Dhimwit Case-Study: Karen Armstrong on the Nakhla Raid

Ibn Kammuna

Dhim·wit (dïm-wît): A non-Muslim member of a free society, who unwittingly abets the stated cause of Islamic domination. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.

And Karen Amstrong fit this bill perfectly. Find out why?

In her book on Muhammad, Karen Armstrong is quick to explain and justify all and every action that Muhammad did. I will take the reader of this article on a journey to see how Ms Armstrong does that through her discussion of the Nakhla Raid. Readers may consult my previous essay to understand the background of the Nakhla raid. For a summary of the incident, Allah’s prophet ordered a group of Muslims to go to a place called Nakhla. There, they ambushed a small Meccan commercial caravan, killing one person and imprisoning two others. In addition, all the spoils became the ownership of the Muslims.

Now, for any decent human being, this was an act of desert piracy, but not to Karen Armstrong. To add insult to injury, this piracy took place on the last day of a sacred month. You see, Arabs before Islam respected the sacredness of time. They never attacked others during their holy months. This was the case for centuries, until Muhammad and his bandits came to the scene.

After this successful raid, the Muslim bandits returned to Medina with prisoners and booty. When the news spread to Medina, everyone, justifiably, was upset. Those sacred months were ‘safety zones’ for all Arabs. Muhammad, seeing this negative reaction, distanced himself from the incident. Then, to justify his greed and his willingness to tramp over anything considered holy by others, he comes down with ‘Allah’s’ revelation:

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

Please note that Muhammad chose to leave Mecca. He was not under much oppression there. Readers are encouraged to read M. A. Khan’s book on this matter. However, Muhammad needed excuse to justify his greed for booty. So, he came down with a lame excuse (that is uglier than admission of guilt as some Arab proverb says) represented by the verse from above. How can preventing access to a place be worse than slaughter? Only a brainwashed person can believe this nonsense.

Our Dimwhit Karen Armstrong defends the attack itself, then, defends his holiness ‘prophet Muhammad’ from any criticism. She even goes farther to show the ‘genius’ of Muhammad. As for the attack itself, Karen Armstrong in her book on Muhammad writes:

What should they do? It was the last day of Rajab, but if they waited until the next day, when fighting was permitted, the caravan would have reached the safety of the Meccan sanctuary. (p. 170)

Any decent human being can tell Armstrong what they should have done. They should have left that caravan alone. It’s not the right time. It was a holy time where all Arabs from east to west and north to south respected as safe time-zones for all to conduct their affairs without fear. This is what they should have done Miss Armstrong. According to Armstrong, Muhammad wanted to abandon those sacred months, because they belonged to the pagan religion. This is actually false as all Arabs whether monotheists or polytheists followed this tradition of sacred months.

Moving along, those bandits take their booty and prisoners and go to Medina. When the people of Medina heard the news of the attack during a sacred time, everyone became saddened, if not shocked, as this was completely against the moral standards followed by all Arabs. Muhammad got worried about this reaction and distanced himself initially from the bandits that he sent out to start with. But, he really wanted the booty and the prisoners’ ransom money. So, the above verse comes down to him telling him that it is okay to attack, unprovoked, a commercial caravan during a time sacred to Arabs. As usual, Karen Armstrong is quick to defend Muhammad:

This incident is a good example of Muhammad’s way of working. He was ready to die for his faith, but was also ready to compromise on inessentials. In the absence of a long-established ethical system, he would listen carefully to events and see them as a revelation of God’s will? (p. 172)

Well, respecting the holy months is not ‘inessential’ Miss Armstrong. Arabs lived thousands of years before Muhammad. So, they had a ‘long-established ethical system’ Miss Armstrong.

