Muslims Defending the Stupidity of Islam: The "Out of Context" & the "Do-You-Speak-Arabic" Garbage

Sujit Das

A incisive discussion on Muslims’ “language” and “out of context” arguments to shut up critics of Islam…

Islam cannot survive if argued with reason.


islam-dismantled-sujit-das

Presently the debate on Islam is in full swing on various social networking as well as in many ex-Muslim and anti-Islam websites. Yet, the truth is not embraced easily. Old beliefs die hard. Though many sympathizers of Islam, e.g., Karen Armstrong, Edward Said and John Esposito, try to portray a deceptive rosy picture of Islam, the true Muslims show the real face of Islam with their constant readiness to harass, intimidate and assassinate anyone who may slight their religion. For this reason, Theo Van Gogh was shot and stabbed to death in the Netherlands and his associate Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to live with bodyguards and armored cars (Ali, 2007, p. xii), Taslima Nasrin has been living in exile since 1994, Faraj Foda was shot dead in front of his office in Cairo, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd fled out of Egypt to escape the death penalty, and Sayyid Mahmoud al-Qimni was forced to recant all his writings (Ahmed, 2006, p. ix). Unfortunately, before the outside world would get a chance to read their works, these writers were silenced through murder, terror, and death-threats, and their writings were banned in the Muslim world. But who can stop the truth from spreading?

Today who can deny the fact that Islam is different from all other religions, because of the threat of violence to its critics? All other religions can be criticized and even ridiculed without fear of violence. Only with Islam is there a credible threat of violence to its critics. Muslims can criticize Christianity and Hinduism without any fear of violence, but Christians and Hindus cannot criticize Islam without an ever-present fear of Islamic violence. It needs far more bravery to be on that side. A simple, calm, rational debate between all religions is not possible, because the fear of Islamic violence is always in the background. If Islam is, as Muslims claim, a mature, modern, tolerant religion, then why there is a need to the threat of violence? Muslims don’t understand the self-contradiction.

Since Muslims cannot argue their religion with reason (Islam cannot survive if argued with reason), they resort to sudden abnormal rage. If it does not help, they opt for habitual lying and flawed arguments. We often hear two such arguments from them – the “language” argument and the “out of context” argument (Warraq, 2003, pp. 400-4). In this article, we will have a closer look at these two arguments.

The language argument

When the Qur’anic contradictions, or absurdities, or the violent verses are pointed out, Muslims will ask aggressively, “Do you know Arabic?” Then they tell triumphantly, “You have to read it in original Arabic to understand it fully”, or “These are not there in original Arabic Qur’an”, or, “The beauty of the Qur’an is lost in the translation”, or “There are many fake translations of the Qur’an to malign Islam” etc. With this, Western critics generally become silent. Now the question is: How many Muslims have read the Qur’an in original Arabic? Since the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, they have to rely on translations. In fact, most Muslims who raise the language arguments are non-Arabs and don’t understand Arabic.

Secondly, a large section of the Qur’an is just meaningless blabbering of an illiterate seventh-century mental patient whom Muslims revere as their Prophet. In this respect, Puin, the great scholar of Islam (cited Warraq, 2002, pp. 112, 121) commented,

My idea is that the Qur’an is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or clear. But [contrary to popular belief] if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply does not make sense … the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it cannot even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not — there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on”.

The Qur’an is indeed a confusing text, which confuses everyone – whether one knows Arabic or not. In fact, the Qur’an was not written fully in the purest Arabic. There are many foreign words, which got included in this supposed to be “God’s unaltered word” (Warraq, 1995, p. 108). The very word “Qur’an” itself is of foreign origin. Contrary to popular Muslim belief, the meaning of the Qur’an is not recitation. It is actually derived from an Aramaic word, “Qariyun”, meaning a lectionary of scripture portions appointed to be recited at divine service. Qur’an contains most of the Biblical stories in a shorter form, and as Puin commented (cited Das, 2012, p. 158), is “a summary of the Bible to be read in service”.

Moreover, freethinkers and critics do not need to know Arabic. All they need is a critical sense, clarity of thought, unbiased attitude and skepticism. The language of the Qur’an is a form of classical Arabic, which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today. So, even Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Moreover, when Muslims criticize the Bible and other sacred texts of Christianity, how many of them know a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek? When they criticize the holy scriptures of Hinduism, how many of them know Sanskrit? Muslims do not understand that their flawed logic to defend Islam’s foolishness goes against them. Also, Muslims around the world preach Islam to make converts in languages other than Arabic. If the Qur’an can only be understood in Arabic, why do they do this?

Neither the “actual meaning” of the Qur’an nor its “beauty” is lost in the translation. There are translations of the Arabic Qur’an by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language and grammar of the Qur’an, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. As example, as-Suyuti, possibly the greatest Arabist and Qur’an commentator ever, wrote about verse 11.107 that “I cannot make heads or tails out of this blessed verse.” (cited Warraq, 2011, p. 224) The Qur’an is indeed a rather opaque text, but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it (Warraq, 2003, p. 400). The Arab literary scholar Nicholson noted (1969, p. 161) that the Qur’an is, “obscure, tiresome, uninteresting, a farrago of long-winded narratives and prosaic exhortations”. And regarding “beauty” of the Qur’an, it is better we say nothing; otherwise it will put Muslims more in shame. A large portion of the Qur’an is full of Jihadi verses and hate speeches against the infidels. As example, here I quote the most “beautiful and peaceful” verse of the Qur’an, known as the verse of sword.

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Q: 9.5)

This is just one example of miraculous beauty of this holy book. Let us read the Surah 111 (Al-Massad: Palm fiber, The Flame).

The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming Fire, and his wife, the wood-carrier will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fiber.

The complete Surah 111 is a curse. What beauty can we find in a hate speech? The Qur’an is full of vulgar words and obscene language directed toward infidels. For example: infidels are

1)      wrong-doers (Q 2.59; 2.95; 2.145; 2.150; 2.165; 2.193; 2.229; 2.246; 2.254; 2.258; 2.270; 3.57; 3.86; 3.94; 3.128; 3.140; 3.151; 4.74; 5.29; 5.45; 5.107; 6.21; 6.45; 6.58; 6.135; 7.41; 7.47; 7.148; 8.54; 9.23; 11.31, etc);

2)      hypocrites (Q 4.61; 8.49; 9.64; 9.73; 29.11; 33.1; 48.6; 57.13; 59.11; 63.1; 66.9, etc.);

3)      Liars (Q: 6.28; 7.66; 9.77; 11.93; 39.3; 40.24, etc); and

4)      Evildoers (Q: 2.12; 2.26; 2.99; 3.63; 5.47; 5.108; 7.102; 9.24; 10.17; 11.18; 14.22; 17.47; 18.53; 19.86; 24.4; 29.4; 34.42; 37.22; 39.24, etc) (Das, 2012, p. 142).

All these hate speeches that go on verse after verse indicate the cultural heritage of illiterate Muhammad brought up in a desert. People, who are evil, attack others instead of facing their own failures. A curse is uttered by a person, who desires to harm another, but finds him or herself powerless to do so, and appeals to a supernatural power to inflict such harm oh his/her supposed opponent.

