument below is similar to the one above. It comes from the website “islamicconcern”. This argument also acknowledges the wholesomeness in dog ownership and the irrationality of the hadiths statements on dogs. This argument quotes from a Muslim professor living and teaching in America, Abou El Fadl. It details his position on dogs:

After a lengthy process of textual research and prayer for divine guidance, he concluded that reports against dogs were passed on through questionable chains of transmissions or contradicted by more favorable reports – for instance, one story of Muhammad praying with his dogs playing nearby.

“Dogs represent my rebellion against ignorance about the basis of actual historical law,” Abou El Fadl says. “They are a symbol of the irrationality of our tradition, the privileging of law over humaneness.”

How, he asks, pointing to Honey, who constantly follows him and nestles at his side, does God “create animals with these natural tendencies and then condemn them as thoroughly reprehensible?”

From Newsweek, April 15, 2002: Take that matter of dogs, for instance. To the literalists, the prohibition against dogs as pets is clearly delineated in one of the hadiths, the traditional accounts of the life and sayings of the prophet Mohammed. In their view, the hadiths and the Koran unambiguously set forth the laws of sharia’h. But, as Abou El Fadl points out, determining which of the tens of thousands of hadiths are authoritative requires both knowledge and critical analysis. One must evaluate the reliability of the sources and assess how consistent the hadiths are with the moral vision of the God who speaks in and through the Koran. In the case of the dog hadiths, Abou El Fadl found it hard to believe that the same God who created such companionable creatures would have his prophet declare them “unclean.”

Investigating the sources, he discovered that the hadiths in question not only derived from an unreliable chain of sources but reflected views far more consistent with pre-Islamic Arab customs and attitudes. What’s more, he says, he found that a hadiths from one of the most trustworthy sources tells how the Prophet himself had prayed in the presence of his playfully cavorting dogs.^[9]

RESPONSE
Linda Kelly and Fadl attack the validity of the Sahih Hadiths. Yet in the theology of the Sunni Muslim world, these hadiths classified as completely reliable. They have stood in the hallowed halls of Islamic theology for a thousand years plus. They are foundational to Islam for they command and explain many of Islam’s facets that are omitted or missed by the Qur’an. Devout Muslims would say that Kelly and Fadl have been seduced or deceived away from Islam’s true teaching on dogs and that they are sinning.

Kelly claims that these hadiths contradict the Qur’an. But her argument is based on the assumption that “We” includes angels. God could have turned the sleepers himself. If God can create the world, he can turn sleeping men and angels need not be in the cave.

Fadl points out correctly that the hadiths is often “irrational”. But Fadl hides deceitfully behind a smoke screen. He says, “Determining which of the tens of thousands of hadiths are authoritative requires both knowledge and critical analysis.” In the context of the discussion that’s a laughable statement because the critical analysis has already been done. And the results of this analysis are now, and have been, deeply rooted and well established in Islamic theology. This “critical analysis” has produced the “sahih” collections of hadiths, i.e. Bukhari and Muslim. The other four authentic collections of hadiths are Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and an-Nasi. Five of these collections are available in English and much of them is available on the internet for free. You’ll find that they all agree about the status of dogs. Nobody needs to sift through “tens of thousands of hadiths”. It’s already been done and established for over 1000 years. Fadl is deceptive and misleads a naive and trusting Western audience.

Linda Kelly and Fadl both believe that it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous disobedience to Muhammad, denigrate the hadiths, and bear the whips and scorn of the fundamentalist Muslims, than it is to turn their backs upon man’s best friend. Obviously it’s a dog eat dog world in Islam and these more rational people recognize the value of dogs as pets, so they attack Muhammad’s bizarre statements.

ARGUMENT 2: THE HADITH ARE MISUNDERSTOOD
There are several variations of this argument and an example is below. It is from a site that wrote a response to my original “dog” article. His reasoning is that the dogs Muhammad referred to were hyenas:

Has it occurred to you that the “black dogs” that Prophet Muhammad talked about were what we call today “Hyenas”? Don’t we even call Hyenas “black devils” today as the Prophet peace be upon him called them 1500 years ago???

They’re also sometimes called “Desert Wolfs”. What Silas? I know you’re Middle Eastern! Have you forgotten your region already? Or are you just acting plain stupid to deceive your Western reader and to make Islam look like you?!

Now tell us Silas, why shouldn’t you kill a Hyena, or a Coyote or a Jackal, or even a Wild Dog when you encounter them?

