Tuesday, 31 August 2010

How did Muslims Invent the Excuse that the Bible was Corrupted

From a discussion on faithfreedom.org

…You state that you have deeply rooted reservations about the trustworthiness of today’s version of the Bible. While I somehow expected this, it still surprises me! Let me try to respond to your suspicion. First of all, we will have to differentiate between established facts and our interpretation of these.

What Islam never permitted, happened to Christianity. For the last couple of centuries Bible critics, many of them theologians, took the liberty to table and propagate their critique, which was often based on very extravagant interpretations.

We may well ask, why so many Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted, when history, archaeology and the Qur’an deny this? The answer seems to be rather intriguing

Ibn Khazem (died AD 1064) ruled the South of Spain for some time as the vizier of the caliph. When reading the Qur’an he came across a verse that referred to Jesus speaking of Good News of an Apostle who was to come after him and whose name should be Ahmad (Surah 61:6). The meaning of this Arabic word is similar to the meaning of the name ‘Muhammad’. He also must have read about “the unlettered prophet (i.e. Muhammad) whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), in the law and the Gospel” (Surah 7:157). So he began to search the Bible for these clues about Muhammad. Probably to his surprise he did not find them. What he did find, however, were a number of contradiction between the two Books, which were assumed to have come from the same divine source. We can see the problem ibn Khazem was facing.

Both, the Bible and the Qur’an, are stated to be Word of God—and they contradict each other. Ibn Khazem made the decision not to question the integrity of the Qur’an. He rather assumed that since the Gospel should agree with the Qur’an, and because Muhammad had spoken so highly of it, the existing Gospel text must have been falsified by the Jews and Christians. This assumption may display his zeal for the Qur’an, but it is not based on historical facts.

Source: http://answering-islam.org/Nehls/Abdallah/abdal2.htm


Thursday, 19 August 2010

Golden Eggs of Rotten Islam

Freethinkers of Islam

Muslim apologists always huff, claiming the golden ages of Islam produced many great Muslims. It is partially true, there were numbers of scientists, doctors and philosophers in the era of powerful Islam but they were not real Muslims, by any stretch of the imagination. There was no trace of doctors, chemists, poets or philosophers while he was in power; they had to hide to save their lives. As soon as Mohammad died, scholars, academics and intellectuals came out of their shelter and flourished again.

Jabir Ibn Haiyan (?-803) Muslim apologists claim that Jabir Ibn Haiyan was the father of chemistry though Chemistry was practiced from ancient ages. Egyptians used distillation process in 3000 years BC and the Greeks in 1000 BC. Zosimus of Panopolis wrote "The Divine Art of Making Gold and Silver", in the 4th century. Jabir Ibn Haiyan should not be called the founder of Chemistry, which is nothing but the usual deceiving technique of Muslim apologists. However, he did contribute a lot in this area of science and prepared varieties acids such as, nitric, hydrochloric, citric and tartaric acids. He practiced medicine and chemistry under the patronage of an Abbasid caliphate Harun al-Rashid. Interestingly, Jabir Ibn Haiyan was not a very religious person. A Muslim apologist writes, “His religious views and philosophical concepts, embodied in the corpus have been criticized but, apart from the question of their authenticity, it is to be emphasized that the major contribution of Jabir lies in the field of chemistry and not in religion.” Whenever Muslims are embarrassed with facts, they bring the question of authenticity, a known technique that they always use. As human beings, we surely are grateful to Jabir for his contribution to humankind. One logical question pops up; if Muslims disagree with Jabir’s religious views then why are they proud of Jabir and claim him as a Muslim scientist?