Secondly, there is another very strong and serious problem in the Qur’an. It affirms the scriptures of the Jews and Christians as authentic and true revelation from God. Allah confirms,

Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds: With it came down the spirit of Faith and Truth Upon thy heart, that thou mayst be (one) of the warners, in the perspicuous Arabic tongue”. (Q: 26.192-5)

And lo! it is in the Scriptures of the men of earlier (Prophets)”. (Q: 26.196)

The “earlier writings” are the Torah and the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. For Jews, Arabic was a language of poets and drunkards. How can, then, the Arabic Qur’an be contained in books of other languages? Now, we have the choice between two different lies in Allah’s revelations. Either because of verse 26.196, the words “in clear Arabic speech” is contained in the earlier revelations. This is a lie, because they are not in Arabic. Therefore, it cannot be in the earlier revelation. But then verse 26.196 becomes a lie in the Qur’an. In no way, can we save the situation. There are more such verses, e.g., the verse 16.103 also claims “this is Arabic pure and clear”, which refers to the Qur’an without doubt.

Moreover, it raises another serious question: In what language is the one and only true original of the document? Was it written in Arabic, or Latin, or in some language unknown to us? The first earthly edition of the Qur’an was published in Arabic, and subsequently it has been translated into other languages. Also, some scholars believe that initially the Qur’an was written in a popular dialect prevailed in the Hijaz (a coastal region of the western Arabian Peninsula bordering on the Red Sea), but later the book was re-written in Arabic literary language that now appears to us (Warraq, 2011, p. 83). It means the original language of the Qur’an is not pure Arabic. But then what is the original language of this supposed-to-be-sacred scripture? Nobody on earth, not even the most devout Muslim, knows the answer to this question.

Yet, there is another problem. Skeptics, who doubt that any earthly edition of the Qur’an is a transcript of a supernatural prototype, point out that earthly editions of the Qur’an contain many contradictions, inconsistencies, fallacies, errors, and absurdities. If the earthly editions are not free from error how can we be sure that the heavenly version (Q: 43.3 – “the mother of the book”; Q: 55.77 – “a concealed book”; Q: 85.22 – “a well guarded tablet”) is entirely error free?

Therefore, we can see that Muslims’ “language” argument does not stand on firm grounds. If Muslims claim that there are many “fake” translations in circulation (Jewish conspiracy?) to defame Islam, why there is no fatwa (religious verdict) to remove the fake copies from circulation? Why there is not an outrage similar to Muhammad-cartoon incident, or Salman Rushdie’s 1988 novel The Satanic Verses, or, Pope’s criticism of Muhammad on September 12, 2006? The simple fact is that there is no so-called “fake” translation of the Arabic Qur’an. This “beautiful” book is a violent and hateful text, the mother manual of today’s Islamic terrorism.

So while criticizing Islam, freethinkers should not think – who am I to criticize Islam, when I don’t know Arabic? The language argument is a Muslim tactic to defend the foolishness of Islam. For a first-rated independent thinker, who embarks on studying and searching for the discovery of truth and reality with honesty and sincerity, language is not a barrier. If not, how these freethinkers are happy to criticize Christianity or Hinduism? How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of the Old Testament was? How many of them know the ancient Sanskrit to criticize the Hindu sacred texts? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity, and Hinduism and Bhagvada-Gita without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Sanskrit.

The out-of-context argument

Next, let us discuss the “out of context” argument. When Jihadi verses are pointed out, Muslims say, “You have quoted out of context”. This “out of context” argument, to borrow words from Warraq, is the “old standby of crooked, lying politicians” (Warraq, 2003, p. 400). This could mean two things: (a) the historical context to which the various verses refer; and (b) the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from.

The Historical Context is out of question. Qur’an is supposed to be the eternal word of God, true and valid for all places and time. If Allah is eternal, then Allah can neither have a past nor a history. Therefore, Muslims actually blaspheme against their God, when they talk about historical context. Secondly, as Spencer observed (2003, p. 127), reading the Qur’an is often like walking in on a conversation between two people with whom one is only slightly acquainted. Frequently, they make reference to people and events without bothering to explain what is going on. Even the famous Muslim scholar and one of the most influential thinkers, Sayyid Qutb, admits that most of the Surahs were not revealed as wholes, but rather bit by bit at diverse occasions, of which there is no historical record agreed upon by scholars. Hence, the only option available to us is that of assumption and preponderaton in this matter (cited Boullata, 2002, p. 363). In other words, the context is often not supplied. Therefore, if the context is not given in the Qur’an, how a verse can be quoted out of context?

The remaining is the textual context. No doubt, there are some peaceful verses in the Qur’an, which were revealed early in Muhammad Prophetic mission in Mecca. Muslims want to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion by quoting those verses. But all the peaceful verses were abrogated by the violent verses of the ninth Surah, because the ninth Surah was revealed toward the end of Muhammad’s life. In fact, most Muslim authorities agree that the ninth Surah was the very last section of the Qur’an revealed to him. Many Muslim theologians assert that the verse of sword (Q: 9.5) abrogates as many as 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur’an (Spencer, 2007, p. 78; McAuliffe, 2006, p. 218). The ninth Surah is the only one of the Qur’an’s 114 chapters that does not begin with “Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim” – “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful.” It is because, Muhammad not only did not recite the Bismillah himself, but commanded that it not be recited at the beginning of this Surah. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains Muhammad’s command by saying that the Bismillah is security, and ninth Surah was sent down when security was removed by the sword. Ali ibn Abi Talib agrees, saying that the Bismillah “conveys security while this Surah was sent down with the sword. That is why it does not begin with security” (Oliver, 2006, p. 537; Spencer, 2009, p. 200). Ibn Kathir declares that the verse of sword (Q: 9.5) has “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty and every term … no idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since the Surah Bara’ah (ninth Surah) was revealed” (Spencer, 2003, p. 134). Ibn Juzayy, another commentator, agrees that the verse of the sword’s purpose is (Spencer, 2005, p. 25), “abrogating every peaceful treaty of the Qur’an”.

Therefore, the tolerant verses are practically meaningless. The problem began when Uthman collected the verses of the Qur’an and arranged them in a way that the abrogated verses were mixed up with the abrogating verses (Ahmed, 2006, p. 77). This arrangement led to the appearance of discrepancies and contradiction in the Uthmanic Qur’an, which is used until our present day. The second proof is that the Sharia law does not take into account the peaceful verses because these are abrogated. Muslims try to fool the non-Muslims with their twisted logic and pathological lying. They repeat the same lies again and again thinking that it will become true if often repeated. “Islam is a peaceful religion” is a lie which is as old as the birth of Islam. Why don’t we find the Taliban terrorists singing the peaceful verses from the Qur’an while beheading the captives? If the verse “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Q: 2.256) is still valid why Muslims had destroyed the world-famous Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan?

In November 2002, Osama bin Laden quoted eight jihadi verses from the Qur’an in a “Letter to the American People”, and in his 1996 declaration of jihad against the USA, he quoted sixteen jihadi verses (Spencer, 2003, p. 125). Long history of lying has caused Muslims to believe their own lies.

Secondly, reinterpretation of the Qur’anic verses is officially allowed. Sheikh Youssef Alqardawi, the most famous Muslim scholar in the Arab world, appeared on Al Jazeera’s weekly program “Sharia and Life”, to discuss issues related to Islam and answer some of the questions put to him, through phone calls. On February 22 2009, he rejected the evolution theory, because the Qur’an says otherwise; but he reassured his audience that Muslims don’t need to worry about the evolution theory as long as it remains a theory. Only if it becomes a recognized scientific fact, the Muslim scholars would reinterpret the relevant verses in the Qur’an to bring them in line with proven scientific facts (Salih, 2009). Muslims claim that Qur’an is divine, but shamelessly reinterpret the Qur’an by twisting the language and changing the meanings of the words or even introducing completely new meanings. This is how the Muslims lie to save their holy book from divine downfall. Their logic is simple, “The Qur’an is correct even when it is wrong”.