I agree that dogs are helpful and beneficial to humans. That is why he didn’t completely prohibit owning dogs from all aspects. We can still use dogs to benefit us. But petting a dog in a house causes the house to be unclean. Dogs are unclean animals. Their saliva are unclean and disgusting.^[10]

RESPONSE
Osama is attempting to modify the hadiths meaning. “Muhammad didn’t mean dogs, he meant hyenas.” The Arabic word for dog is “kalb” and the Arabic word for hyena is “dab” (roughly transliterated). If Muhammad wanted to distinguish between dogs and hyenas he would have used the correct word.

Lets re-visit Abu Dawud, #2839: Abd Allah B. Mughaffal reported the apostle of Allah as saying: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.

The Hadith’s note for #2839 says, “The prophet did not order the killing of all the dogs, for some are to be retained for hunting and watching. He ordered to kill the jet black ones. They might be more mischievous among them”.

Obviously, Muhammad classified together all dogs that did or did not perform jobs and distinguished between them based on their color: black ones were more evil. Think about what Osama implies: Was that a baby hyena puppy in Muhammad’s home, or was it a dog? Were Muslims using hyenas to hunt and watch their flocks? Osama’s argument becomes idiotic once the contexts are taken into account.

Finally, who is right, Fadl or Osama? Is Fadl right in claiming that dog as pets ownership is permitted today? Or is Osama right in saying that dogs are unclean and as pets make the house unclean?

BENEFITS OF DOGS AS PETS
I ask the Muslim readers to view the articles linked below and determine whether or not Muhammad’s statements were rational. Don’t just read the snippets I provide, spend some time and read the entire articles (linked in the Reference section). If you are honest, like Fadl and Kelly, you’ll admit that Muhammad’s statements were superstitious, stupid, and just plain wrong. The studies mentioned below prove the value of owning a dog simply as a pet. They are a sampling of the many available articles stating that pet ownership is very beneficial to humans.

The Siskin Hospital in Tenn. has a “Pet Therapy” program to assist in rehabilitation. They state:

The Pet Therapy Program uses carefully screened dogs and cats as an integral part of physical, speech, recreational and occupational therapies to address treatment goals including improving range of motion, strength and endurance, balance, mobility, and sensation. In addition to the physical benefits of pet therapy, patients form a connection with the animal; reducing stress and building self-esteem through the animals’ unconditional acceptance.^[11]

From the BBC: Dog-owners ‘lead healthier lives’. If you want to live a healthier life get a dog, research suggests. The companionship offered by many pets is thought to be good for you, but the benefits of owning a dog outstrip those of cat owners, the study says.

A psychologist from Queen’s University, Belfast, said dog owners tended to have lower blood pressure and cholesterol. Writing in the British Journal of Health Psychology, she says that regular “walkies” may partly explain the difference.

Dr Deborah Wells reviewed dozens of earlier research papers, which looked at the health benefits of pet ownership. She confirmed that pet owners tended in general to be healthier than the average member of the population was. However, her research suggested that dog ownership produced more positive influence than cat ownership. As well as lower blood pressure and cholesterol, she said dog-owners suffered fewer minor ailments and serious medical problems. There was also the suggestion that dogs could aid recovery from serious illnesses such as heart attacks, and act as ‘early warning’ to detect an approaching epileptic seizure. ^[12]

The Swedish Medical Center in America, Seattle, Washington, lists the benefits of pet ownership^[13]:

Why We Benefit From the Company of Animals
There are several benefits to having a pet:
• Companionship and pleasurable activity
• Facilitate exercise, play, and laughter
• Have something to care for and a source of consistency
• Allow feeling of security
• Are a comfort to touch and a pleasure to watch
• Provide a link with reality to enhance emotional stability
• Become a receptive partner in a relationship of mutual trust that promotes self-awareness
• Provide nonjudgmental acceptance and love
• Are an outlet for one’s ancient primate grooming urges
• Improved sense of well-being

Google’s Answers^[14] provides benefits to owning a dog as a pet. Below is a brief excerpt:

QUESTION: What are the top ten health benefits of dog ownership? I want measurable physical and mental health benefits such as decreased blood pressure. Not qualitative anecdotes about how they make you feel good.

ANSWER:
- Pet owners have lower blood pressure
- Pet owners have lower blood cholesterol levels
- Pet owners have a higher survival rate after serious illness
- Pet owners have fewer doctors’ visits
- Pet ownership reduces loneliness
- Pet ownership fights depression
- Pet ownership helps us cope with stress
- Pet ownership aids childhood development
- Pet owners enhance family life

Please note that for each category above the doctor cites studies that determined those results.

