Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > Religion > Islam
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2008, 04:47 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The sword of Jesus and the sword of Muhammad

The sword of Jesus and the sword of Muhammad

A comparative study of Quran 8:12 and Luke 22:36
James M. Arlandson

Muslim apologists over the worldwide web quote Luke 22:36 in which Jesus says that if his disciples do not have a sword, they should sell their cloak and buy a sword. Therefore, why would Christians complain about jihad and the sword in Islam since Jesus endorses its use?

The reasoning of the Muslim apologists is completely flawed because they take the verse in Luke out of context. In truth, they want to divert attention away from the violence in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran and misdirect it to the life of Jesus—which does not include any physical violence whatsoever; neither did he tell his disciples to engage in violence.
On the other hand, Sura or Chapter 8:12 in the Quran relates directly to physical and literal warfare—one of many, many verses throughout the Quran that speak of battles and killing.

To understand the differences in the two verses in the two sacred Books, we follow a specific method of exegesis (detailed analysis of a text).
First, the two verses are quoted from reputable translations, and sometimes from several translations to get the fuller meaning of a word or clause.

Second, the historical context of each verse is examined, so that we do not take them in isolation and so we can therefore reach a clearer meaning.

For the third step, we either quote or summarize the literary context—the verses surrounding our two target verses—in order to clarify their meaning.

These second and third steps are important in our analysis of Sura 8:12 to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense of Muslim apologists when they see the violence that inheres in the verse. Also, these apologists take Luke 22:36 out of context, but this leads to all sorts of confusion. The context determines and clarifies the meaning of any verse.

Fourth, to interpret Sura 8:12 and Luke 22:36, we analyze key components within the verses or the larger literary contexts.
Finally, we will be in a position to contrast early Islam and early Christianity, so we will see the utter differences between the two religions on the subject of violence.

Sura 8:12 has been selected as a counter-verse to Luke 22:36 because either the verses themselves or their larger historical and literary contexts mention swords and angels. However, as we will see, both verses diametrically oppose each other, once we understand them in context.

Sura 8:12
The first step in our exegetical method is to quote the verse from a reputable translation. MAS Abdel Haleem (The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004) translates Sura 8:12 as follows:

8:12 Your [Muhammad’s] Lord revealed to the angels: "I am with you: give the believers firmness; I shall put terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Strike above their necks and strike their fingertips."
The second step in our exegetical method is to examine the historical context of Sura 8:12. No scholar doubts the historical context of Sura 8—it was revealed after the unexpected victory of the Muslims over the much-larger Meccan army at the wells of Badr, some seventy to eighty miles west of Medina, Muhammad’s new city since 622. Taking place in March 624, the Battle of Badr pitted about 320 Muslims against around 1000 Meccans who had marched north to protect their large caravan returning south from Syria, laden with goods. To intercept and capture this caravan would relieve the financial strains of the fledgling Muslim community in Medina. Also, it would weaken the Meccans who had soundly rejected Muhammad two years earlier. However, the Meccans heard of Muhammad’s plan to attack their caravan, so they mustered a force and marched north. Surprisingly, Muhammad won the battle and collected the goods and returned to Medina, believing that Allah saved the weak Muslim community (Sura 8:26, 30, 72).

Some Muslims argued over how to divide the spoils (Sura 8:1), but Allah tells his prophet that he gets twenty percent for himself and for his close relatives and orphans and other needy people (v. 41); the remaining eighty percent were to be divided among all others who had participated in the battle. Now his financial standing in Medina improved immeasurably, as well as his social standing. It was at this time that he ordered some of his enemies to be assassinated.

Thus, all of Sura 8 reveals the elation of a real-life, historical military victory, and Muhammad presses home this victory, as we now see in the literary context—the verses surrounding Sura 8:12.

The third step in our exegetical method is to explore the literary context of Sura 8:12, in this case vv. 5-14. These verses show Muhammad reveling in victory and promising all unbelievers the same fate as the defeated Meccans. For example, in vv. 7-8, he admits that his Muslims wanted the unarmed group (the caravan), but Allah gave them that group as well as the army in order to prove the "Truth to be true and the false to be false" (v. 8). This demonstrates that Muhammad connected military power with the spread of the truth or Islam—always a dubious connection. Next, in v. 9 Allah promised Muhammad reinforcements of "a thousand angels in succession." This gave Muhammad the hope of victory. Finally, vv. 13-14 say that anyone who opposes Allah and his messenger would get the same punishment that the Meccans got: "‘That is what you get! Taste that!’—and the torment of the Fire awaits the disbelievers" (v. 14). This is standard deduction in the Quran. Hell is for losers.

The historical and literary contexts, then, reveal that Allah helps Muhammad with angels, that his military victory demonstrates the truth of Islam and the falsehood of polytheism, and that the unbelievers go to hell. Clearly, Muhammad’s victory wins him respect and even fear from the inhabitants of Medina.