From this discussion, it is very clear that while dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is: what they actually mean in their hearts. They lie when it is in their interest to do so, and Allah will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. They lie by swearing to Allah, or by taking an oath by the Prophet, the Ka’ba and the Qur’an – all with a very sincere and pious look and innocent face without any guilt or fear of accountability or retribution. And one lie leads to another to cover up the first one. A lie in the defense of Islam is approved, even applauded, in the Qur’an. Allah and Muhammad were two of the greatest liars humanity had ever seen. It is quite fascinating that both of them could just tell a lie and make the Muslims believe it’s true. Muslims have picked up the art of lying from the Qur’an. If we don’t understand Muslims’ Qur’anic strategy of lying to propagate the cult of Islam, we just invite more death and destruction on us in the future.

References

  • Ahmed, A. A (2006); The Hidden Life of the Prophet Muhammad. Author House. Indiana.
  • Ali, Ayaan Hirsi (2007); Infidel. Free Press. NY.
  • Boullata, Issa, J. (2002); Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’an. Curzon Press. Richmond, Surrey.
  • Das, Sujit (2012); Islam Dismantled: The Mental Illness of Prophet Muhammad. Felibri. US.
  • McAuliffe, Jane Dammen (2006); The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an. Cambridge University Press. UK.
  • Nicolson, Reynold (1969); A Literary History of the Arabs. Cambridge University Press. UK.
  • Oliver, Leaman (2006); The Qur’an: an encyclopedia. Routledge. Abingdon.
  • Spencer, Robert (2003); Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad still threatens America and the West. Regnery Publishing. Washington DC.
  • Spencer, Robert (2005); The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Regnery Publishing. Washington DC.
  • Spencer, Robert (2007); Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn’t. Regnery Publishing. Washington DC.
  • Spencer, Robert (2009); The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran. Regnery Publishing Washington DC.
  • Warraq, Ibn (1995); Why I am not a Muslim. Prometheus books. NY.
  • Warraq, Ibn (2002); What the Koran Really Says – Language, Text and Commentary. Prometheus books. NY.
  • Warraq, Ibn (2003); Leaving Islam, Apostates Speak Out. Prometheus Books. NY.
  • Warraq, Ibn (2011); Which Koran: Variants, Manuscripts, Linguistics. Prometheus books. NY
  • Salih, Mumin (2009); It is Official: Muslims Reinterpret the Quran! Islam-Watch. (http://www.islam-watch.org/MuminSalih/Muslims-Reinterpret- Quran.htm, last accessed November 27, 2011)

———-

Sujit Das lives in Mumbai (India). He is the author of the book, Islam Dismantled: The Mental Illness of Prophet Muhammad, available for online purchase at Amazon.com and in various book stores. He can be contacted atcounter.jihad@yahoo.co.uk

59 thoughts on “Muslims Defending the Stupidity of Islam: The "Out of Context" & the "Do-You-Speak-Arabic" Garbage”

  1. Well, I speak Arabic. The idea that a language is so much different than another is ludicrous. Arabic is the same as Japanese, Spanish and English. All of which I have knowledge of and are used to communicate ideas. As stated in the article: “Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language.” Now, I want to address a few things: “The language of the Qur’an is a form of classical Arabic, which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today.” This statement is actually partially untrue. Arabic spoken today is in two types: (1) Lahjah which is dialectical and mutually intelligible to Classical Arabic and (2) Fusha which is a modernized form of Classical Arabic that is used in media and writing, for the most part it is derivative of the Qur’anic Arabic, so therefore anybody with education (reading and writing) in the Arab world would be able to read the Qur’an. Also the article stated: “The language argument is a Muslim tactic to defend the foolishness of Islam.” This is actually not true, it is the Muslim theology that states that only the Arabic Qur’an is the “real” Qur’an for whatever reason, which would entail any criticism as irrelevant.

  2. Arabic is not the same as Japanese and Spanish at all. If you’re a native speaker okay whatever. But I happened to enjoy this article and what’s really important is it informs you of the meanings of Arabic words some I didn’t know before. So lahjah is what they speak when they tell you that you can only have white bread instead of wheat because it’s what they want. Or when you are being told to eat halal. I don’t care about the terminology so much as the substance I am getting. I learned alot.

  3. uh-hum let me argue you here with reason,

    THE QURAN:

    (1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in chapter (surah) 96.

    (2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic “both and” methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the “occasion of revelation”) of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, “a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly.” Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good.

    3) The same Quran that reads, “Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you” (2:194), also reads, “Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend” (41:34). When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the situational and contextual factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse (2:194) is clear on this, “whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you.” Verse (16:126) gives the same meaning, “and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted.” Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, “and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others.” The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one’s anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor’s evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text.

    (4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the ‘other’ non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), “God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.” The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, “And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors,” (2:190). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, “there is no compulsion in religion,” (2:256).

    (5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” One of the main concerns of Chapter (Surah) 9 of the Quran (a Surah is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts.

    (6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse (9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, “So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.” Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of (9:5), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse (9:6), “If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.”

    Understanding the verses’ historical context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse (8:61), “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

    The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all available Quranic evidence.

    A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an “obviously” pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.)

    Now to History

    Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not!

    Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5).

    There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself. which I talked about

    HISTORY:

    When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

    That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.

    Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)

    The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying “all” cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as “Infidels”. Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed “full citizenship” (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to “kill the infidels…”

    I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term “Infidel”. We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and “experts” on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam’s and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims.

    I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an “Infidel”, so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called “experts” on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken “infidel” term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did not find this word “infidel” in any of them! The Arabic word “Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar” was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers.

    What’s more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means “unbelieving” or “unfaithful.” During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632).

    Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term “infidel”:

    Main Entry: in·fi·del
    Pronunciation: ‘in-f&-d & l, -f&-“del
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful — more at FIDELITY
    1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
    2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
    3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood
    – infidel adjective

    Two remaining points:

    (1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of “enslaving” them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the “clear” Quranic injunctions against the “Infidels”. This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims’ violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes. This statement tells us much more about the Islamophobes themselves than about Muslims, however.

    (2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam.

    (A relevant link to this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.)

  4. oh and also that surah

    Translation:
    May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.
    His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained.
    He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame
    And his wife [as well] – the carrier of firewood.
    Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. [Surah Lahab, verses 1-5]

    Reason of Revelation

    This verse was one of the first revealed in Mecca. You can find the full details in Tafsir ibn Kathir. The Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) was told to proclaim the message; so he went up on a mountain.

    In those days, when the Arabs attacked, they attacked right at Fajr time, when the most people were sleeping. If anyone saw this, they would get up on a mountain and say “waaaaaaaaaaaah subaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaah,” like “woe to you from an evil that’s coming in the morning.”

    So the Prophet got up on the mountain, and he called each of the tribes, one by one, by name. And when they had all gathered–check this out–he said “If I told you all that the enemy was going to attack you in the morning, or in the evening, would you all believe me?” and they said “we’ve never experienced a lie from you.”

    So he (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: “Verily, I am a warner (sent) to you all before the coming of a severe torment.”

    … and Abu Lahab, the uncle of the Prophet, said: “Have you gathered us for this? Tabba lak (may you perish).”

    And Allah revealed Surah Lahab.