Ibn Sina (980-1037) Ibn Sina, also known as Avicenna was another prominent figure, who excelled in medicine but his contribution to science and philosophy is also greatly remembered. Muslims proudly call him the doctor of doctors and enjoy virtual pleasure, alleging him as a golden egg of golden Islam. Despite taking the credit, Muslim countries never benefited from his works, however many hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and hotels of Islamic countries are named after him. Ironically, European universities added Ibn Sina’s medical and philosophical works to their curriculum but they remained unknown to the witch factories aka madrassas of the Muslim world. Apparently, Avecinna believed in one god and accepted the authority of Muhammad as the lawgiver of Islam. Well, did he have any choice? A learned person like Ibn Sina was well aware of the punishment for apostasy. He surely did not want his head be chopped and play soccer with it. However, his freethinking mind did not accept the absurdities of Islam. He opined in his autobiography under the chapter of “THE AFTER LIFE”. – “The after life is a notion received from religious teaching; there is no way of establishing it’s truth save by way of religious dogma and acceptance of the prophet’s report as true; there refers to what will befall the body at the resurrection and those corporal delights or torments which are too well-known to require restating here.” (from “Avicenna on Theology” by Arthur J Arberry). Arthur J Arberry nicely explained Avecinna’s conviction in his commentary, “And on one most important point of doctrine he was unquestionably, gloriously heretical; he rejected unreservedly the resurrection of the body, and with it the literal acceptance of those passages in the Koran describing in graphic physical terms the pleasure and the torture of the damned.” What a blasting blasphemous heresy! A major portion of “holey” Qur’an is stuffed with resurrection and/or judgment day business. Qur’an is all about killing kafirs in this life, establishing Islamic kingdom, and punishment or reward with strippers after life. Qur’an confirms in verse - 50.42, “The Day when they will hear a (mighty) Blast in (very) truth: that will be the Day of Resurrection.” Not only in this verse but the same assertion was repeated in eighty four places in the Qur’an. How naively Ibn Sina rebuffed the central idea of Qur’an is an interesting approach that deserves to be contemplated. Arberry made the most interesting assessment of Avecinna in the following commentary, “Even during his lifetime Avicenna was suspected of infidelity to Islam; after his death accusations of heresy, free thought and atheism were repeatedly leveled against him.”

Abu Bakr Mohammed ibn Zakariya ar-Razi (841-926) Ar-Razi, another great physician wrote more than 200 books of which 50% of them are about medicine and physics, mathematics and astronomy. Like Ibn Sina, Ar-Razi’s works had set milestones in medical science. The most controversial book “On Prophecy” has not survived for an obvious reason. Most likely embarrassed Muslims could not swallow the contents that humiliated the prophet of Islam. Somehow, a part of his second book slipped through the hand of ignorant. Ar-Razi quipped -"These billy goats (Prophets) pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the master." and Muslims are still proud of Ar-Razi!!!!

Abu 'L-ala Ahmad b. Abdallah al-Ma'arri (973-1057) Al Ma'arri, also known as the Eastern Lucretius was famous for poetry and grammar. He was born in Syria but traveled many places until he became blind. He lived in Baghdad for only 18months but within this short time he made a name for himself as a poet. After returning from Baghdad, he lived in his hometown Marra for another fifty years. Because of his fame, students from distant places went to Al-Marri to learn from him. Like Ibn Sina, al-Marri did not believe in resurrection and strongly condemned religious beliefs. One of his poems says it all "Hanifs (Muslims) are stumbling/ Christians all astray/ Jews wildered/ Magians far on error's way/ We mortals are composed of two great schools/ Enlightened knaves or else religious fools....."

Abu Raihan Mohammed Ibn Ahmad Al-Biruni (973-1048) Al-Biruni was multitalented; he contributed in physics, metaphysics, math, geography and history. His famous book Kitab al-Hind gives a vivid account of the historical and social conditions of Indian sub-continent. Al-Biruni's astronomical achievements were in the line of Ptolemy. In maths, he dealt with algebraic definitions, Trigonometry, and Archimedes’ theorems. Archimedes gave birth to the calculus of the ‘infinite conceived’, Al-Biruni nurtured this concept and finally perfected by Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz and Newton. “In religion he was a Shi'ite Muslim, but with agnostic tendencies.”

Al-Nisaburi al-Khayyam (1048-1131 AD) Omar Khayyam is best known for his Rubaiyats or poems but he was an outstanding mathematician and astronomer. He also wrote a book of music, an un-Islamic act that may throw him in a burning hell. His calculation of 365.24219858156 days making a year is so close to accurate that modern scientists respectfully remember his name. Omar Khayyam also found a geometric solution of cubic equations. Islam strictly prohibits Martini and bikini. According to Qur’an, Muslim women are not allowed to reveal their beauty and drinking wine gives you a one-way ticket to hell. But Omar Khayyam was an admirer of beauty and wine.Drinking wine is my travail Till my body is dead and stale At my grave site all shall hail Odor of wine shall prevail.” Another piece of gem…… “Heaven is incomplete without a heavenly romance/ Let a glass of wine be my present circumstance/ Take what is here now, let go of a promised chance/ A drumbeat is best heard from a distance.” Bravo! This guy is my hero. Check out the last two lines, he is encouraging to enjoy the earthly life and discard the idea of promised hereafter. Mullahs and suicide bombers may learn a thing or two from Omar Khayyam’s rubayat. In 17th century, another great thinker Voltaire, oscillated between optimism and pessimism but Omar Khayyam was the master of optimism. He was surrounded by Islam, a hopeless doctrine that promotes hatred, destruction and murder, yet Omar Khayyam found the meaning of a cheerful life.