It is evident that Karen Armstrong was quick to extend her sympathy to what Muhammad and his murderous robbers did. She fits the definition of a Dhimwhit par excellence. In fact, her views on Islam constitute an ideal example Dhimwhitness.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/10/03/dhimwit-case-study-karen-armstrong-on-the-nakhla-raid/

IHS

Muhammad: A Kindred Spirit From Mecca

Ibn Kammuna

Introduction
In this article, I try to investigate the claim that Muhammad had a gentle spirit in Mecca, that changed quickly after his emigration to Medina. This study relies mainly on comparing earlier Meccan Qur’anic verses with other Qur’anic verses from his early times in Medina, as well as with verses from his last “revelation” when he was the supreme leader of Arabia.

Meccan Muhammad
Muhammad’s message was for his kin folks. Allah is in control of everything. Muhammad is no more than a warner. However, Muhammad did what he could, mainly threaten people. Note how verse 42:7 in the Qur’an promises those who do not follow him the fire of hell. There is more beauty and rhyme in the Meccan Suras. Arabs loved poetry and rhyme, and Muhammad had to compete with that. They had certain annual markets in Mecca where poets competed with their poetry (i.e. Ukad or Ukaz,..). The best poems were hung on the walls of the Ka’ba, an honor that not every poet obtained. Muhammad was unsuccessful with his new ‘poetry-like’ jargon; the Qur’an. In this regard many great poets won the hearts of the Arabs more than Muhammad’s Suras. By the end of his thirteen years in Mecca, Muhammad realized that words are powerful, especially if they came in an attractive way (i.e. poetry). But he also realized that his language abilities cannot compete with those great poets of old. When he went to Yathrib (called Medina later), he probably had in mind getting rid of those poets who went against him, or mocked him with their poetry. History bears me out here. Did he not assassinate Asma bint Marwan and other poets who said some poetry criticizing him? Muhammad’s assassinations and killings of poets are best understood within the context of his life. He could not do much to them when he was in Mecca. He was weak with no political power. Would it not be natural to see Muhammad as a vindictive unforgiving person for those who criticized him right from the start? Muhammad did target poets after the hijra (emigration) to Yathrib (Medina) with assassinations. Even after he took over Mecca, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two singing girls because they sang songs making fun of Muhammad. He was just a vindictive unforgiving person right from the Meccan times. He just did not muster enough power to send his henchmen to kill people back then (Muhammad himself was a coward who relied on others to do his bad deeds for him). Below are some verses from the Meccan period (all of the Qur’anic quotes below are from Yusuf Ali translation):

026.214 And admonish thy nearest kinsmen,
042.003 Thus doth (He) send inspiration to thee as (He did) to those before thee,- Allah, Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.
042.004 To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: and He is Most High, Most Great.
042.005 The heavens are almost rent asunder from above them (by Him Glory): and the angels celebrate the Praises of their Lord, and pray for forgiveness for (all) beings on earth: Behold! Verily Allah is He, the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
042.006 And those who take as protectors others besides Him,- Allah doth watch over them; and thou art not the disposer of their affairs.
042.007 Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur’an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her,- and warn (them) of the Day of Assembly, of which there is no doubt: (when) some will be in the Garden, and some in the Blazing Fire.

While in Mecca, Muhammad increasingly became more insulting to his kin folks and their religions. Despite that, the pagans of Mecca were civil people. They did not drive him or his Muslim group out of Mecca. He had leaving the city on his mind as he realized he cannot make it to be the leading authority figure if he stayed. Over a period of thirteen years he only managed to have around one hundred to a hundred and fifty Muslims, mostly rowdy and lower class people. The fact of the matter is that Muhammad had it in his mind to leave Mecca all along. He sent a group of Muslims to Abyssinia (Ethiopia, 615-6) to see about the situation there. He also went to Taif (619), and the people there told him to just leave. They kicked him out. The idea that Muhammad was forced to leave Mecca because the Meccans were after him wanting to kill him does not find much historical support. The reader is advised to see M. A. Khan’s book discussion on this matter (Islamic Jihad, pp. 18-26).