    Points to Consider

    Syed. Abu Lahab was “syed,” (in the broad sense), that is, from the family and clan of the Prophet (not that he was a direct descendant of the Prophet). And he is doomed to Hellfire! So what does that mean for all the syeds out there? Are you still so sure you’ll be saved just for being a relative of the Messenger of Allah? Wake up! You need to pray and fast and pay zakah and make Hajj, just like anyone else.
    Tabbat is a curse. It appears twice in the first ayah–at the beginning, as if it’s a curse, and at the end, as if it’s a statement of reality–that he is cursed.
    Carrier of Firewood. There are two opinions on what this means: One is that the wife of Abu Lahab used to enflame people. “Oh did you hear what so-and-so said about you?” “Oh do you know what that other person did?” To make them hate each other; like she carries the wood to fan the fire. The other opinion is that she used to carry thorns and put them in what pathways the Messenger of Allah used to walk, so he’d be harmed.
    A Necklace of Fire. Hellfire is enough of a punishment–but on top, she’ll be given a necklace of fire. Why? Because she had a beautiful necklace, and she pawned it at a fundraiser so she could use the wealth to harm the Messenger of Allah. So glad tidings O you people who donated for the sake of Allah! Insha’Allah for sure you will get something good, if Allah rewarded giving something bad with something in Hellfire.
    The Miracle in Surah Lahab

    If you notice, Allah dooms Abu Lahab to Hellfire in this surah. Now, the mufassireen point out an interesting point–at any time, Abu Lahab could have accepted Islam–even as a fake-out. And he could have said “Hey guys, I’m Muslim now, how come the Qur’an is claiming I’m in Hellfire?” And that would’ve caused great fitnah.

    But he never did.

    And Allah knew that he wouldn’t.

    And so, we see even in this small, oft-repeated surah, one of the miracles of the Qur’an.

  5. Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not!

    Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5).

    There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.

    HISTORY:

    When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

    That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.

    Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)

    The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying “all” cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as “Infidels”. Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed “full citizenship” (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to “kill the infidels…”

    I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term “Infidel”. We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and “experts” on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam’s and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims.

    I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an “Infidel”, so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called “experts” on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken “infidel” term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did not find this word “infidel” in any of them! The Arabic word “Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar” was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers.

    What’s more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means “unbelieving” or “unfaithful.” During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632).

    Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term “infidel”:

    Main Entry: in·fi·del
    Pronunciation: ‘in-f&-d & l, -f&-“del
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful — more at FIDELITY
    1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
    2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
    3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood
    – infidel adjective

    Two remaining points:

    (1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of “enslaving” them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the “clear” Quranic injunctions against the “Infidels”. This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims’ violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes. This statement tells us much more about the Islamophobes themselves than about Muslims, however.

    (2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam.

    (A relevant link to this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.)

  6. Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not!

    Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5).

    There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.

    HISTORY:

    When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

    That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.

    Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)

    The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying “all” cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as “Infidels”. Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed “full citizenship” (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to “kill the infidels…”

    I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term “Infidel”. We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and “experts” on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam’s and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims.

    I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an “Infidel”, so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called “experts” on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken “infidel” term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did not find this word “infidel” in any of them! The Arabic word “Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar” was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers.

    What’s more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means “unbelieving” or “unfaithful.” During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632).

  7. Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not!

    Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5).

    There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.

    HISTORY:

    When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

    That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.

    Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)

  8. Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not!

    Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5).

    There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.

    HISTORY:

    When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

    That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.

  9. i’ll do it bit by bit

    Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not!

    Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5).

    There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.

    HISTORY:

    When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

  10. Muslims are often questioned, “Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?” The answer is absolutely not!

    Then, we are asked another question: “Why then does the Quran say, “fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5).

    There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.

    HISTORY:

    When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that “Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or “infidels” was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

  11. I really don’t get why can’t see it? tried my other mail and it didn’t work why is it not coming on display?

  12. I beg your pardon? sorry but that was written by me and was saved by me? I tried copy and pasting it here.

    and I did which you didn’t acknowledge unfortunately. I had a lot of valid argument in there, I wonder why bud.

  13. Zahra, take a deep breath.

    Read, and read again, what’s written under ‘join the discussion’.

    Make sure you understand it. Then, read the title of this thread. Its called “Muslims Defending the Stupidity of Islam: The “Out of Context” & the “Do-You-Speak-Arabic” Garbage”.

    Now, read that through, thoroughly. Have you got something to say about it? Have you got a comment about it? Do you find anything wrong with it, something that you can contradict?

    Are you a scholar? What makes you think you are qualified to enter into arguments with learned people?

    Can you explain yourself?

  14. Are you trying to belittle me here? “are you a scholar” for your information sir I am qualified to join the argument and I don’t feel like I need your consent for that.

    I have read through your article and found a lot of bias contradictory which is why I felt the need to explain the Quran and it’s historical context because of the ‘contradicions’ you mentioned. That is if you had cared to read.

  15. also this statement is NOT true!

    “Secondly, a large section of the Qur’an is just meaningless blabbering of an illiterate seventh-century mental patient whom Muslims revere as their Prophet. In this respect, Puin, the great scholar of Islam (cited Warraq, 2002, pp. 112, 121) commented,”

    The Quran only mentions the prophet as a messenger, it has a lot of scientific facts, some which have only been discovered lately, it contains stories of people in the past, it contains law and mathemical concepts

    1. “it has a lot of scientific facts, some which have only been discovered lately”-

      One “scientific fact is enough, Zarah. Tell us what it is what was “discovered lately”, just one!

  16. Folks.
    zahra just demonstrated the typical muslim arguments – lots of dogma based on poorly digested history and little intelligence. As we all know one does not need consent to write here, but at least one should try and write something useful. Most trolls like zahra fail miserable on this score. The amusing part is of course the bluster and hot air that rises when the muslim point of view is shown to be questionable – which is pretty much always.

  17. *sigh*
    and here I show you all a person who judges islam with his previous prejudices and biases

    am sorry sir but poorly digested history? hot air rises when the muslim point of view is shown to be questionable? proof me wrong then? can you? you are talking big yet you are not contradicting me hmmm I find it very funny at the way am being taunted and belittled here, if you are looking for an “abnormal rage” as you like to call it, you are not getting any sir. everything I put here are based on historical facts yet you seem to deny and dismiss it as trolls and the amusing thing is do you have anything to contradict me? makes you wonder doesn’t it, are they even ready to listen? or do they just want to live on their prejudices biases? I wrote lots more but it isn’t being posted because am a “typical muslim” how irrational! I rest my case. Am sorry for coming here, seems like you already have your permanent prejudice views of me so anything I contradict you’ll dismiss as “troll” my mistake.

    have good day/ night sir

  18. Dear Zahra,

    We don’t belittle you as long as you make sense. So far you didn’t. Muhammad believed that ‘women are deficient in intelligence’, so the onus is on you to prove your prophet wrong.

    You claim “everything I put here are based on historical facts”– they’re not. Unless you take what’s in Koran, sira & hadith as facts.

    But it isn’t. Its dogma, its your belief. No more, no less. Facts are irrefutable, like the law of gravity.

    You claim you read through the article and “found a lot of bias contradictory”.

    Simple task for you:

    Find one thing that is contradictory and explain clearly why.

    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
    Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
    Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

  19. @Zahra,

    You came here and sought us out, therefore it behooves ‘you’ to disprove the aforementioned statements, that are contradictory as the Sheik referenced and prove it incorrect.

    It is not our responsibility to justify and explain ourselves to you. We owe you nothing; The contrary existence to your own limited understanding of the world is our right until we our enslaved by the insidious monster of Islam, where there is no choice, but death.

    Furthermore, grow up. The vast majority of regular posters here know and understand Islam and Muslims very well. Our views, are not based on hearsay, but real life experiences.