COMMENT
The benefits of dogs as pets are well established and the evidence is irrefutable. Yet Muhammad, claiming to be a prophet of God, commanded that they be killed and not kept as pets. Either the research evidence is false, or Muhammad was wrong in depriving humanity of a friend and ordering that innocent animals be killed.

BENEFITS OF DOGS AS PETS CONTINUED
Take a look at this video below and tell me that this animal is “unclean” and should be killed. Tell me if this dog is a beneficial pet, an admirable animal, or just another target of Muhammad’s irrationality.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5249518974978628334

Does this animal deserve to be killed because Muhammad uttered a brutal command? Devout Muslims, true Muslims, must answer “Yes” to that question, because their “prophet” said so.

Do an internet search for real life stories of dogs saving or helping humans. There are many out there. Below are excerpts from a small sample of the benefit, the good, the blessing, that dogs have been to their owners or other people. Remember, if Muhammad’s words were obeyed, these dogs would be dead, or have never existed at all.

1) A story about a pet dog that saved his master’s life during a heart attack: Mark Hanrahan kneels next to his golden retriever, Murphy O’Dawg. The dog woke him up while he was having a heart attack.^[15]

2) Selma Hayek’s dog saved her life: Salma said she decided to take a nap at her home in California, not realising there was a gas leak in the house: “I had a headache and went to lie down when Diva woke me up by grabbing my sleeve in her mouth and trying to pull me out of the house. Then I realised the gas was on!”[16]

3) A pet saves the lives of his two elderly owners: Eve and Norman Fertig, who are both 81 years old, were out treating injured birds in the Wildlife Sanctuary on their Alden property on the night of October 12th. They left as the storm intensified but, were soon trapped by falling trees and heavy snow as they tried to walk back to their home. Eve realized they could die in the bitter cold but, fortunately, Shana was with them.
As the cold and snow chilled them both without heavy coats and gloves, Shana started digging under the snow and trees. The dog actually dug a foot wide tunnel about 20 feet to the home.
Shana barked but, the couple hesitated, so they say the dog came back and tugged on Eve’s jacket. She says the 160 pound dog actually pulled her onto its broad back and crawled through the tunnel. Her husband held on as well as they slowly crawled all the way back to their home. They made it back to the back deck, opened their door and fell in to the house exhausted but safe.^[17]

Ok, if you are a Muslim, be honest with yourself. Didn’t these pets make an important difference in the lives of their owners? Is there any justification to kill them?

DISCUSSION: THE BIGGER PICTURE
Think about the bigger picture. If Islam had taken over the entire world, what would it have meant? How would that have affected our society, and you?

Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill Snoopy Kill Lassie Kill Rin Tin Tin!
Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill Scooby Doo Kill Pluto Kill the Taco Bell dog!
Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill Dogbert Kill Goofy Kill the 101 Dalmatians!

I am trying to make a point by presenting Muhammad in the light of today. The dogs above are fictional, or they were real dogs representing fictional dogs in Hollywood. Nevertheless, these fictional dogs have affected billions of people’s lives for the better. They have brought us laughter and tears and have taught us about life and love. Those fictional dogs represented the bond between dog and man and humanity has judged the dog to be a beneficial and loving pet. Yet if Muhammad’s word was obeyed they would have never existed. Never!

Muhammad said: “Kill all the dogs!” Kill your pet!

People’s pets have made a positive difference in their lives. Did you own a pet dog? If not, did you know someone who did? If so, I’ll bet that your dog, or the dogs you saw were a blessing, not a curse, to their owners. Were they really the “unclean” animal that deserved to be killed because Muhammad said so?

Too bad Muhammad did not have a pet dog to share life with while he was growing up. If a dog was with him in the cave Hira, it would have helped him fend off the dark spirit that assaulted him. Following that visit Muhammad was often very depressed and attempted suicide many times during the next 3 years or so. (See the article Muhammad’s Suicide Attempts).

QUESTIONS AND TALKING POINTS
Below are some brief questions and thoughts on Muhammad’s statements.

1) Prayer is annulled by a dog. Why should a dog nullify prayer? What difference does it make if the dog is in front of you, or behind you? Jesus taught that God judges the heart, and the outward performance is irrelevant.

2) Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog. Why would an angel be stopped by a puppy if he were on a mission from God? What power does this “unclean” characteristic possess to stop an angel?

3) Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, Why would Allah double the punishment of dog ownership? And, how much exactly is 1 qirat in heavenly currency and what is it needed for? Is it a huge mountain of gold, silver, or diamonds? After all, if Allah is penalizing you for something, the thing he is taking away must have value to the owner.

The points above are some quick thoughts I’ve had about this topic. I’m sure that if you think it through you’ll be able to find additional flaws in Muhammad’s statements.