Early Medinan Muhammad
In Medina, there are, in my view, two distinct stages to Muhammad’s career of ten years there. In Mecca, he realized that he can’t win the hearts of people through his kind verses Qur’an (poetry!!). He just was not good enough to compete with the top poets of the time. He must have contemplated more power and success in life. So, he had to feel his way by using force. He wanted to see how much power he can exercise over other people. First loots were unsuccessful. However, the Nakhla raid was a success. He made a good bounty out of that raid without even lifting a finger. For a quick analogy here, I grew up where there are local dogs in the villages that herded sheep and goats. If a dog tasted the blood of a goat and killed it, that dog had to be shot. There was no way to keep that dog from doing it again. The usual say in the village would be “He (meaning the dog) could not be kept alive. He tasted blood”. Well, in a sense, the Nakhla raid for Muhammad was his “blood tasting” experience. (off course, the problem was he, Muhammad, was kept alive).

Here are some verses from that period:

002.256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
002.257 Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

Note that the above verses still gives an option of belief to people, however he is still threatening people with hell fire. Muhammad is still feeling his way on what to do next. However, look at those verses from the same period:

002.190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
002.191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

It is evident that Muhammad had moved to what I call passive fighting. Muslims are still weak during that period. He wants them to defend themselves by fighting those who fight the Muslims. Verse 191 above shows Muhammad’s hateful heart against those who fight the Muslims. It is at this stage that we see Muhammad feeling that he has some power to be able to subdue those who fight the Muslims. But, he has to be careful with his revelations, as he is still not in full control power-wise. He had to seek alliances with multiple groups and tribes.

Muhammad’s True Colors
The true color of a person shows best when he is in power to decide the fate of other people. Many people loved the late king Hussein of Jordan for many reasons. He was just a kind-hearted man. One of the things about the late king if one reads his writings, and many people do not know that, is that there were many assassination attempts and coups against his life and against his rule. It was a habit of his to forgive those who tried to kill him or make a coup against him (in fact, many of those people he elevated to high ranks in the Jordanian army and the Jordanian police). The late king Hussein had a gentle spirit. Compare that to Muhammad and what he says in the last Sura of the Qur’an (chronologically). Please remember that he was the highest authority in the land when such verses were “revealed” to him. By the way, by that time, Muhammad’s “revelations” lost their rhyme. He did not need to compete with the poets anymore. He had military and political control over much of Arabia. Below are the verses from the chronologically last “revelation”:

009.028 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
009.073 O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.
009.074 They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.
009.113 It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.
009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

The above verses show no mercy against non-Muslims. The command is to put others into submission by whatever means necessary, force them to pay Jizya, kill them,..etc. Choice of religious belief in a pluralistic society is no more existent.

Concluding Remarks
Muhammad was not a kindred spirit as some Muslim apologetics try to portray him. This fact dates back to his Meccan times. He had a vengeful inner spirit. However, in Mecca, he could not harm people and kill them as he did not have much power. The best he could do is curse others and say Qur’anic verses telling them they are going to hell. That he did. As his power increased, his Qur’an lost much of the rhyme, and added much of the “harm and kill the others” to it. Earlier in Medina, this matter was less noticeable as Muhammad was not in complete control of everything. Later in Medina, he had supreme power over all of Arabia. It is during that time that his true colours showed up in the form of teaching the Muslims, through his Qur’an, to kill and subdue all who do not agree with his message.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/10/04/muhammad-a-kindred-spirit-from-mecca/

IHS

National Geographic Blunders on Islamic-Christian History

A friend of mine brought to my attention a problematic article in the National Geographic of June 2009. Apparently, National Geographic featured an article on Arab Christians entitled, "The Forgotten Faithful." Although the article is mainly focused on modern Arab Christians, the author reports this inaccurate historical record:

"Such scenes reflect the Levant's history of coexistence between Muslims and people of other faiths, which dates from the earliest days of Islam. When the Muslim Caliph Omar conquered Syria from the Byzantine Empire around 636, he protected the Christians under his rule, allowing them to keep their churches and worship as they pleased. But many Christians converted to Islam anyway, preferring its emphasis on a personal connection with God to the oppressive hierarchies of the Byzantine Church." [emphasis mine]

You can read this for yourself on the seventh page of the article by clicking here.