The fourth step in our exegetical process is to analyze and interpret key elements in Sura 8:12, which reveal three bloody truths. First, the verb "to strike" (three-letter root is D-r-b) is used two times: "strike above their necks" and "strike their fingertips." Some translations exceed the fingertips and say: "fingers and toes" (Hilali and Khan); "every joint of their bodies" (Maududi); "every pore and tip (Zafrulla Khan); and "every joint" (Ahmed Ali). Though Maududi’s translation is probably the original intent of the verse, the goal was to incapacitate the enemy so that he cannot fight again. Second, striking "above" the neck seems misplaced, but Yusuf Ali in his short comment on the verse says that the sword should strike "on the neck, face or head," which "finishes him off." So we must not take the preposition "above" too literally, unless Muhammad meant the head or the face. Regardless, the enemy would have died.
Third and finally, Allah sends Muslim angels to fight either for or with the Muslim humans. Their purpose is to put "terror" into the hearts of the unbelievers. Did these angels actually fight or just help the Muslims by their sides?

S. Abdul A’la Maududi holds the opinion that the Muslim angels merely helped the Muslims:

[T]he angels were not employed directly to take part in fighting and killing, but probably they were used to help the Muslims in making their strokes hard and effective. But the true knowledge is with Allah. (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 2, pp. 133-34)

This last line is a polite way of saying that he really does not know, but favors the belief that the Muslim angels did not actually hit the Meccans. But the Muslim angels made sure that the sword strokes were "hard and effective."

On the other hand, Egyptian radical and godfather of modern jihadist movements Sayyid Qutb says that Muslim angels did strike the unbelievers, but he does not know the details.

God also ordered them to strike the unbelievers over their necks and strike off their fingertips. So they did all this, but in a fashion unknown to us. (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 7, p. 85)

Hence, these two prominent modern commentators go in opposite directions, so they have not decided the question. What did the first generation of Muslims think?

More important than Maududi and Qutb are the earliest Muslims who witnessed the Battle or who heard from firsthand testimony. Bukhari (AD 810-870) collected the most reliable traditions and edited them in his hadith (words and actions of Muhammad outside of the Quran).

Narrated Rifa’a who was one of the warriors who participated in the battle: Jibril (Gabriel) came to the Prophet and said: "How do you look upon the warriors of (the battle of) Badr among yourselves?" The Prophet said, "As the best of the Muslims," or a similar statement. On that Jibril said, "And so are the angels who participated in (the battle of) Badr." (5:3992)

However, this report does not say how exactly the angels participated. Did they strike the necks and the fingertips?

Next, Bukhari offers this report from Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, who is considered a highly reliable source for the hadith:
Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said on the day (of the battle) of Badr, "This is Jibril (Gabriel) holding the head of his horse and equipped with arms for the battle." (5:3995).

But this report does not say how the angels participated, so Maududi’s words fit the uncertainty: "But the true knowledge is with Allah."

Regardless of these inconclusive opinions, they have been briefly cited and discussed as a contrast to the Gospels. Jesus had at his disposal during his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane more than twelve legions of angels, or more than 72,000, but he did not call on them to wage jihad on unbelievers (Matt. 26:53). Rather, he went to the cross and died a physical death in order to ransom the entire world from its sins.

To sum up our interpretation of Sura 8:12, then, this verse is one of many that are found in the context of physical warfare and bloodshed.

Muhammad is promised the help of Muslim angels who put terror in the hearts of the Meccans. But it is unclear from the Muslim sources and commentators whether these angels or the Muslims struck above the necks and cut off the fingers. Historically and in reality, this was done by the Muslims. But even if we assume, contrary to fact, that angels either slaughtered or helped the Muslims to slaughter sinners and polytheists, Sura 8:12, as we will see, diametrically opposes Luke 22:36. History demonstrates that Jesus never waged jihad on sinners or unbelievers—he did not even swing a sword—and he died for the polytheists whom Allah’s holy soldiers killed.

Before leaving this section, if the readers would like to see the Quranic verse in multiple translations, they should go here and type in the reference, like so: 8:12. Typing in the larger context (8:1-14) is interesting as well. Readers should keep in mind the historical context of the Sura, and the verses will then make sense.

Luke 22:36
This brings us to Luke 22:36, and we use the same four exegetical steps, ending with a contrast between early Islam and early Christianity, the fifth and final step.

The first step is to use a reputable translation. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is a translation done by a team of international scholars, and it is respected throughout the English-speaking world.

22:36: [Jesus] said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

The second step in the exegetical method is to examine the historical context of Luke 22:36. For three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Isaiah 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem. Now, however, Jesus finally enters it a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him (Luke 20:20) and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him. These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).

As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper. He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:7-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.