    We have either lived in Muslim dominated countries or worse, in European/Asian communities where there are large numbers of Muslims who have brought their scummy cultural behaviors and attitudes with them. So, spare us our alleged prejudices based upon fairytales. Our prudent prejudices are based on experience and unwanted involvement.

  20. @sheikh this is not a hadith in which you interpret at just face value

    Based on Arab philosophers theory, The famous scholar Al-Mawardi said that the real intellect is the one responsible for the human actions as Allah’s vicegerent on earth. That is the one meant by the word (intelligence) in this hadith. That is why the hadith said (deficient in intelligence and religion) i.e. used the woman’s deficiency in intellect with her having less religious responsibilities. The hadith actually speaks of the part of the mind responsible for the human as vicegerent on earth.
    As for her deficiency in intellect, Women can not control their feelings as much as man and is more patient and merciful than man and is much easily moved by tragic situations than man which is her nature that is why her responsibilities as Allah vicegerent on earth are less.
    As for her deficiency in religion it is because during of her menstruation she is does not fast or pray.
    Both deficiencies are not meant to humiliate or underestimate women but rather understanding her nature. Women have fewer responsibilities as Allah vicegerent on earth that is the part of their intellect that is missing but it never means that women are brainless, unwise, less intelligent or even less religious than men. The hadith rather empathizes women nature as the part of humanity responsible for emotions and mercy than men.
    Women are physiologically different from men. You seem to envision a utopia where men and women are indistinguishable. Physiologic differences lead to differences in other areas, including intellect. A woman may be more intellectual than a man but when everything but the physiology is equal, women are more emotional than they are intellectual and thus a woman would be less intellectual and more emotional than a man when everything else is equal except physiology. The physiology of a woman has a higher effect on her judgement than the physiology of a man since a healthy man does not undergo hormonal changes nor alterations in mood as frequently as women do – and this is a scientific fact. Even in so-called liberated Western countries, men continue to dominate the fields of science because more men enter these fields than women. Women tend to enter fields that are more akin to liberal arts. Are we supposed to force women to enter the same fields as men in the exact same quantities or is this not an appreciation of the fact that women and men are wired differently?
    God created men and women to be different. Why do you not see men raising any issue when Islam raises the rank of the mother higher than that of the father? Because a woman is more motherly and more nurturing than a man on average. Of course, there are exceptions where a woman is more cruel than a man towards their children but again, these are exceptions to the norm and we see this even in nature.

  21. @sheikh I just proved you wrong and yet again it hasn’t been posted because you probably don’t consider it of value.

    @hill I just did, seems he doesn’t want to post it. it wasn’t hard to explain. and I have saved what I wrote, incase it needs reposting .

    I don’t want you to explain yourself, but when my arguments and point of views are not put forward I will ask for an explanation, and I don’t remember owing you something so I don’t see what your problem is sir. Furthermore my understanding is not limited you are judging based on previous encounters don’t judge Islam based on the actions of its followers. Especially don’t judge Islam based on the actions of Muslim countries. Those countries are corrupt and wrong in many ways. They don’t follow the Qur’an or Hadith properly half the time.

    Well, Incase you are interested my experience comes from being an Ex Christian then Jew then to Islam.which was a very hard but worth decision. yet you are judging me based on your own limited experience. And lastly my point of coming here wasn’t because I wanted to convert anyone, but the tesxt that Islam can not survive if argued with reason, am only here to prove that wrong.

    1. “don’t judge Islam based on the actions of its followers.”

      Yawn. Typical Muslim claptrap. Islam is what Muslims do.

      ” don’t judge Islam based on the actions of Muslim countries. Those countries are corrupt and wrong”

      That’s because of Islam, darling. Not because of anything else.

      “They don’t follow the Qur’an or Hadith properly”

      What do you think the Taliban do? What do you think they do in Iran and in Soddy Barbaria?

      “my experience comes from being an Ex Christian then Jew then to Islam”

      Oh Zahra, you are so full of shiite it hurts.

      You are nothing and never were anything but a Mustard. Its a package deal.

  22. I will @ sheikh no problem;

    here a few;

    1. Bigbang
    Big Bang theory states that the universe started from an incredibly dense
    singularity that exploded. All matter, light and energy came from that explosion.
    The size of the universe increases as everything expands from this explosion.
    The theory is that of an expanding universe, meaning that the universe
    as a whole is expanding, instead of a static universe meaning
    that matter is expanding into a statically sized space.

    “Do not they not see that the heavens and the Earth
    were once one mass, then We rent them apart?”
    (Qur’an 21:30)

    “And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might,
    and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.”
    (Qur’an 51:47)

    “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and
    the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation),
    before We clove them asunder, and We made from
    water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”
    (Qur’an 21:30)

    “and the heavens we created with might (power) and
    we are expanding it.”
    (Qur’an 51:47)

    2. water barrier

    He has let free the two bodies of flowing water,
    meeting together: Between them is a Barrier
    which they do not transgress.”
    (Qur’an 55:19-20)

    “And made a separating bar between the
    two bodies of flowing water?”
    (Qur’an 27:61)

    “It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing
    water: one palatable and sweet, and the other salty and bitter;
    yet has He made a barrier between them, and a partition
    that is forbidden to be passed.
    (Qur’an 25:53)

    3. pairs

    The Qur’an here says that everything is created in pairs, including things that the humans do
    not know at present and may discover later.

    A few possible examples in no particular order:

    the double helix of DNA
    positive and negative electrons
    protons and neutrons
    matter and antimatter
    light and dark
    hot and cold
    male and female
    fast and slow
    hard and soft
    neutrinos and quarks
    the Earth and the Moon
    night and day
    summer and winter
    and lots more

    “And of everything We have created pairs.”
    (Qur’an 51:49)

    “Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that
    the Earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind
    and (other) things of which they have no knowledge.”
    (Qur’an 36:36)

  23. i’ll try and repost my post on your challenge which I saved;

    Based on Arab philosophers theory, The famous scholar Al-Mawardi said that the real intellect is the one responsible for the human actions as Allah’s vicegerent on earth. That is the one meant by the word (intelligence) in this hadith. That is why the hadith said (deficient in intelligence and religion) i.e. used the woman’s deficiency in intellect with her having less religious responsibilities. The hadith actually speaks of the part of the mind responsible for the human as vicegerent on earth.
    As for her deficiency in intellect, Women can not control their feelings as much as man and is more patient and merciful than man and is much easily moved by tragic situations than man which is her nature that is why her responsibilities as Allah vicegerent on earth are less.
    As for her deficiency in religion it is because during of her menstruation she is does not fast or pray.
    Both deficiencies are not meant to humiliate or underestimate women but rather understanding her nature. Women have fewer responsibilities as Allah vicegerent on earth that is the part of their intellect that is missing but it never means that women are brainless, unwise, less intelligent or even less religious than men. The hadith rather empathizes women nature as the part of humanity responsible for emotions and mercy than men.
    Women are physiologically different from men. You seem to envision a utopia where men and women are indistinguishable. Physiologic differences lead to differences in other areas, including intellect. A woman may be more intellectual than a man but when everything but the physiology is equal, women are more emotional than they are intellectual and thus a woman would be less intellectual and more emotional than a man when everything else is equal except physiology. The physiology of a woman has a higher effect on her judgement than the physiology of a man since a healthy man does not undergo hormonal changes nor alterations in mood as frequently as women do – and this is a scientific fact. Even in so-called liberated Western countries, men continue to dominate the fields of science because more men enter these fields than women. Women tend to enter fields that are more akin to liberal arts. Are we supposed to force women to enter the same fields as men in the exact same quantities or is this not an appreciation of the fact that women and men are wired differently?
    God created men and women to be different. Why do you not see men raising any issue when Islam raises the rank of the mother higher than that of the father? Because a woman is more motherly and more nurturing than a man on average. Of course, there are exceptions where a woman is more cruel than a man towards their children but again, these are exceptions to the norm and we see this even in nature.