This statement is wrong and can be quickly checked against the Omar Agreement (aka Umar Agreement). Click here for source. Under Caliph Omar, Christians were given three choices: death, conversion, or agreement to pay jizya tax. Here is the agreement:

The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule

We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows: In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells,
nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers.
We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.
We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.
We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.
We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly.
We shall not raise our voices when following our dead.
We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.
We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition. Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact." from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

It is disappointing that the journalist, who wrote, The Forgotten Faithful, did not report on Omar's Agreement at all. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may not have known that this agreement existed. However, notice the term dhimma in the text. This is a term for second class citizens under Sharia Law (Islamic Law). This is not how these people are portrayed in the National Geographic article when the author reports these people worshiped "as they pleased."

As Nabeel Qureshi of Acts 17 Apologetics pointed out, in reference to this same article: "Unfortunately, there is a problem with this [the author's] perspective: it ignores virtually everything about Islam. As we have pointed out before, Sharia stems from the Qur'an, and in its final days of revelation, the Qur'an commanded that Christians and Jews be fought until they are humiliated (9:29). Sharia thus calls for active antagonism towards non-Muslims."

Also, it is unfortunate how the article presented an imbalance of religious violence, focusing more on historical Christian violence without a balanced assessment of the Muslim violence in history, as well. And so it appears as if the article is attempting to persuade people about an ideology under the guise of reporting his

Source: http://confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/09/national-geographic-blunders-on-islamic.html

IHS

The Absence of Freedom in The Lands Governed by Sharia

On 7 July, 2009, the daily online Al-Awan published an article by a reformist Algerian intellectual unmasking the hypocrisy of the Islamic propaganda machine that seeks to paint a rosy picture of the human rights conditions in the “Lands Governed by the Sharia.” He began, with tongue in cheek, to quote a paragraph written in a flowery Arabic style that sang the praises of the superlative tolerance and magnanimity shown to the various religious and ethnic minorities living within Daru’l Islam. Then he proceeded to list certain actions taken by Muslim governments that contradicted the empty claims enumerated in the propaganda piece. I must confess that I was fascinated with his sarcasm and wit which comes through especially forcefully in Arabic!

Here are excerpts from the article, followed by my analysis and comments.

“We are a tolerant people. With us, there is no ‘compulsion in religion.’ We don’t punish apostates, or force them to return to Islam. Buddhists living among us are free to build their temples. As to our Christian brothers and Jewish cousins, they have all the freedom to build their houses of worship without any hindrance. [Among us] you are as free to change religion as you are to change your shirt. There is true freedom in Daru’l Islam. A Copt is a citizen, and not a dhimmi. A Shi’ite enjoys the same privileges as a Sunni in a Sunni majority land; the same thing obtains for a Sunni living in a Shi’ite majority country. The Ahmadis 1 and the Bahais 2 are well-treated. In fact, all religions are properly treated in our Arab-Muslim world. May Allah protect us from the evil designs and calumnies of the West who are very jealous on account of our blessings, the blessings of justice, peace, and Islam.”

“Now, anyone who takes seriously such propaganda, [referring to the words of the paragraph above] is a fool for believing such lies! The meetings that take place, and the funds that are spent to present Islam as a tolerant religion, are nothing but smoke-screens.

“The facts gleaned from the Islamic world don’t reveal an idealistic and tolerant Islam. How can a genuine spirit of citizenship prosper in the Muslim world, where the Sharia mandates not only discrimination against non-Muslims, but their ultimate elimination?

“Any keen observer of the condition of human rights in the Muslim world is able to dismantle meaningless discourse that seeks to present to the world an idealistic Islam. Such an observer cannot but take note of the total lack of individual freedoms and human rights in all those countries where their laws are based on Sharia, and not on human reason.