At this point we pick up the literary context of Luke 22:36 (bold print), the third step in our exegetical method. He is eating the supper on the night he was betrayed. The context needs to be quoted in full (Luke 22:35-38):
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied.
This literary context reveals four truths. First, at this time only eleven apostles were present since Judas slipped away to betray Jesus. Second, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. But does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. Third, he says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained, below. Finally, the words "it is enough" can either be a statement (as it is translated here), or it can be a command: "That’s enough!" That is, "Put away your swords! You’re taking my words too literally!" But regardless of the translation, Jesus clearly has a deeper meaning in mind than the physical swords. What is it?

This last question brings us to the fourth step in our exegetical method. The interpretation of the verse can either follow a literal direction (Jesus intended to fight with swords) or a nonliteral direction (Jesus is using physicals sword to convey a deeper meaning). The surest and clearest direction is the nonliteral one, but first we analyze why the literal one will not fit into Luke 22:34-38 and in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus was arrested (Luke 22:39-53).

The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for four reasons, based on v. 38, which says that two swords are enough.

First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? In Luke 22:35-36, in Jerusalem and at the last meal, Jesus tells his disciples that they should get their purses and bags and bring them with them. Did he tell them to buy a sword to defend their possessions? This is the "self-defense" or the "defense of one’s property" explanation of the swords. At first glance, this explanation has some plausibility, if we were to take only vv. 35-36 out of context. In reply, though, how much money do these eleven apostles have at this time? We do not know, but it was probably not large. But even if it were, Jesus and his new movement (as sociologists of the New Testament call it) received the goodwill offering of some followers, and Luke even names some women supporters (8:4). But Jesus saw no need to protect the money with swords at this time. But did not the last few days in Jerusalem have more tension than his three years outside of Jerusalem? The tension was indeed compacted into a few days, but Jesus frequently had to answer the antagonistic questions of his opponents before his entry into Jerusalem, so his three years was certainly not peaceful all of the time; yet he did not protect the money with swords. And this brings us back to the number of swords that Peter shows Jesus during the last meal. Would two swords be enough to protect the contents of the purses and bags that Jesus now says the disciples should bring with them? No, so clearly the two weapons serve a nonliteral purpose, for the "self-defense" explanation does not fit into the entire context.

Second, if self-defense does not work with the disciples’ property, does it work during the arrest of Jesus that night in the Garden of Gethsemane? Are two swords enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest (Malchus according to John 18:10). Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords.

Third, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities were in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" (New International Version). The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (22:54). Since this literal interpretation will not work, Jesus intended to teach a deeper meaning than a physical fight with only two physical swords.

Fourth and finally, within two or three decades after the Resurrection (and more), we have no record of the disciples wielding swords. For example, Paul sent Titus, his fellow-worker, with a large offering to Corinth, with the goal of collecting even more money from the Corinthian Christians (2 Cor. 8-9). After that, he and some "brothers" were to transport the money to the church in Jerusalem, which had fallen on hard times. In all of the long distances that the money traveled, there is simply no indication that Titus and the "brothers" protected it with swords. And this is true for other Christian offerings that circulated around the Mediterranean world. In addition, throughout the Book of Acts, which was written by Luke and which depicts Paul and his companions getting beaten and stoned and arrested by the local authorities and some religious opposition, he never defends himself or retaliates with a sword. He is following the example of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Violence plays no part in the life of the early church. Swords were never envisioned to be swung by the disciples as if the true God would call them to go forth as a military army to kill pagans or force Jews to convert, die, or pay a special tax if they do not convert (Sura 9:1-5; 29).

So the literal interpretation of the two swords will not work in the larger context of Luke 22:36. In contrast to the literal interpretation, the three following nonliteral interpretations work smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

First, as noted, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and his opposition was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. In addition, when the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—symbolize the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must take note. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. But the swords symbolizing tension fits perfectly into the context of Luke 22:36.

Second, by far the clearest purpose of the symbolism of two swords is found in 22:36-37, when Jesus refers to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12) about being numbered with the lawless in the context of swords. He was destined to be falsely arrested like a criminal, falsely put on trial like a criminal, and even falsely crucified like a criminal. After all, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is a further fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered with them Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy in a symbolic way.

A little knowledge of the basics of first-century Greek, the original language of the New Testament, clarifies this interpretation. The Greek word gar (the first word in v. 37, above) means for, whose function and meaning is to explain the preceding clause. Here is an example in English: "I am bringing an umbrella, for it is raining." So the word for explains why I am bringing an umbrella: it is raining. This often works in New Testament Greek, as well. In v. 36 Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword: "And the one who has no sword must go out and buy one." Why? Jesus explains in the next clause: "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me" (v. 37). The use of swords outside of official and legal authority represents criminal behavior. Thus, Jesus wants to identify with common criminals as predicted by Isaiah, and two swords alone would suffice. However, Jesus would not let them be used when the time came for his arrest, for he was really not a criminal, but to use them would mean that he would become one; plus, he was destined to die as he himself predicted (Luke 18:31-33). So he immediately stops Peter’s misuse of his sword: "No more of this!" (Luke 22:51). Peter or any follower of Jesus must not use swords to maim or kill sinners, unbelievers, or anyone else.