  24. Big Bang is a theory, not a fact.

    Don’t you know the difference?
    Zahra, you have a big problem:

    The Koran doesn’t mention
    the double helix of DNA
    positive and negative electrons
    protons and neutrons

    The rest is humbug, not science. If its not entirely wrong it was known long before Muhammad came along. Its called ‘common knowledge’.

    This here is complete nonsense:

    “It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing
    water: one palatable and sweet, and the other salty and bitter;
    yet has He made a barrier between them, and a partition
    that is forbidden to be passed.
    (Qur’an 25:53)

    There is no such thing as a barrier or a partition that is ‘forbidden to be passed’.

  25. haha at how you are trying to make me feel dumb and inferior.

    It is a theory which has been proven! you are the one with the problem not me sir.

    Is there something wrong with you? it says everything has been created in pairs, and I gave you a list of example proving my point? can’t you even comprehend that?

    No it isn’t sir, that is a very big statement of you calling it nonesense without any prove?
    do you even try to understand what is meant by it?
    The fact that the water of the oceans do not mix with each other, has only been discovered lately by oceanographers. This is due to the physical force called “surface tension” therefore, waters of neighboring seas do not MIX (YES that is the barrier the two seas don’t cross which God forbade for each of them to pass) .( In answer to your “There is no such thing as a barrier or a partition that is ‘forbidden to be passed’.”)
    It is caused by the difference in the density of their waters; surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them. The Amazon River’s water pours into the Atlantic Ocean and yet preserves its traits even after it goes out 200 meters in the Ocean. I swear you are like a child! trying to intidimate me with your lack of knowledge and not even fully understanding the concepts. Now tell me is that common knowledge sir?

    oh but there are more I can state; the embryo for example?

    ((And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge) (and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators. After that, surely, you will die. Then [again], surely, you will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection.)) (23:12-14)

    ((Did We not create you from a liquid disdained? And We placed it in a firm lodging [i.e. the womb] for a known extent [determined by gestation]. And We determined [it], and excellent [are We] to determine.)) (77:20-23)

    common knowledge? really in the 7th century also known as the dark ages for western societies

    there are a lot more, but you wouldn’t know since you believe the Quran is mostly blabbering ‘nonsense about mohammed’

  26. *sigh*

    you are an idiot sir, unproven theory? and what about the sea and embryo? and many others you are trying to make me look stupid and foolish by not posting any of my post, you just can’t take it. So for you to keep face you try to make me look like a joke when you are. If I really am a joke post it!!

    1. Name calling is not an argument, Zahra.

      It proves that you are deficient in intelligence and only worth half of a man, just like Muhammad said.

      I’m not posting your da’awa trash here because this is not a da’awa site. Besides, Muslims are like robots and always post the same tosh. It annoys everyone because its stupid. You should try to ‘educate’ your fellow muslims, those who kill and die to make Islam dominate.

      Tell me about the sea. Have we missed something?

      And yes: “what about the embryo?”

      False, entirely. Besides, this idea goes back to 700 years before Jesus. It was already found in the annals of the Babylonians. The idea that God created man from a drop of blood pagan, is it stupid and unscientific. Whereas the pagan camel-riding Arabs of the 7th century wrongly assumed that a fetus started with a drop of blood, science tells us today that blood doesn’t form in a human embryo until well after 14 days. The heart isn’t even formed until day 20.

      Totally wrong, your Muhammad!

  27. and also;

    In everyday use, ‘theory’ means ‘an educated guess’ (or sometimes ‘a wild guess’). In science a theory is the end result of the scientific process, and is what happens when you gather supporting evidence for a hypothesis. It is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses.

    The big bang theory is a well-supported theory, a structural explanatory framework that incorporates the evidence they have at hand into an organized explanation of the beginning of the universe.

    So yes, it is ‘proven’ (in everyday terms) well beyond any reasonable doubt.

    In science all theories are provisional. Someone could come along in the next few years with a new theory that better explains the evidence!

    Just because human’s haven’t witnessed it makes it theory, the link you put up is also theory but less back up evidence! try better next time

    you know which other theory was also ridiculed and now is a proven fact? that ants communicated, they used to mock islam about it and now they have discovered that ants indeed do communicate!

    Scientific research into ants has revealed that these tiny animals have very organised social lives and that, as a requirement of that organisation, they also have a very complex communication network. For example, National Geographic reports that:
    Huge and tiny, an ant carries in her head multiple sensory organs to pick up chemical and visual signals vital to colonies that may contain a million or more workers, all of which are female. The brain contains half a million nerve cells; eyes are compound; antennae act as nose and fingertips. Projections below the mouth sense taste; hairs respond to touch.

    now tell me, how did a 7th century man know that without equipment?

    1. “The big bang theory is a well-supported theory”-

      Perhaps it is. Either way, its got nothing to do with Islam.

      “So yes, it is ‘proven’ (in everyday terms) well beyond any reasonable doubt.”

      If it was, it wouldn’t be a theory. We would call it a FACT.

      Your interest and expertise in ants and ant life is noted.

      I’m sure that a 7th century desert dweller would know the basics about ants. But ask yourself: is that Islamic? Was Muhammad a scientist?

  28. he didn’t zahra – you are the idiot. What is it with fools like you’? Your understanding of science is marginal at best – stop wasting peoples time.

    For example the big bang is a hypothesis – Some data agrees with behaviour extrapolated from the theory, but some current observation cannot be reconciled with predictions of the model from which the big bang theory is deduced – additionally what is missing and needed to complete the picture is a quantum theory of gravity and that may take some time – until that happens any hypothesis on the origins of the universe remain as a partly validated construction.

    Like all indoctrinated people you are interpreting what you think understand into your religion – and that has no value except as a statement which illuminates your particular belief system, which has little basis in fact.

    Now stop wasting peoples time on your pointless and idiotic attempts at advertising islam in the face the massive violence that is committed by muslims on a daily basis using islam as a justification.

    mohammed, under the rules of our society, would be jailed as a murderer and child molester – in fact as a very nasty and violent criminal. You want to follow the jerk then do so – your choice – but do not expect others to accept your idiotic statements.

  29. before I start my argument let me correct you on a few things here
    “my experience comes from being an Ex Christian then Jew then to Islam”

    “Oh Zahra, you are so full of shiite it hurts”.

    “You are nothing and never were anything but a Mustard. Its a package deal”

    First stop ACCUSING me, you do not know of me and my past, and you have just proven to me that you are very narrow-minded simple person because you simply can’t believe I have rejected my faith and the Western way and norm for islam, and don’t you dare call me nothing! for I am someone. For your information my father is a Canadian born Jew and my mother a born- again Christian Albanian, My family history does not date back to Islam. so pardon me your accusations sir.

    Secondly QUIT LYING. Am not posting “Dawah Trash” as you would like to call it, but simply proving my point. DAWAH= calling people out to Islam. So tell me from all of my post when did I call you out and tell you to follow?

    and Now to posts.

  30. @kaw no sir I am not an idiot, why is it you feel to get a bit irrational here, I came here to prove my point and not ‘to advertise Islam’. Nor to please you.