“It is necessary to dismantle the very structures of Islamist discourse based, as we know, on purely verbal formulations and vapid eloquence. Doing so would reveal the true nature of that miserable and imagined“glorious Islamic past,” a past that the Islamists are trying to resurrect, which can only mean that entire Muslim societies will continue to remain underdeveloped!

“Let us observe realistically the present state of affairs in the Arab-Islamic world so that we may not be duped by the empty claims of the Islamists. Where is that vaunted justice when a young Algerian woman is brought to trial, simply because she chose to embrace Christianity in a country with a constitution that guarantees freedom of belief? The Algerian Government claims that there is a widespread evangelization movement taking place in the country. But what exactly is the problem with that? Should the State be responsible for the conscience of its people and their inner convictions? Why do we forbid others to engage in activities which we allow ourselves? What’s the difference between “da’wa” and “tabshir” (evangelism?) 3. And can there be harmony between the Sharia as the basis of legislations and the principle of religious freedom?

“In the final analysis, it is only when we adopt a secular outlook as the basis of our laws that we can arrive at a just solution to the problem of religious, ethnic, and racial minorities who are at present “submerged” in the sea of an intolerant Muslim majority throughout the Arab world.”

Analysis
The author of this brief article locates the source and foundation of discrimination against non-Muslims in the very Islamic Sharia as based on the sacred and normative texts of Islam, namely the Qur’an, the Hadith, and Sirat (Life of) Muhammad. Most if not all the “Constitutions” of Islamic states begin with a clause that makes Islam the source of legislation.

Comments
The discriminatory teachings of Islamic Sharia classify people living within Daru’l Islam according to several categories such as, Muslims, Dhimmis or People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews), and pagans. While Muslim propagandists never cease to claim that Islam respects the rights of non-Muslims to worship and live according to their own beliefs, the facts reveal an entirely different reality.

The author is known for expressing views about the necessity of the separation of religion from politics in the Arab-Muslim world. His remarks reflect his belief that as long as the Sharia remains the foundational source of all legislation, there can be no genuine equality among the citizens of an Arab country. The very source of discrimination is the Sharia itself. Since it is based on a Divine revelation, it follows that no mere humans may alter any of its provisions.

We should never forget that the presence of Islam outside the Arabian Peninsula took place by force. This fact is often forgotten or glossed over by Western intellectuals. In the Introduction to his book, “Islamic Imperialism: A History” published in 2006 by Yale University Press, Professor Ephraim Karsh, head of Mediterranean Studies at King’s College, University of London, made this contrast between Christianity and Islam:

“The worlds of Christianity and Islam, however, have developed differently in one fundamental respect. The Christian faith won over an existing empire in an extremely slow and painful process and its universalism was originally conceived in spiritual terms that made a clear distinction between God and Caesar. By the time it was embraced by the Byzantine emperors as a tool for buttressing their imperial claims, three centuries after its foundation, Christianity had in place a countervailing ecclesiastical institution with an abiding authority over the wills and actions of all believers. The birth of Islam, by contrast, was inextricably linked with the creation of a world empire and its universalism was inherently imperialist. It did not distinguish between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammad, who derived his authority directly from Allah and acted at one and the same time as head of the state and head of the church. This allowed the prophet to cloak his political ambitions with a religious aura and to channel Islam’s energies into ‘its instruments of aggressive expansion, there [being] no internal organism of equal force to counterbalance it.’” (P. 5)

A thorough study of the plight of minorities under Islam has been done by Bat Ye’or. In her book, “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude,” she documents the condition of Eastern Christians throughout the Middle East, since the early years of the seventh century.4

It was the imposition of the Jizya tax and other harsh discriminatory measures on the majority populations during the successive Arab, Seljuk, and Ottoman regimes that ultimately led to a drastic demographic change. The subjects who were originally in the majority became a despised and barely tolerated minority. The results of this Islamic intolerance are realistically described by the author of Al-Awan article in these strong words, “The facts gleaned from the Islamic world don’t reveal an idealistic and tolerant Islam. How can a genuine spirit of citizenship prosper in the Muslim world, where the Sharia mandates not only discrimination against non-Muslims, but their ultimate elimination?”