The third and final symbolic interpretation presents itself in addition to Isaiah’s prophecy and the tense atmosphere in Jerusalem. Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is true with the two swords in this passage. Though Luke 22:36 is not a parable, Jesus is about to instruct the disciples, using two physical swords, on how not to behave when they go out into the highways preaching the gospel after his Resurrection. They will not need swords when Jesus is arrested, and they will not need them even if they suffer persecution later on. Hence, the physical swords teach this nonphysical and universal truth based on Jesus telling Peter to put away his sword in the Garden during Jesus’ arrest: no violence should be used to spread the word of the true God. Later tradition supports this interpretation, saying that all of the original apostles but John were martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes of old age, but he was imprisoned for his faith on the Island of Patmos), but none of them fought or even tried to fight his way out of his fiery trials with swords. Evidently, the example of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on them. To repeat, that is the message of Jesus when he tells Peter in the Garden, "No more of this!"

That is, "Never use a sword again!"

As noted, the early history of the church supports this symbolic meaning of swords in Luke 22:36 in its larger context. In the Book of Acts, which records some of the history of the church after the Resurrection, the disciples never swing a sword. Bloody warfare is excluded as they spread the message of the kingdom of God, throughout the larger Mediterranean world by peaceful proclamation alone.

To sum up, the three symbolic interpretations fit together in both the historical and literary contexts of Luke 22:36. Jesus says that two swords are enough, but clearly they are not sufficient for a physical fight in the Garden of Gethsemane or anywhere else. They are enough, however, to do three symbolic things. First, they embody the tension of Jesus’ last days in Jerusalem. Second, they complement Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy that he would be numbered among criminals. A mere two swords would nicely fill out the picture of this prophecy, since criminals carried weapons with them. Third, they are enough for Jesus to rebuke Peter when he swings one of them and cuts off Malchus’ ear. Therefore, Jesus uses them as object lessons that the disciples should follow his example and not use swords—they must never swing them to bring about the kingdom of God by a holy war, even in the direst moment of Jesus’ life, his arrest in the Garden.

Peter interpreted Jesus’ words literally, but he was wrong, so Jesus rebuked him. Therefore, we should avoid the same mistaken literal interpretation of "sword" in Luke 22:36, so that we may not receive the same rebuke.

This symbolic use of swords in the Gospel of Luke stands in complete opposition to Muhammad’s real-life use of swords in Sura 8:12 and in many other verses in the Quran.

Early Islam and Early Christianity
Once in a while I get an email from a Muslim who points out that America, a "Christian" nation, uses the sword, so who am I to talk about it? First, we should set aside the complications of defining the US as Christian. Rather, we should note that this comparison leaps over 1,400 and 2,000 years of history. It is always better to compare the founder of a religion and his sacred texts with the founder of another religion and his sacred texts. Jesus and Muhammad should be contrasted, not Muhammad and the US government.

This contrast between the two religions addresses the two topics of angels and the first generation of followers after the death of Muhammad and after the death and Resurrection of Jesus.

Sura 8:12 was chosen as a counter-verse to Luke 22:36 because of the swords behind the scenes and because of angels. Sura 8:12 says that Muslim angels helped the Muslims in their bloody holy war. Where does an angel fit into the Gospel of Luke at the end of Jesus’ ministry?

Luke 22:42-44 says that in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was in such anguish that an angel came down to minister to him because he was about to take the sins of the whole world on his shoulders. His prayers were so earnest that his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground (v. 44).

Furthermore, in the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the events in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked Peter, after Peter struck the ear off the servant of the high priest:
26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (NIV)

These two verses agree with Luke’s account and add some details. Jesus denounces violence to accomplish the will of God—at least as Peter imagines the will of God. Then Jesus says that he has more than 72,000 true angels at his disposal. This means that he willingly lays down his life and dies for the sins of the whole world. Jesus thus demonstrates that angels will serve a high purpose. They are not involved in slaughtering sinners or unbelievers in bloody battles led by any self-proclaimed human messenger (Sura 3:144).

In contrast, Sura 8:12 says that Muslim angels either hit people with swords or helped Muslims to slaughter people in a war—six hundred years after Christ came to show us a better way. In Islamic theology, Muslim angels may potentially slaughter unbelievers in warfare, though the data on their role at Badr are inconclusive. Per contra in Christian theology, true angels help unbelievers who will inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14); they are not destined to fight in jihads for the self-declared human messenger of Arabia (Sura 3:144).