CHALLENGE TO THE MUSLIM
You have to take Muhammad at his word. Don’t deceive yourself like Fadl and Kelly and pretend that Muhammad didn’t say to kill the dogs. Take a stand. Either obey Muhammad, or admit that Muhammad was wrong and was a wacko. If he were false, then leave him. Don’t put your eternal fate in the hands of an abusive, deluded, false prophet.

CONCLUSION
Muhammad’s bizarre beliefs regarding dogs were irrational, superstitious, and very cruel. I am thankful that Western countries have laws that protect pets and animals and make killing dogs, as Muhammad commanded, a crime. I hope that Muslims will obey the law. Muhammad’s absurd beliefs are now part and parcel of established Islamic dogma. Muslims who intend to obey Muhammad and obey the Sharia’h must kill their dogs. Any rationalization for disobeying the Sharia and owning a pet dog is going to be punished by Allah. There are no intelligent or logical foundations supporting Muhammad’s beliefs, rather they go against modern medicine, modern science, and practical experience. Muhammad’s order is a blight, not a blessing. Muhammad’s superstitious belief, coupled with his brutality, bring out the worst in men. Muhammad is to be rejected for he is a curse upon humanity. Consider Jesus. He did not teach to kill animals because of their species or color. Christ’s teachings were based upon faith, love, and obedience to God. When Christ taught prayer, He taught that God judges the heart, not the form or outward appearance. When Christ taught about heaven, and its rewards, He did not state that owning an animal would cost you your good works. Christ’s message was simple: love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself…

Maranatha,
Silas; Rev A: 8-3-98, Rev B: 9/3/01, Rev C: 25 Jan, 2007

Further reading: Muhammad and the Animals

This article first appeared here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/dogs.htm#_Toc158088979

REFERENCES
[1] Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan
[2] Muslim, Abu’l-Husain, “Sahih Muslim”, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1971, translated by A. Siddiqi
[3] Abu Dawud, Suliman, “Sunan”, al-Madina, New Delhi, 1985, translated by A. Hasan
[4] Misri, Ahmad, “Reliance of the Traveler”, Amana, Beltsville, MD, 1994
[5] Gibb, H.A.R., Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill, Netherlands
[6] http://www.albalagh.net/qa/dogs_islam_prayer.shtml
[7] http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=69777&ln=eng
[8] http://www.Qur’an-islam.org/119.html
[9] http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp
[10] http://www.Qur’ansearch.com/dogs_rebuttal.htm
[11] http://www.siskinrehab.org/patient/pet.asp
[12] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6279701.stm
[13] http://www.swedish.org/15309.cfm
[14] http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=710564
[15] http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2006/May_06/05052006_07.asp
[16] http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Off_Beat/0,,2-1225-2107_2057110,00.html
[17] http://www.wbir.com/news/archive.aspx?storyid=40172

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/10/22/muhammad-and-the-dogs/

IHS

Blinded by Hate?

by Rafael Princ MA

This is a response to Ibn Anwar and his article ‘The teachings of Jesus and the Bible(s) that are not taught in your church’ (*) where he tries to ‘prove’ that Jesus taught hate instead of love. This article is aimed to expose and refute this so-called Islamic apologist. We will show that this individual is indeed ‘blinded by hate’ towards the true teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

He doesn’t stand alone in his blinding hatred towards the Christian faith as we can see in the comments this article received.

Army of Jesus is Islam said:
August 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Selamu alaykum,
I must say that this one of the best works presented in great contrast by brother (ibn Anwar) great work …

Let’s investigate this ‘great work’ and show how this person lacks basic Biblical understanding and historical context.

Most of the answers given below are already made available by different Christian scholars and apologists. Because we aren’t about to invent the wheel for a second time, we will just post the available answers with some additions from our side.

Ibn Anwar writes:

Christian polemic: The teachings of Jesus are based on love!

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

My Response:

Ibn Anwar tries to demonstrate, by quoting Luke 14:26, that our Lord preached hate instead of love. Yet the only thing he demonstrated is his clear ignorance of Biblical exegesis and the historical usage of the word ‘miseo’ (hate).

In his article, Does Luke 14:26 teach literal hate?, J.P. Holding writes:

Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "... [T]o us Orientals the only word which can express any cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships.

Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. To seal this matter completely, let's look at some parallel materials which prove our point. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:

And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Here, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. Let it be added that if Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. (See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)

Now here is another example from Jesus, Luke 16:13:

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Such extremes of feeling would be atypical, but the extremes are not meant to be taken literally; the point is that one master will get more dedicated labor than the other. (Source)

In fact, a parallel account of the teaching in Luke 14:26 is given in Matthew 10:37:

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

When Matthew paraphrases the words of Jesus in this passage, he makes sure that the range and intent of the utterance in seen in its SEMITIC LIGHT. In other words, he preserves less of the ambiguity of the original saying of Jesus in order to make sure that the correct nuance is made explicit. In so doing, he shows us the Semitic idea of 'lower preference' is recognized as the intended meaning behind miseo in this passage.

Ibn Anwar argues:

And Jesus illustrates the above love in his treatment of his own mother.

"Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call himA crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!" (Mark 3:31-34)

Is that how you honour, respect and love your parent? If your mother came looking for you and have walked all the way from her place to yours and appears on your doorstep and her presence is announced to you would you ignore her and instead look at your close friends and ask out loud with your mother there waiting for you, "Who is my mother?" and then you say your friends are your mother? Can a rational and loving son ever do such a thing seriously? One would not expect a loving and respectful son to do something so silly. One would expect a loving son to graciously welcome the mother into the house and perhaps offer her a foot massage after the walk she has taken. And you know what? The passage ends there! It does not say that Jesus invited her mother into the house and gave her a fruit punch or a cup of tea. The message is clearly disrespect. Undoubtedly we have a passage wherein Jesus calls for honouring parents as the law dictates in the Old Testament and we also have Colossians 3:20 saying that children must obey their parents. These passages however do not change the fact that Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 teach people to dishonour and disrespect their parents. Both set of opposing passages cannot be true unless you have schizophrenia. The conflicting passages are contradictions. Nevertheless Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 are strengthened …

My Response:
Ibn Anwar admits that there are explicit verses in the Bible that are opposing his views regarding this issue. Nevertheless he holds to this position (i.e. Jesus taught to hate) because of the verses he provides. So when we will refute his misunderstanding of these passages (as we done with Luke 14:26 so far) he is left with no other choice than to concede to those ‘opposing’ verses.

Now let us proceed to the raised objection. It becomes unboundedly clear that this so co called Islamic apologist has no idea about the context or the exegesis of this verse.

Because J.P. Holding has already successfully addressed the ‘argument’, we will quote his work.

Mark's report of this incident, which Tulbure [the name of the sceptic whose argument is discussed by Holding] ignores in this context and does not connect to this narrative, says that the family came because "went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself." (Mark 3:21) The word "lay hold" is krateo and signifies taking hold fast (as in taking by the hand), or seizing by strength -- it is the same word used of those who came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:57). "Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives' behaviour that would shame the family" in ancient times, even as today [Keener commentary on Matthew, 370].

Jesus' mother and brothers – but not his sisters -- this was no "friendly family outing" but the head of the household arriving with the "goon squad" to pick up the wayward brother -- showing up and declaring openly that he was mad, and wanting to seize and hide him, sounds like the "disrespect" had its origins in another place." (Source)

No earthly relationship can have higher priority than that of one’s relationship with God. Putting God first means putting Him ahead of family. So it become obvious that Jesus didn’t intend to be rude or inappropriate. He was just pointing out that the bond between believers will supersede that of ‘natural’ family.

Ibn Anwar couldn’t possible object to this, because the Qur’an is very clear on this issue.

Parents and children are not to obey each other if either party warships other than God.

029.008 YUSUFALI: We have enjoined on man kindness to parents: but if they (either of them) strive (to force) thee to join with Me (in worship) anything of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not. Ye have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did

Do not be intimate with the unbelievers; they will hate you and ruin you.

003.118 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

For Muslims, real friends are God, His apostle (Muhammad) and the fellowship of pious and charitable believers.

005.055 YUSUFALI: Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).

Ibn Anwar continues:

Nevertheless Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31 to 34 are strengthened by two other passages from Jesus.

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

These passages are explicit in showing that the Biblical Jesus was adamant to break the family unit. No wonder if we go to many Christian societies today we find that their children have no respect for their parents at all. In fact, in America and such places it is considered culturally TABOO to stay with one’s parents after high school.

My Response:

The verses quoted above have nothing to do with Christian families not respecting each other. They speak about the division that the Word (Hebrews 4:12) will bring. Some will accept the Word (i.e. Jesus), other won’t. So the division will be between the believers and unbelievers. Jesus was just foretelling what his word will bring forth, namely tension between those that are willing to do good and repent, and those who don’t want to change there evil ways. However, Jesus nowhere tells believers to break with their families.