The writer also makes reference to “that miserable and imagined glorious Islamic past.” These words point to the era of the early caliphs and the subsequent caliphates that witnessed the expansion of the Muslim world. The first caliphs are called, “Al-Khulafa al-Rashidoon,” i.e. “The Rightly Guided Caliphs.” Their era (632-661) was marred by a series of assassinations. Umar, the 2^nd caliph was murdered in 644, and was succeeded by Uthman who was assassinated twelve years later. Then Ali, cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, was murdered by one of his own disgruntled soldiers!

The list of horrors that mar the history of Islam goes on. The martyrdom of Husain, the son of Ali, and leader of the Shi’ites, took place in 680, at Karbala, Iraq. Seventy years later, the Umayyad Caliphate, responsible for the killing of Husain and his entourage, ended in a blood-bath! What the author decries is the undue praise that is heaped on that period in the history of Islam by present-day Islamists.

Finally, our author turns to the subject of freedom of religion, and refers to an Algerian woman who, after being converted to the Christian faith, was hauled before the courts. He considers this the height of intolerance. Furthermore, he remains skeptical about the Algerian Government’s claim of the existence of a widespread evangelistic activity in the country. And even if such a campaign did exist, why should it be considered a subversive movement! He abhors the shocking asymmetry that exists in Islam’s relations with the rest of the world and boldly asked: “What’s the difference between ‘da’wa’ and ‘tabshir’”3

While any attempt to spread the Christian faith in the vast Islamic world is looked upon with alarm and considered a crime, Muslims in Europe and the Americas encounter no hindrances in the practice of their faith, nor are they forbidden to engage in Da’wa, i.e. calling non-Muslims to embrace Islam. In several of my previous articles on this website, I called attention to the total absence of a quid pro quo in the relations between Islam and the West.

Not only do Muslims enjoy freedom of religion in the West, but Muslin governments and institutions subsidize chairs of Islamic Studies at major American universities. For example, Dr. John L. Esposito, of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., is a “Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.” His position at this Catholic university is funded by a member of the Saudi Royal family. A perusal of his writings and various texts from his speeches indicates a consistently revisionist exposition of Islam. On the other hand, it is unimaginable to expect the existence of a “chair” for Christian Studies at any Islamic university.

The reason for this shocking anomaly is that, through their actions, Muslims declare the finality and superiority of their faith and worldview over all other major world civilizations. Thus, they see no inconsistency at all in demanding freedom to exercise and propagate their faith wherever they have settled outside Daru’l Islam. After all, Muhammad is Allah’s last messenger, the Qur’an is His completed revelation, and therefore the Sharia must rule the entire world. To allow a witness for other faiths within Islam’s homelands is utterly inconceivable.

The author of the article in Al-Awan, who has challenged the uniqueness and superiority of Islam, must be congratulated for his courage, honesty, and integrity. I can never be thankful enough for the Internet that allows his opinions to appear and spread. I hope more Arabs would not only read his contributions, but would adopt his reformist worldview, and pave the way for a peaceful coexistence between a reformed Islam and the rest of mankind.

1. Ahmadis are followers of the “Ahmadiyya Movement” which was founded in 1889 in India, by a Muslim scholar, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He claimed that he received revelation from Allah “to disclose the true spirit of Islam.” Since both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam do not recognize any new prophet after Muhammad, the followers of this movement are regarded as heretics, and quite often, are persecuted in Muslim countries.
2. Bahais follow the teachings of a 19^th century Persian religious leader who took the name of Baha’ullah (Splendor of Allah). He sought to unite all three theistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Persecuted by the Shah, he sought refuge within the Ottoman Empire. He died in 1892, and is buried on Mt. Carmel, near Haifa, Israel.
3. Da’wa” and “Tabshir” The effort to propagate Islam is known as da’wa, i.e. calling people to accept Muhammad as Allah’s final messenger. Tabshir is an Arabic word based on Bishara, i.e. Good News or Gospel. Tabshir refers to Christian missions.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_Eastern_Christianity:_From_Jihad_to_Dhimmitude