We also discussed the first generation of followers in Christianity. The Book of Acts and later accounts demonstrate that they preached the gospel and turned the world upside down without the sword. By the third and fourth centuries, Christianity was spreading to the far corners of the known world by mere words, not sharp weapons—the Emperor Constantine is not foundational to Christianity.

In contrast, the first generation of Muslims used primarily the sword. For example, shortly after Muhammad died of a fever in 632, the tribes who had accepted Islam, or better, who had surrendered to Muhammad's military strength, immediately revolted, for their forced allegiance dissolved upon the death of ‘the prophet.’ The tribes wanted to go back to their old way of life. However, Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s successor, would have none of this and spent the next two years crushing the revolts, successfully. It is no wonder that the Saudi flag has a sword on it today. And as soon as the revolt at home has been put out, the Muslim armies march to conquer neighboring countries for Islam (see, for example, Sir William Muir's "The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall").

It is true that the Roman Emperor Constantine, Medieval Crusaders, and Protestants and Catholics have used the sword against unbelievers and each other. However, none of them is foundational to Christianity—only Jesus is, and he never endorses the sword to spread his message. Also, Christianity has undergone Reform (c. 1400-1600) and has been put under the pressure of the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800), which demanded peace. Be that as it may, Jesus himself never calls for military jihad, and only he sets the genetic code for his movement.

On the other hand, Muhammad is foundational for Islam, and he indeed endorses using a sword, and he actually swings one on his frequent military raids and wars. For centuries the spread of Islam was backed by large Muslim armies. This is not a sign of divine approval. The world could have evaluated Islam more positively if it had spread only by peaceful means in Muhammad’s life and in the first centuries after his death. But this is not the case. So the Muslims today are merely following their leader and his Quran. They are not misinterpreting or misapplying their sacred text, for Sura 8:12 (and many other verses) is clear and unambiguous, according to the historical and literary contexts: a physical and sharp sword actually came down hard on the necks and fingers of the Meccans.
Therefore, Muhammad and Jesus are in fact completely different from each other—as different as dark night and bright daylight. Muhammad commands his believers to kill unbelievers with a physical sword, whereas Jesus says to Peter that he must put away his sword, and this teaches Christians today that the word of the true God is not disseminated by violence.

Thus, the Muslim apologists are misusing Luke 22:36 in order to mask the violence coming from Islam, which is inspired by Muhammad and his Quran, the source of Islam. For this reason (and many others), the true God is not backing Islam—from the very beginning in seventh-century Arabia to right now.

Jesus Christ showed us the better way to please God and to get into heaven.

Jesus saves. Muhammad killed.

Sometimes Muslim polemicists point out the wars in the Old Testament and the severe commands of God. But they have been explained and contrasted with Islamic wars in this article and this one. Besides, for Christians, Jesus Christ fulfills this area of the Old Testament and raises our vision to spiritual warfare, waged by preaching and praying, alone. He is our example to follow, and he did not wage military war on anyone, even though, as noted, he had at his disposal twelve legions of angels (Matthew 26:53).

This article has a companion piece, which may be read here.

Further reading:
  • Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword? This superb, short article is well worth the read. Its conclusions differ somewhat from my article, for his says that it is possible that some early disciples may have carried swords for self-defense. This is a plausible interpretation, though the evidence is sparse. But the broader historical evidence states emphatically that the early Christians never waged a holy war on pagans who refused to convert or on civil authorities who persecuted them. They did not assassinate any opponent for any reason whatsoever, even for composing insult poetry. All of this, in contrast, Muhammad and his followers did, and the historical evidence on this is firm and full.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 04:56 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Objections to Fundamental Christian Doctrines

Objections to Fundamental Christian Doctrines

1. The Qur'anic Rejection of the Deity of Jesus Christ.

The Qur'an shows no awareness that Christians believe in a Triune God being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While it does on a few occasions show a consciousness that there is some- I thing threefold about the Christian belief, it misinterprets this to be a tritheism of Jesus, Mary and Allah. Declaring yet again that "there is no god but Allah", it dismisses the I Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ. It is not surprising therefore to find that it likewise rejects Christian I belief that he is the Son of God. This rejection appears in a number of passages, such as the following:
  • They say: "God hath begotten a son": Glory be to Him. Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. Surah 2.115
  • To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son when He hath no consort? Surah 6.101
In another piece the charge is specifically levelled against Christians: "The Christians say the Messiah is the Son of God, that is a saying from their mouths" (Surah 19.30) The Qur'an's intention to deny the Trinity may be considerable garbled but its denial that Jesus is the Son of God is quite specific. Nonetheless there is once again nothing like a treatment of the doctrine as it appears in the Bible and we find Muhammad labouring under serious misconceptions about it.