Let us address Matthew 10:34 in its proper context, i.e. Matthew 10:22-40

22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. 23 "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes. 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25 "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!
26 "Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent ? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. 32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.10:33 "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. 34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. 40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

We note from verses 22-25, that it is the diciples (believers) that will be opposed and hated because of the Name (Jesus Christ) they follow. The intense hatred of the unbelievers towards the Messiah will be directed towards the people that choose to follow him. It is them that will reject the sincere seekers and followers of the Messiah and that will lead towards division even between family members.

The raised points concerning certain alleged taboos (in American society) are irrelevant to our discussion of the meaning of Jesus’ words.

Besides a clear lack of understanding the Muslim author also demonstrates his use of double standards. The Qur’an itself is guilty of the objection raised by Ibn Anwar.

Allah is commanding the Muslims to separate themselves from their blood relatives if they choose to reject Islam. This will cause division between families, a division between ‘’believers’’ and unbelievers, a division comparable to that described in the Holy Bible. However, notice that it was the action of the disbelievers who rejected the true believers and followers of Christ and then that resulted in division. Yet in the Qur’an the Muslims are being commanded to take initiative to break family bonds (when family members choose not to accept Islam).

Unbelieving father, brothers are not protectors; believers should not be friendly with them...

009.023 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

The believers should not take even their fathers, brothers, or sons as friends if they resist God and Muhammad:

058.022 YUSUFALI: Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity.

Don’t be friendly with the disbelievers; they are God’s enemies.

060.013 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah, of the Hereafter they are already in despair, just as the Unbelievers are in despair about those (buried) in graves.

Will Ibn Anwar reject his Qur’an for being guilty of the objection he had raised?

Ibn Anwar continues:

Now, when we put the passages together the ones that preach family breakdown clearly win out against the solitary passage attributed to Jesus about honouring one’s parents. It’s 4 (Luke 14:26, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 12:49-53, Matthew 10:34-39) versus a small section in Matthew 19:19 which says, "honour your father and mother". The four very explicit and quite elaborate passages win!

Thus, according to the Bible(s) the teaching of Jesus is founded on HATE as Luke 14:26 clearly conveys.

My Response:

The only thing that seems to have won is Ibn Anwar’s ignorance in regard to the true teaching of the Holy Bible. His points have been answered and refuted. His conclusion is based on a false understanding of Scripture in its historical context. This has been clearly documented in this article.

Ibn Answar claims:

In fact, Jesus taught that those who will not accept him as king must be slain.

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’" (Luke 19:27)

What Christian commentators have understood from this text is that after the ‘period of grace’ has ended Jesus will return to wage war against those who refuse him and call for their deaths. As Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary says, "bring hither, &c.-(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ." [1]

Let’s have a look at the passage they have asked us to compare with Luke 19:27.

"Then Samuel said, "Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites." Agag came to him confidently, thinking, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women." And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal." (1 Samuel 32-33)

The same is mentioned by Matthew Henry in his commentary, "Bring them hither, to have their frivolous pleas overruled, and to receive sentence according to their merits. Bring them, and slay them before me, as Agag before Samuel."

"19:27. In contrast with the two servants who had axpected the king’s return, the enemies of the king were put to the death in the king’s presence. The analogy of this parable was clear to Jesus’ hearers. Jesus was going away to receive a kingship." [2]

What the above means is that Jesus will kill or order the killing of those who do not recognise him as king just like the analogy in Luke 19 shows.

The commentator Adam Clarke differs from other Christian commentaries in that he proposes the slaying mentioned by Jesus should occur shortly after Jesus said those words in verse 27.

"Those mine enemies… bring hither. The Jews, whom I shall shortly slay by the sword of the Romans." [3]

The same fate will befall those who do not accept Jesus. They will be utterly killed. What peace is the Christian missionary trying to offer?

The point of Luke 19:27 is quite clear in conveying the picture of death and destruction of those who do not accept Jesus. Where is the peace?

My response:

Let’s post Luke 19 in its entirety and derive the interpretation from the text rather than forcing our own thoughts upon the text. By doing so, we will expose the double standards and his ignorance regarding Biblical exegesis of this particuler neophyte in Islamic polemics.