    Now, the creation of the universe is a subject that is given great attention in the Quran. The huge and varied amount of information contained in the Quran about almost every stage and aspect of the creation is something that continues to astound alot of scientists today because of its very accurate agreement with current knowledge.My point is how can a book written in the 7th century contain such a amount of scientific information that was to be attained 14 centuries later? Much of this information was discovered only in the last sixty years! Neutral and unbiased observers do consider this to be valid evidence that such a book could never have been the product of any human being for the simple reason that, at the time, no human possessed such knowledge. And not because “muhamed was a scientist”

    All the evidence available today suggests an explosive origin to the universe that brought both space, time and matter into existence. This is what is referred to as the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang which has successfully replaced the “Steady state” theory was worked out in the 1920″s by two scientists quite independently of each other, the Russian meteorologist Alexksandr Friedmann and the Belgian mathematician Georges Lemaitre. ( Deep Space, Colin A. Ronan, p. 156)

    The Big Bang itself resulted from an extremely dense singularity. The creation of the universe is one of matter, space and time that are intimately linked together. Matter and space were joined as one and then were separated in the explosion. This is very accurately described in the Quran:

    “Do not the unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth (matter) were joined together (as one unit of creation) and we ripped them apart?” 21:30

    The subsequent history of the Big Bang saw the Americans George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Horman indicate that the whole event took place at a very high temperature; it was a hot Big Bang. This view has been confirmed by the later discovery of the background microwave radiation. The eventual formation of galaxies resulted as a condensation, under gravitational pull, of hot gases which were mainly Hydrogen, but may also have contained Helium and a few other light elements as well. With the passing of time, and with the formation of galaxies, the gas has gradually condensed into individual stars. The universe in its very early stages was, thus, still in the form of hot gases. This is confirmed in the Quran in the following verse:

    “Then He took hold of the sky when it was smoke.” 41:11

    Now see that the verse did not say clouds or gas, but smoke, which is a very accurate description as smoke is hot gas, whilst clouds and gas could be hot or cold.

  31. “I’m not posting your da’awa trash here because this is not a da’awa site. Besides, Muslims are like robots and always post the same tosh. It annoys everyone because its stupid. You should try to ‘educate’ your fellow muslims, those who kill and die to make Islam dominate.”

    This is so full of garbage it makes my eyes hurt, and again you do not know me? so what do you know what I do in my spare time? Islam is not in for world domination but rather to just spread it like all Abrahamic relgions it is your choice whether to follow or not.

    “Yawn. Typical Muslim claptrap. Islam is what Muslims do.

    ” don’t judge Islam based on the actions of Muslim countries. Those countries are corrupt and wrong”

    That’s because of Islam, darling. Not because of anything else.

    “They don’t follow the Qur’an or Hadith properly”

    What do you think the Taliban do? What do you think they do in Iran and in Soddy Barbaria?”

    and again tell me how does this prove your point? Taliban are crooks, And Iran is corrupted.Are you allowed to drink in Islam? No. Refusing women’s education right? No! Men and Women have the right to seek education in Islam.
    So how come some Muslim extremists ban women from education?
    Education and knowledge are mandatory upon men and women in Islam. “….Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 39:9)”

    “…Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (The Noble Quran, 35:28)”
    is there any discrimination there that only male seek education

    and also Rape? Fornication is one of the biggest sins? please spare me your shallow loopholed argument.

    As muslims there is no estabilished Khalifa or leadership which is what has stooped Islamic countries so low.

  32. and lastly

    And yes: “what about the embryo?”

    “False, entirely. Besides, this idea goes back to 700 years before Jesus. It was already found in the annals of the Babylonians. The idea that God created man from a drop of blood pagan, is it stupid and unscientific. Whereas the pagan camel-riding Arabs of the 7th century wrongly assumed that a fetus started with a drop of blood, science tells us today that blood doesn’t form in a human embryo until well after 14 days. The heart isn’t even formed until day 20.

    Totally wrong, your Muhammad!”

    And again with the simple mindess of yours. Am a near med graduate so let me explain,

    We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)… 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)

    This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus (“a place of rest”). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur’an which states that “a human being is created from a mixed drop.” The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum (“The mixed drop”). not blood are you reading? can’t you see what stage that is in?

  33. oh yeah you asked about the sea

    2. water barrier

    He has let free the two bodies of flowing water,
    meeting together: Between them is a Barrier
    which they do not transgress.”
    (Qur’an 55:19-20)

    The fact that the water of the oceans do not “mix”(the barrier incase you don’t understand) with each other, has only been discovered lately by oceanographers. This is due to the physical force called “surface tension” therefore, waters of neighboring seas do not mix. It is caused by the difference in the density of their waters; surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them. The Amazon River’s water pours into the Atlantic Ocean and yet preserves its traits even after it goes out 200 meters in the Ocean.

    Muhamed was not a scientist, But the Quran was sent to him as a revelation.

  34. Yawn, every Mustard pretends to be something he isn’t. You are not the first and not the last, Zahra.

    All you have done so far is da’awa, trying to put lipstick on a porcus called Islam.

    Still waiting for one “clear scientific fact” from the Koran.

  35. And there you go again with trying to keep face, you are not even trying to argue me here but rather you are trying to look for ways to humiliate me and it isn’t working. I am a proud WHITE MUSLIM face it sir and am not the only one either. You live on your own dogma and have proved your shallowness and simple mind. Wake up to the real world, you know who my inspiration was? marmaduke pickthalle

    Look into my comment instead of refraining them each time I debunk you.you call it da’wah, you really are lacking comprehension. I can gladly post it again but you’ll just dismiss it. I am not here to convert you. if that is what you are afraid of? , so you keep shooting the word Daw’ah at me loosely when I make a fair point. I have no interest of your conversion but rather am here to prove a point, so stop commenting on bits and bobs of my post like a child and face me for who I really am and not your biased assumptions.

  36. Still waiting for your ‘point’, Zahra.

    Still waiting for ‘scientific discoveries’ from the Koran.

    For women, here is equal treatment you would agree with:

    http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/wives.jpg

    Here’s all you need to know about Muslim women.

    Btw: are you shiite or sunni?

  37. And I gave you sir, so stop dismissing it like a child and stop, I gave you the formation of rain and orbit. and you read through them and quit acting like a whiny child.

    what a article full of tosh trying to degrade the women of islam.

    Islam considers a woman to be equal to a man as a human being and as his partner in this life. Women have been created with a soul of the same nature as man’s. Allah (SWT) says in the Quran:

    “O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife (Eve), and from them both He created many men and women and fear Allah through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and (do not cut the relations of) the wombs (kinship). Surely, Allah is Ever and All-Watcher over you.” (Al-Nisa 4:1)

    In reality, and in Islam, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of man, but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two very different things. I think you’ll agree that, for one thing, women and men are physically very different from one another, although they are equal to each other in other important ways.

    In the West, women may be doing the same job that men do, but their wages are often less. The rights of Western women in modern times were not created voluntarily, or out of kindness to the female. The modern Western woman reached her present position by force, and not through natural processes or mutual consent of Divine teachings. She had to force her way, and various circumstances aided her. Shortage of manpower during wars, pressure of economic needs and requirement of industry forced women to leave their homes to work, struggling for their livelihood, to appear equal to men. Whether all women are sincerely pleased with these circumstances, and whether they are happy and satisfied with the results, is a different matter. But the fact remains that whatever rights modern Western women have, they fall short of those of her Muslim counterpart! Islam has given woman what duties her female nature. It gives her full security and protects her against becoming what Western modern women themselves complain against: a “mere sex object.”