His approach to the whole subject is entirely carnal. Be cause men on earth cannot have sons unless they cohabit with their wives, so the Qur'an supposes that God, too, cannot have a son unless he has a wife. This is the argument in Surah 6.101 quoted above. It appears again in Surah 72.3 where certain of the Jinn are made to say: "And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord; He has taken neither wife nor a son". No allowance is made for God's infinite, spiritual nature as against the finite order he has created, and no possibility was considered by Muhammad that Jesus could be the Son of God in any sense other than that which he beheld among the sons of men on earth. He stuck to his charge throughout the many years of h mission, though one is inclined to question whether it could not have crossed his mind at some time or the other that the belief was not the gross, carnal concept that he took it to but possibly something far higher and more majestic.
  • But Mohammad could not admit that He was anything more than other men. He understood the doctrine of His Sonship in a carnal sense, and therefore he very naturally denied it vigorously. (Robson, Christ in Islam, p. 8).
He was aware that the Jews and Christians likewise claimed to be the sons of God themselves purely in the sense that they were especially favoured by him (Surah 5.20), yet he did not consider the possibility that Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God might likewise be in a special sense only. A Christian writer, speaking on Surah 5.20, says:
  • Muhammad himself knew that, yet the fact remains - he seems to have been incapable of attaching any other than a carnal signification to this name by which Christians speak of Christ. (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 48).
He was also aware that the expression "son of" could be used metaphorically for in the Qur'an itself he speaks of wabnis-sabil - "and the son of the road" (Surah 4.36) so that, although he makes no allowance for anything but a literal, physical "offspring" of God, he nonetheless shows that he is conscious of some of the different ways in which the term can be used. It is a great pity that he did not endeavour to find out precisely what Christians believed about Jesus as the Son of God, in particular the Biblical teaching in this respect.
  • Muhammad, therefore, hearing Christians say "God has a son", did not know how it could be possible for there to be a son without a woman, and so he advanced no argument except that it was not possible for God to have a son because He had no wife. . . . And yet it was allowable for Muhammad to believe that Mary had a son without a husband, so why could he not consider it fitting that God might have a son without a woman? (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 2, Vol. 1, pp. 151,152).
Christians will find that Muhammad's carnal approach to this subject is invariably that taken by Muslims to this day. "It is hard to understand how Muslims can still hold that Christians believe God had a son by physical conception, but this misunderstanding persists" (Elder, The Biblical Approach to the Muslim, p. 27). It is with much patience that they will have to explain that the relationship is a spiritual one and that the sonship has a very special character as I will very shortly show. There are a number of retorts at the very Muslim level of understanding at this point which have been suggested by Christian writers and although I prefer to raise the level of discussion on any subject such as this one to a consideration of what is really involved in it, nonetheless heartily approve of and recommend the rebuke of the great scholar of earlier centuries, Ricoldo, who "said that to assert that God has no Son because He has no wife saying that He is not living because He does not draw breath" (Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 182). Muslims do indeed need to be prompted into realising the somewhat feeble nature of - the Qur'an's argument that God cannot have a Son when he has taken no wife to himself.

We also need to emphasize that the very concept of God taking to himself a consort to beget offspring, or the charge of associating partners with God, is as reprehensible to us as it is to Muslims. They need to know that the Qur'an rejects its own misconception of the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God rather than the true nature of that doctrine, and that we likewise will disown it.
  • We reject the idea of Jesus being the son of God in any physical sense as strongly as the Muslim does. The idea of Jesus being born of a union between God and the Virgin Mary is utterly abhorrent to us as Christians. If this is what Muhammad understood by the term, it is as blasphemous to us as it is to the Muslim. (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 78).
We believe that the eternal Son of God, one with the Father from all eternity, united to him in one Spirit, "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1.14), and took "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2. 7). We do not believe that God took to himself offspring and that he sired a son, another god, when Jesus was born. We believe in the incarnation of the Son of God, we do not believe in adoptionism, a one-time Christian heresy which is, in fact what the Qur'an is actually opposing.
  • What Christians mean by 'God in Christ' is not adoptionism. This, as earlier noted, was a misreading which the early Church itself resisted and rejected. But it is a way of thinking which, in rebuking Christians, the Qur'an itself has frequently in view. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 203).
As the learned author says in a footnote, "It is clear that, though the Qur'an may intend to exclude 'Incarnation', what it actually excludes is adoptionism" (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 209). The problem arises from the environment Muhammad found himself in. The pagan Arabs of his day worshipped female idols such as Al-lat, Al-Uzza and Manat and considered them to be the "daughters of Allah". As the Arabs themselves considered the news of the birth of a daughter to be a cause of grief and shame (Surah 16.58-59), Muhammad was wont to retort:
  • What! Has He taken daughters out of what He Himself creates, and granted to you sons for choice? Surah 43.16
Muhammad seemed to be unable to distinguish between Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God and pagan Arab belief in their goddesses as daughters of God. He automatically took them to be identical in character without realising that the teaching of the Bible about the incarnation of the eternally-existent Son of God was totally different to the Arab concept.
  • In abolishing the daughters and sons of Mecca's Allah, Muhammad failed to distinguish the wholly different meaning of the Christian Sonship. To this day the Muslim principle of Unity stubbornly refuses to accept any understanding of unity which it thinks at error by the criteria needed to purge Mecca of multiplied divinities. It has not distinguished between pagan men alienating God's prerogatives and God in His own undivided glory working according to them. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 38).
Another writer suggests, however, that the Christian Arab belief in Jesus was in fact similar to that of the pagan Arab belief in the daughters of Allah and says "But nomad Arabs adopted Christianity, not as allegiance to a Saviour Jesus Christ whom Christians claimed to be one with God, but on the same level as they recognized and used the gods of Arabian life" (Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, p. 310). He gives no authority for this claim, unfortunately, and I know of no evidence for it. Such a practice, if it existed at all, could not have been widespread and certainly was not the norm.