Les infidèles seront pris et tués impitoyablement. (Coran 33:61)

Jihad...en français

Pas très sympa, le verset 61 de la sourate 33 du Coran... Et encore ceci n'est-il qu'une traduction édulcorée. La traduction au mot à mot est en effet... nettement plus Gore. Quand on étudie l'arabe classique on est capable de retrouver le sens exact des termes utilisés dans le coran. On constate alors que les diverses traductions du coran en Français sont édulcorées et ne traduisent pas toujours l'extrème violence du message coranique.

Voici un exemple pour la traduction d'un verset trés court (33:61) [XXXIII:59] mais qui concerne ceux qui offensent Allah, son Messager, et les musulmans (33:57-58) [XXXIII:55-56], donc vous qui lisez ces lignes!

Voilà la traduction intégrale du verset 33:61:

Celle faite par Hamidullah: Ce sont des maudits. Où qu'on les trouve, ils seront pris et tués impitoyablement

Celle de Chouraqui: Honnis, où qu'ils soient acculés, ils seront pris et tués au combat.

Celle de l'université d'Al-Azhar: Ils mériteront d'être maudits et chassés. En quelque lieu qu'ils soient, ils seront saisis et tués.

Ce que Hamidullah a traduit par tués impitoyablement, Chouraqui par tués au combat et Al-Azhar par saisis et tués est l'association des mots Quttilu Taqtila.

Quttilu vient du verbe qatala (tuer). Le doublement de la deuxième consonne (ici le T) est une règle de la langue arabe qui accentue le sens, ce qui peut se traduire en français par tuer impitoyablement (ou massacrer, faire un carnage, tuer sévèrement etc...) ce que Hamidullah a parfaitement bien interpreté.

En revanche tant Chouraqui q' Hamidullah ou Al-Azhar ont délibérement ignoré le terme taqtila qui suit quttilu et qui signifie: égorgement Le sens de l'association de ces deux termes donne donc tuer impitoyablement par égorgement.

La traduction la plus fidèle que l'on puisse faire du verset 61 de la sourate 33 est donc: Maudits (soient-ils), où qu'ils soient, ils seront pris et égorgés impitoyablement. Si on s'en tient au contexte, ceci s'applique à tous ceux qui se sont alliés contre la religion de paix et de tolérance, vous savez donc à quoi vous attendre si vous osez offenser Allah, son Prophète et ses adeptes...

Voilà ce que l’on trouve par exemple sur les traductions anglaises:

Pickthall Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter
Yusuf Ali They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
Hilali-Khan Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.
Shakir Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering.
Sher Ali They are accursed. Wherever they are found they will be seized, and cut into pieces.
Khalifa They have incurred condemnation wherever they go; (unless they stop attacking you,) they may be taken and killed.
Arberry cursed they shalt be, and wheresoever they are come upon they shall be seized and slaughtered all
Palmer Cursed wherever they are found,- taken and slain with slaughter!
Rodwell Cursed wherever they are found; they shall be seized and slain with slaughter!
Sale [and] being accursed; wherever they are found they shall be taken, and general] slaughter,
TranslitArabic MalAAooneena ayna ma thuqifoo okhithoo waquttiloo taqteelan


Monday, 16 August 2010

The Bani Quraytha Jews Traitors or Betrayed?

To make a long story short


When Mohammed first entered Yathrib (Al-Madina Al-Munawwarah), he was counting on the support of its people. One particular ethnic group he thought would give more authority to his prophethood were the Jews because they had the Torah and all the previous Prophets were Jewish .The Jews were many in Yathrib and its suburbs. There were the Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, the Bani Qaynuqa' Jews, the Bani Quraytha Jews, and several more. The Jews were rich and successful in their businesses. A great asset to the young Islamic Nation.

At first, Mohammed was trying to befriend the Jews and get them on his side. He insisted that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) worship the same God [
Qur’an Surah 29:46]. He said that the same God sent down the Torah [Qur’an Surah 5:48]. He ordered the Muslims to fast Aashoora' or the Passover [Saheeh Bukhari - 2004]. Even the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) was towards Jerusalem - the same direction the Jews faced in prayer [Saheeh Bukhari - 41].

But no matter how hard Mohammed tried to convince them that he is a prophet he just couldn't. Once he even barged into a Jewish Synagogue in Yathrib (Al-Madina Al-Munawwarah) and said that if only twelve Jews would believe in him then Allah would spare them his wrath [
Musnad Ahmad - 23464]. When he realized that the Jews wouldn't believe in him, and that their unbelief would turn against him, because they have the Torah which has the criteria for any prophet, he realized that they should be eliminated.

So at first he switched the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca [
Qur’an Surah 2:144 and Saheeh Bukhari - 41]. Then warned them; they either become Muslims and be safe, or sell their possessions and leave their land [Saheeh Muslim - 1765 & 1767 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003]. Mohammed marched towards the Jews in order to either exile them or make a treaty with them.