    You know the funny thing is about the article? Most of the things there have been made up completely! false saying of the prophet and are not even authentic. What it fails to mention was that the prophet himself freed women from their torture in his for it was a time where women were frowned upon and buried alive. and that bit where it said a women earns less wage, , woman has no financial responsibilities whatsoever except very little of her personal expenses, the high luxurious things that she likes to have. She is financially secure and provided for. If she is a wife, her husband is the provider; if she is a mother, it is the son; if she is a daughter, it is the father; if she is a sister; it is the brother, and so on. If she has no relations on whom she can depend, then there is no question of inheritance because there is nothing to inherit and there is no one to bequeath anything to her. However, she will not be left to starve, maintenance of such a woman is the responsibility of the society as a whole, the state. She may be given aid or a job to earn her living, and whatever money she makes will be hers. She is not responsible for the maintenance of anybody else besides herself.You know what also funny, how you are condeming polygamy, and yet it is normal in western society for a man to cheat on his wife and have an ‘affair’ with tons of women without tending for none of them. We do not wear the cover up because of men, but rather Muslim women observe hijab because Allah has told them to do so:

    and no, am neither am just a muslim. I don’t need a suffix nor a pre fix in front of my identity

  38. I have proved my point which you decided to ignore because you keep calling it Dawa’ah even though I was not by any means trying to preach but simply making a point, I don’t why that is hard for you to grasp that.

    And I also made my point on women in Islam, regardless of your shameless article. posting pictures of non- muslim women degrading them to a whole another level, I feel sad for these women that have been grasped by evil culture and not islam and sick men.

    I am not coming back here again at all, because it is a never ending circle that is getting tiring. I have made my point and have proven it.
    have a good day/night sir

  39. kahra,
    you are an idiot – and your simplistic treatise of the big bang is amusing. Do you seriously you can explain anything on modern physics to people who work in the area!!! And as I said, you are simply believing what you want to believe in the quran – fine if you want to do it – but most have considerable more intelligence than you. Incidentally, you do not understand things by regurgitating keywords off google. It is also amusing that you openly lie in relation to the state of women in islam – and I suspect that you are not a white woman convert, just a stupid low IQ islamic male pretending that it is intelligent. You know little, apart from what you have read on google, regarding the early state of the universe, and this is very clear from your moronic attempts to justify the quran in terms of what you you think you believe.

    Now some comment:

    <All the evidence available today suggests an explosive origin to the universe <that brought both space, time and matter into existence.

    Incorrect : it is a hypothesis – simplistically speaking matter and space appear to be linked through GR – however the question of time remains open – it has a different character: At very high energies however symmetry properties may provide a solution. We do not know this and it may have significant meaning on what one can understand of the big bang. That a massive release of energy occurred agrees with observation but there are some observations which do not concur – as noted earlier – how the big bang occrured however is the key point and that is not yet resolved.

    <This is what is <referred to as the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang <which has successfully replaced the “Steady state” theory was worked out in <the 1920″s by two scientists quite independently of each other, the Russian <meteorologist Alexksandr Friedmann and the Belgian mathematician The Big Bang itself resulted from an extremely dense singularity. The >creation of the universe is one of matter, space and time that are intimately >linked together. Matter and space were joined as one and then were >separated in the explosion. This is very accurately described in the Quran:
    >“Do not the unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth (matter)
    >were joined together (as one unit of creation) and we ripped them apart?” >21:30

    Actually you are again wrong – firstly because it is a hypothesis – secondly because until a working quantum theory of gravity appears the nature of the singularity remains elusive – if indeed it is a singularity in the terms of a quantum theory of gravity. As regards the early creation myths of many peoples, well before mohammed raped his way to fame, they all state what mohammed wrote because he copied it from them. All ancient peoples share common creation myths – the claim in the quran is neither original nor outstanding.

    You are a waste of space – while your co-religionists rape and murder in your name you sit here wasting our time by arguing like an idiot that the quran and mohammed actually is useful. Do something useful – try and achieve something of value instead of wasting your life in trying to force your concept of God down other peoples throats.

  40. I really didn’t want to argue you here again but;

    “you are an idiot – and your simplistic treatise of the big bang is amusing. Do you seriously you can explain anything on modern physics to people who work in the area!!! And as I said, you are simply believing what you want to believe in the quran – fine if you want to do it – but most have considerable more intelligence than you. Incidentally, you do not understand things by regurgitating keywords off google. It is also amusing that you openly lie in relation to the state of women in islam – and I suspect that you are not a white woman convert, just a stupid low IQ islamic male pretending that it is intelligent. You know little, apart from what you have read on google, regarding the early state of the universe, and this is very clear from your moronic attempts to justify the quran in terms of what you you think you believe”.

    I am not openly lying about the state of women in islam, It is you who are, most of the thing on that article have been completely made up! Women are abused everywhere and I mean everywhere in this world simply because Men can do so.

    and yet again with false accusations. No am not simply believing what is said in the quran but am trying to back up evidence of today with the quran! and it isn’t what I have read from google but rather something in which I have studied. And no am a convert of 7 years me and my older sister The rest of my family mostly are of jewish and christian descendant but mostly have left religion and are agnostic and atheist. am not a frigging male. I don’t really get what that is so hard for you to believe. All you are trying to do is make me look foolish.

    The Qur’an is not a book of science. However, many scientific facts that are expressed in an extremely concise and profound manner in its verses have only been discovered with the technology of the 20th century. These facts could not have been known at the time of the Qur’an’s revelation which is what am trying to point out. not convert you! don’t really see why you keep saying that. there are many arguments about the bigbang theory some scientist said one thing and the others say something regarding there hypothesis and there isn’t one fixed explanation but just because it is a hypothesis and it hasn’t been fully proven doesn’t prove it wrong! .like I said at the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre theoretically calculated that the universe is in constant motion and that it is expanding.

    This theory was proved also by observational data in 1929. While observing the sky with a telescope, Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered that the stars and galaxies were constantly moving away from each other. A universe where everything constantly moves away from everything else implied a constantly expanding universe. The observations carried out in the following years verified that the universe is constantly expanding. This fact was explained in the Qur’an when that was still unknown to anyone what am trying to say why is it the closest to the theories now? . just like the formation and cycle of rain, Embryo, Orbitation of the planets the identity of fingerprints, the barriers between oceans and many more.

    I am not a waste if space, you are very rude,I wish I could, but I don’t have the power so all I can do is raise money. How many others have killed in the name of other religious and poltical doctrine? why don’t you try stopping that too? there is killing going on as we speak? that is just how shallow your arguments sound. And am not trying to force my concept of God to you, why can’t people just have a normal argument without someone feeling the threat that they are being forced? the hell.

    and @hill yes I am :)

  41. @kaw it’s zahra btw
    and yet again with my comment, this is very tiresome. because all of you are reacting on your feelings and should calm down you just try to make me feel inferior and look foolish. I just came here to prove a point yet all I see is people reacting on feelings.

    and about the women of Islam no am not openly lying it is you who just want to believe women are inferior to men basing it on the corrupted middle east. Women are abused everywhere and yet I don’t see you pointing that out.

    The Quran states that everything is based on Law and just because the hypothesis hasn’t been proven doesn’t prove it wrong.
    and also I stated many others which haven’t been posted and even if Ideas did come before muhammed they didn’t come as structured just like the sea the barrier between seas, rain cycle and formation, cycle of embryo identification of finger prints and many more

    I don’t really get why you can’t believe am a convert , but you ave face it I am. and sadly you can’t change that so don’t let your emotions consume you sir. Calling me a waste of space just shows how irrational and rude you are.

Comments are closed.