Muhammad's misconception of the true Christian and Biblical doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God argues strongly against his claim that the Qur'an was being revealed to him. Once again the book shows itself to be a victim of the limited knowledge of its prophet. If God was the author of the Qur'an he would have known what the universal belief of the Christians really was and would not have taken a heresy (adoptionism) as the belief of the whole Church (which is in the incarnation of the Son in human form). Muhammad was obviously ignorant of the true Christian doctrine and, seeing only the pagan Arab belief in the generation of daughters of Allah before him, mistook the Christian belief to be one and the same thing. Here, too, as with the Trinity, we see the limitations of Muhammad's knowledge coupled with his contemporary environmental situation dictating the tenor and teaching of the Qur'an rather than the absolute knowledge of the All-Knowing God of the universe. It is not a unique revelation that we find at this point in the Qur'an but an easily explained series of misconceptions, not a universal knowledge but an ignorance conditioned by Muhammad's limited environment.

Christians nonetheless have to be extremely patient at this point for it is the ultimate point at issue between Islam and Christianity. What makes Muslims the hardest people on earth to reach with the Gospel and the most resistant to conversion - is it the cultural differences between them and us as many claim today? Is it the awful consequences of apostasy as Zwemer suggested in his book The Law of Apostasy in Islam (p. 17)? While these are undoubtedly contributory causes, I do believe that the ultimate cause for the relative paucity of conversions from Islam is the Qur'an's vehement rejection of the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God such as we find in the following verse:
  • They say, "God hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! Say ye about God what ye know not? Surah 10.68
The Qur'an states that there is only one sin that God will not forgive, namely the associating of a partner with God. From this comes the belief that shirk, "associating", is the only unforgivable sin in Islam:
  • God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. Surah 4.48
I believe that this verse is probably the greatest barrier in the way of conversion from Islam to Christianity. The very word "partner" comes from the same root letters as the word shirk, namely yushraku, and in Surah 10.66 we read likewise of shurakaa, "partners", who are worshipped other than God. As it is only two verses lower down that we find the rejection of a son to God in such vehement language (Surah 10.68 quoted above), it is to be presumed that the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God is one of the express acts of shirk that the Qur'an sets out to denounce as the greatest of all sins. In Surah 2.105 the Qur'an expressly speaks of mushrikiin (associaters) among the Ahlal-Kitaab (People of the Book), a common title for Jews and Christians, and in Surah 9.31 both groups, especially the Christians who take the Messiah to be ibnullaah (the Son of God) and their rabb (Lord), are said to be those above whom Allah is glorified from their yushriknun - what they "associate" with him.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Qur'an teaches that among the acts of shirk, the unforgivable sin, is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God. What to the Christian is the only possible step towards the eternal favour and knowledge of God is to the Muslim the one step down the road of irretrievable distance from him. The key step for salvation to us is, to them, the step off the edge of the precipice towards a sin that cannot be forgiven. Consciously or subconsciously, it is this fear more than any other that keeps Muslims from coming to Christ.

The Apostle John once said "I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5.13), yet to the Muslim such a belief is the one thing that could keep salvation from him. This is the ultimate tragedy of Islam and the chief reason why so many hundreds of millions of Muslims are deluded away from the truth of the Gospel.