The Bani Al-Nadheer Jews refused to make a treaty with Mohammed so they fought against him, lost, and subsequently were exiled.

The Bani Quraytha Jews saw the fate of their Bani Al-Nadheer brethren so they had no choice but to make a peace treaty with him [
Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004].

Yet Mohammed was determined that all Jews should be either exiled or killed - he was set on their elimination.
He cannot simply break the treaty with Bani Quraytha though because it would be bad for his image as a Prophet who's supposed to keep his promises and treaties. He strongly emphasized the importance of keeping treaties [
Qur’an Surah 9:4 andSaheeh Bukhari - 33]. So his only way out was to make it appear as though Bani Quraytha were the ones who broke the treaty.

Ghazwat Al-Khandaq (The Battle of the Trench or Ditch) came. The Pagan Arab tribes retreated and Mohammed was ready for battle. Mohammed went to the Bani Quraytha Jews and eliminated them because it was claimed that they betrayed the Muslims and renounced the treaty, but did they?

The Battle of Al-Khandaq (Trench) and The Battle of Bani Quraytha
Quraysh and Ghatfan, encouraged by the exiled Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, wanted to eliminate Mohammed once and for all. They gathered up a great army and put Yathrib under siege [
Saheeh Bukhari - 4103]. Mohammed , based on a suggestion by Salman Al-Farisi, dug a trench around Yathrib [Saheeh Bukhari - 2837], except for the Bani Quraytha side that is, because they had great fortresses and it would be practically impossible for the Pagan Arabs to get through their fortresses unless Bani Quraytha allowed it. Now since Mohammed and Bani Quraytha had a treaty, Mohammed had nothing to fear [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004].

Thus all was set.
Now the siege has started, Mohammed was running low on food and resources [
Saheeh Bukhari - 4101 and Musnad Ahmad - 13808], his companions were terrified [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103 and Musnad Ahmad - 10613], and above all that it wasrumored that Bani Quraytha were going to break the treaty between them and Mohammed and let the Pagan Arabs come through their side. But after a while, a sandstorm hit the armies of the Pagan Arabs, and since Bani Quraytha refused to let them in through their fortresses, the armies had no choice but to retreat [Musnad Ahmad - 22823].

Mohammed on the other hand was ready for battle, he had a full army equipped and eager to fight in the name of Allah.
The rumors that Bani Quraytha wanted to betray him were his only excuse, that and an order sent from Allah via Jibreel (Gabriel). He went to them, put them under siege for 14 days. Finally they surrendered. So Mohammed killed all their men, enslaved their women and children [
Saheeh Muslim - 1769]. Now there was one less Jewish tribe to worry about.

Traitors or Betrayed?
Now it all comes down to this; are the Bani Quraytha Jews traitors or were they betrayed?First of all, how do we know if a treaty is broken? We cannot simply assume that a treaty is broken because of mere rumors [
Qur’an Surah 49:12]. We can only assume that a treaty is broken if:

- 1. The other side officially renounces the treaty
2. The other side does an action which is a direct violation of the treaty

Does any one of the former apply to the Bani Quraytha Jews? I've searched the nine books of Hadeeth (Saheeh Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Al-Tarmithi, Sunan Al-Nasa'i, Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan Ibn Majah, Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta' Malik, and Sunan Al-Darimi). In my search I did not find any single Hadeeth which indicates that Bani Quraytha either officially (or even unofficially) renounced the treaty, nor did I find a Hadeeth which indicates that Bani Quraytha violated the treaty in any way.

As a matter of fact, the only Hadeeth I found regarding Bani Quraytha's position was one Hadeeth [
Musnad Ahmad - 22823] which says that Bani Quraytha actually refused to assist the Pagan Arabs in any way in their assault against Mohammed.

The Conclusion

We saw how much Mohammed wanted to get the Jews on his side, but since he couldn't he had to eliminate them. We saw that the Bani Quraytha Jews actually refused to aid the Pagan Arabs or even let them in through their fortresses. Yet Mohammed was determined to eliminate all non-Muslims from Arabia. The Jews were innocent yet that didn't stop him, he marched to Bani Quraytha and ruthlessly slaughtered all their men, enslaved their women and children. He violated the treaty himself, and he was the one who always preached how treaties should be kept.

History is written by the victors, thus the Muslims have throughout history claimed that the Bani Quraytha Jews were the traitors. Yet because the nine Hadeeth collectors (From Bukhari to Al-Darimi) were men who feared Allah, they couldn't include in their books any Hadeeth which wasn't authentic, thus they couldn't find any Hadeeth to put in their books which talks about the treachery of Bani Quraytha.

It all comes down to this, does a true Prophet of God break his treaties?