19:1 He entered Jericho and was passing through.
19:2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich.
19:3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable * because of the crowd, for he was small in stature.
19:4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way.
19:5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house."
19:6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.
19:7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."
19:8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
19:11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
19:12 So He said, "A nobleman, * went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.
19:13 "And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this until * I come back.'
19:14 "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'
19:15 "When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.
19:16 "The first appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'
19:17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'
19:18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'
19:19 "And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
19:20 "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;
19:21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'
19:22 "He *said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow ?
19:23 'Then why * did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest ?'
19:24 "Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'
19:25 "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'
19:26 "I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
19:27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
19:28 After He had said these things, He was going on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
19:29 When He approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the mount that is called Olivet, He sent two of the disciples,
19:30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you; there, as you enter, you will find a colt tied on which no one * yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
19:31 "If anyone asks you, 'Why * are you untying it?' you shall say, 'The Lord has need of it.' "
19:32 So those who were sent went away and found it just as He had told them.
19:33 As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, "Why are you untying the colt ?"
19:34 They said, "The Lord has need of it."
19:35 They brought it to Jesus, and they threw their coats on the colt and put Jesus on it.
19:36 As He was going, they were spreading their coats on the road.
19:37 As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen,
19:38 shouting: "BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest !"
19:39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke Your disciples."
19:40 But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"
19:41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,
19:42 saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace ! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.
19:43 "For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,
19:44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because * you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
19:45 Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
19:46 saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."
19:47 And He was teaching daily * in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him,
19:48 and they could not find anything that they might do, for all the people were hanging on to every word He said.

The following explanation is taken from the "Answering Deedat Blog":

We notice first and foremost, that the words spoken in verse 27 are those in a parable (verse 11). Hence, Jesus is not commanding His disciples there and then to slay the people before Him. As much as this neophyte wants to show Jesus committing violence in the gospels, he cannot do so. In fact, Jesus says emphatically that He came to save that which was lost.

Then Muslim will object and say "But the master is surely referring to Jesus Christ Himself" to which I would agree, however, this is referring to the end times, not the time of Jesus’ disciples.

Verse 11 tells us, that people supposed that the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. Jesus speaks this parable to correct them. Note verse 41 talks about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. He then goes on to give a prophetic utterance in verse 43, speaking of the times when violence would come upon them. "For the days will come", show that He was obviously speaking of the future, not the present. This matches the prophecies in Revelation concerning the end times when the antichrist will make war against the Lamb (Jesus).

"These will wage war against the Lamb , and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." Revelation 17:14.

Those who make war with Christ in Revelation 17:14 correspond to the enemies in Luke 19:27, those who hated Him in verse 14. What we see is an example of such persons who hate Jesus and do not desire for Him to reign over them in Luke 19:47.

As we can see, by allowing the text to be read in its entirety, the notion that Jesus is slaying people in the gospels is duly refuted. On the contrary He is weeping over Jerusalem and coming to them in the form of a slave to save them who are lost. (Source)

It should be mentioned that a Muslim has no position to condemn the battle of Armageddon as unnecessary violence by Jesus for two simple reasons:

1. It is the enemies of Christ who initiate the war (Rev 17:14).
2. Islam itself teaches a violent end-times scenario as well:

To substantiate point 2 above, we quote:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657)

Acoording to the ruling of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368) from The Reliance of the Traveller, the classic Shafi manual of Islamic jurisprudence:

"... the time and the place for [the poll tax] is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace)¹

And the Islam Q&A website quotes in one of their fatwas:

Imaam Ahmad narrated that Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The Dajjaal will emerge at a time when religious commitment is low and knowledge has decreased… Then ‘Eesa ibn Maryam will descend just before dawn and will call people, saying, ‘O people, what is stopping you from coming out against this evil liar?’ They will say, ‘This man is a jinn’, then they will set out. When they reach ‘Eesa ibn Maryam, the time for prayer will come the iqqamah will be given, and it will be said to him, ‘Go forward (to lead the prayer), O Spirit of Allaah.’ He will say, ‘Let your imaam go forward and lead you in prayer.’ When they have prayed fajr, they will go out to meet him (the Dajjaal) and when they see the liar, he will start to dissolve like salt in water. ‘Eesa will go to him and kill him. Even the trees and rocks will call out, ‘O Spirit of Allaah, here is a Jew!’ And none of those who followed him will be left, they will all be killed." (Hadeeth no. 14426). (Source)

So we see that on that day (the second coming of the Messiah) the only religion that will be accepted is Islam. Eesa (Jesus) will abolish all other religions and kill the ones that oppose him and side with the Dajjaal (i.e. the Jews).

Muhammad Ali Ibn Zubair, author of The Signs of Qiyama (Judgment Day) states:

Dajjal appears. His followers, the Yahudis, will number 70,000 … [Then] Hadrat Isa (honorable Jesus) kills the Dajjal at the Gate of Hudd, near an Israeli airport, in the valley of "Ifiq." The final war between the Yahudi’s will ensue, and the Muslims will be victorious.²

Will Ibn anwar reject his Qur’an because it is quilty of his raised objection, namely a violent end times scenario?