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/09/30/the-absence-of-freedom-in-the-lands-governed-by-sharia/

IHS

A Debate that I Lost – The last Verse of the Qur’an

Sometime ago, while socializing with a group of Muslims, I became involved in a debate with one of them, who happened to be a Muslim scholar. It all started when he objected to my referral to the Qur’anic verse 5: 3 as the last revealed verse. He insisted that I was wrong and quoted some references to prove his point. Although he appeared to be sure I still didn’t believe his claims because they seemed to defy commonsense. When I went home, the first thing I did was to look at those references quoted by the Muslim scholar and, to my surprise, he was absolutely correct. The Muslim scholars, who rarely agree on anything, were in full agreement on that one! There are a few verses that were revealed after verse Q.5:3, therefore, this verse cannot be described as the last revealed of the Qur’an.

The verse, or rather part of verse, I was referring to is this one:

Q.5:3 (…This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion….)

The above statement is a part of a long verse in surat Almaeda (chapter 5) and is one of those popular verses that many Muslims tend to know by heart. It also has a special significance because it was revealed during Mohammed’s last pilgrimage, known to Muslims as hijatul wadaa, or the farewell pilgrimage. Indeed, Mohammed died three months later, and the verse could have made a perfect finish to his career, had he stopped revealing more.

I spent all my years as a Muslim assuming that the above verse was the last to be revealed from the Qur’an. My assumption was not based on historical evidence but on logical conclusion, which explains how I got it wrong; I applied common sense to where it didn’t belong. According to the above verse, Allah states that He had perfected, completed and chosen Islam as a religion for Muslims. I thought that such a clear statement means that no further revelations were needed. In fact, any further revelations would contradict the above verse and make it meaningless. And that is exactly the situation now; the words ‘perfected’ and ‘completed’ seem have lost their meanings because Allah continued to reveal more!

That debate took place years after I already left Islam, but the blunder, on its own, is a good enough reason for any thinking Muslim to leave Islam. My friend had the habit of claiming victory in all debates anyway; I certainly couldn’t disagree with his claim on that one, but that was a debate I was happy to lose.

One might think that the ‘extra’ verses that were revealed had only symbolic value and did not affect the core issues of Islam, like halal (allowed) and haram (prohibited) issues. I am afraid that is only a wishful thinking and is far from true. Let us have a look at some of the verses that were added to the Qur’an after Allah declared that it was completed.

According to Bukhari, Ibn Abbas believed that verse Q.2:278, which deals with usury (riba), was the last of the Qur’an:

“Q.2: 278. O you who believe! Be afraid of Allâh and give up what remains from Ribâ (usury) if you are believers”

Both Bukhari and Muslim report that Baraa Ibn Azzeb believed that verse Q.4: 176, which deals with inheritance, was the last of the Qur’an:

“Q.4: 176. They ask you for a legal verdict. Say: “Allâh directs about Al Kalâlah (those who leave neither descendants nor ascendants as heirs). If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister, but no child, she shall have half the inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, her brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance; if there are brothers and sisters, the male will have twice the share of the female. (Thus) does Allâh makes clear to you (His Law) lest you go astray. And Allâh is the All-Knower of everything.”

While Abu Ubayd, in his book ‘Fadael al Qur’an’ claims that verse Q.2: 282 from surat Al Bakara, which is the longest verse in the Qur’an and sets the rules of borrowing, was the last to be revealed:

“Q.2: 282. O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write ….”

The above were only three contenders for the title of the last verse of the Qur’an, all of them were revealed after Allah stated that He perfected and completed the religion!

My explanation is that Allah, after he completed the Qur’an, remembered a few more things which he added later.

All humans do it, don’t they?

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/09/30/a-debate-that-i-lost-the-last-verse-of-the-Qur’an/

IHS