Ibn Anwar stated:

Christian polemic: Love your enemies, but don’t invite them into your house!

Do you know why Christian missionaries love to darken your doorstep rather than inviting you to their own homes? In fact, those Christians who do invite Muslims or people of other religion into their abodes MUST STOP! This practice is expressly prohibited by their sacred text.

"Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." (2 John 1:9-10)

My response:

Again a false assumption based on his misunderstanding of Biblical Scripture. The verse adresses false teachers and not unbelievers in general.

If anyone comes to you and does not BRING this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." (2 John 1:10)

Note that the verse is very explicit. It talks about someone BRINGING another teaching than that of Christ.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

receive him not into [your] house;

neither into the house of God, suffer him not to preach there; nor into your own house, give him no entertainment there: false teachers always tried to creep into houses, where they served their own turn every way, both by feeding their bellies, and spreading their pernicious doctrines; and therefore such should: be avoided, both publicly and privately; their ministry should not be attended on in the church, or house of God; and they should not be entertained in private houses, and much less caressed: (Source)

So this verse doesn’t prohibit us from inviting Muslims to our house, yet it forbids giving false teachers entertainment.

It should be mentioned (again) that a Muslim has no position to condemn such teaching cause Islam itself teaches the very same thing that this Islamic polemicist objects to.

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (S. 5:51 Yusuf Ali)

Tafsir Al Jalalayn states :

O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as patrons, affiliating with them or showing them affection; they are patrons of each other, being united in disbelief. Whoever amongst you affiliates with them, he is one of them, counted with them. God does not guide the folk who do wrong, by affiliating with disbelievers. (Source)

You will be considered an unbeliever when you affiliate with non-Muslims. So forget about inviting them to your home!!

Will Ibn Anwar now reject the Qur’an for not meeting his standards?

Ibn Anwar further states:

Christian polemic: Muslim law is barbaric! Why do you chop off people’s hands for stealing?

What these Christians fail to realise is that their own teacher teaches amputation.

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:30)

The same message is repeated in Matthew 18:8,

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire."

We see the same message again in Mark 9:43,

"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire"

You should even gouge your eye out!

"So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell." (Matthew 5:29)

These laws are too heavy for the henpecked and emasculated Christians romanticised by so called humanitarianism that they have altogether abrogated these laws from Jesus by saying that they are mere parables and metaphores not meant to be taken literally. The Christians really need to be consistent with themselves. In the exact same passage we find those verses so loved by Christians that they cannot miss a day without quoting them namely, verses 39 and 44. One says "if someone strikes you on the right cheek, give him the other also" and the other says "love your enemies". These two are taken to mean literal but those verses prior to them should not? This is laughable. The fact is Jesus taught those things literally. Just because Christians do not have the stomach to follow his words to the letter does not render them moot. The Christians need to start listening to Jesus and pluck their eyes out for all the sins they have committed!

My response:

This Muslim author is really getting desperate in trying to discredit the Holy Bible. Even simple logic says that what Jesus is commanding is not a literal action. Why? Would the loss of one eye or one hand prevent lustful look or thought via the other hand or eye? Of course, not, because the problem is not the eye or the hand. They are morally neutral instruments.

As Paul writes to the Romans:

Therefore do not let sin reign (command to stop a practice already occurring) in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting (stop an action which is already occurring) the members of your body (eyes, hands, ears, etc) to sin (refers to the old sin nature still latent in believers) as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. (Romans 6:12; 6:13; 6:14)

Peter gives similar advice ...

Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain (continually hold yourself away from = present tense, middle voice) from fleshly lusts, which wage war (present tense = continually carry on a military campaign, not just one skirmish but fleshly lusts are personified as a rebel commander carrying out a long-term guerilla campaign with the intend to capture, enslave and destroy) against the soul. (1 Peter 2:11)

And this is exactly how it has been understood by Christians and Biblical scholars over time. For a overview of scholars and their commentaries concerning this topic please visit this page.

Yet again, it is clearly shown that most Muslim apologists lack basic understanding of the Christian Scripture. Where necessary, we will continue refuting their deceptive and ignorant arguments.

JESUS IS LORD!

Footnotes
¹ The Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, a Classic Manuel of Islamic Sacred Law, Translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller, (Amana Publications, Beltsville Maryland, revised 1994) p. 603.
² Muhammad Ali Ibn Zubair, The Signs of Qiyama, translated by M. Afzal Hoosein Elias, online here.

Sources: http://answering-islam.org/rebuttals/ibnanwar/blind_hate.html

IHS