We dare not avoid this issue with Muslims and I have no sympathy with Christians who believe the subject should be skirted and that we should avoid discussion on Jesus as the Son of God or the use of the title in our witness. It is going to be the key, thorny issue in the Muslim's ultimate contemplation of the implications of conversion. We must expose the Qur'an's errors at this point, not only in its treatment of the doctrine as adoptionism, but also in its unwillingness to concede the very possibility that God might indeed have a Son. Kenneth Cragg says:
  • Are we right in forbidding anything to God which He does not forbid Himself? If God is truly greater than all, will there be things He will not do which we can identify and against which we can insist? May we perhaps be in the position of prescribing limitations to God, or of defending His sovereignty in ways He does not approve? May we be limiting God's sovereignty in the very act of, supposedlv, defending it? (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 292).
It is interesting to note that the Qur'an does not appear to say absolutely that it is impossible for God to actually have a son but rather that "it is not befitting" to him to do so (Surah 19.35). Once a Muslim concedes the possibility that it is not beyond God's power to have a son, then the only question is whether in fact he does have a son. We shall consider two of the usual Muslim arguments against the doctrine as it appears in the Bible before considering the issue more fully at the end of this section.

2. The Biblical Limitations upon the Son of God.

A common objection found in Muslim writings is based on numerous statements made by Jesus in which he placed limits upon himself, both in respect of knowledge and power, so that it is queried how he could be a divine personality. For example, it is suggested that he could hardly be omniscient when he disclaimed knowledge of the hour of judgment, known to God alone, in the following saying:
  • "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" Matthew 24.36
It is likewise claimed that he also disowned omnipotence and indeed the power to do anything at all by himself when he said on another occasion:
  • "The Son can do nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing . . . I can do nothing on my own authority". John 5.19,30.
Yet another saying raised to discredit the deity of Jesus Christ is this one: "The Father is greater than I" (John 14.28). How can anyone believe in his deity if he himself had to acknowledge that there was One greater than he and that there were things he barely knew or could do? So the argument goes, one commonly found in Muslim writings against the Christian faith and doctrine.

A Muslim writer states the charge in the following comment on Matthew 24.36 quoted above:
  • It is moreover inconceivable that the Son of God should declare his absolute ignorance and lack of knowledge of the day of judgment. Is such ignorance or lack of knowledge compatible with Divinity? (Manjoo, The Cross and the Crescent, p. 44).
Whenever such objections are raised I welcome them without reserve for they create an opportunity to witness to just who Jesus really is and to explain what the title Son of God really means. The very title "Son" immediately suggests a limitation - a son is always subject to his father - and it is precisely in this issue of authority that we discover what the title Son of God actually means as it is set forth in the pages of the Christian Bible.

It is perhaps at this point that many Christians get themselves into trouble. Boldly declaring to Muslims that "Jesus is God", they find themselves unable to counter objections such as these. In fact evangelical witness these days has become so simplistic and charged with so many dogmatic cliches that it makes itself a prey to thoughtful arguments which it cannot refute. So widespread is this tendency that a Muslim writer was prompted to suggest in a recent periodical that, whereas the traditional orthodox churches have always held fast to the doctrine of the Trinity, evangelical Christians today claim that "there is indeed only one God and he is called Jesus" (Siddiqi, "Islam and Missions: Mohammed or Christ", Islamic World Review, p. 31). While the author's perception can obviously be questioned, one can understand his dilemma. If you boldly declare "Jesus is God" instead of reasoning carefully with a Muslim about what we mean when we call him the Son of God, you cannot hope to counter the objections we have already mentioned, nor others like them such as "If Jesus is God, to whom was he praying when he said 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' (Matthew 27.46)"

The expression "Son of God" is principally analogical. It indicates the relationship between the first two persons of the Triune God. They are equal in essence, indeed of one essence, yet one is subject to the other's authority. The human analogy goes no further than this - an earthly father and his son are both human to the full, yet the second must bow to the authority of the first. Muhammad erred when he supposed the likeness to extend to such issues as the taking of offspring, a consort, etc., but we too will err if we do not make it very clear that no matter what we believe about Jesus, he is subject to the Father's authority. When he came to this earth he came as the Father's ambassador to redeem men from sin and, being found in human form, took his subjection to the Father's authority to the point of a servant-to-Master relationship.
  • That "God was in Christ" rather than that "Jesus was God" is the classic expression of this truth. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 315).
Even though all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to the Son (Matthew 11.27, 28.18), yet when all things are finally subjected to him, "then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Corinthians 15.28). The subjection to the Father's authority will continue through all eternity.

Some say we should refrain from talking about Jesus as the Son of God while others say we should boldly declare that he is God and Lord of all. I disagree with both extremes. We should concentrate on his Sonship, on the one hand because it ensures that we will properly speak of who he really is, and on the other because it will enable us to circumvent objections levelled against his declared limitations. The great advantage such objections unintentionally give us is the opportunity to explain who Jesus really is - the divine second person of the Trinity but, as the Son, subject completely to the authority of the first person, the eternal Father who is the source of all things.

In my view the ideal passage to use as a basis for handling this subject is Philippians 2.5-11. Although he was "in the form of God", he took the "form of a servant . . . human form" and became obedient, not only as the eternal Son to the Father, but as a man towards God, obedient "unto death, even death on a cross", an obedience he would never have experienced had he not come in our likeness.

It is his very subject status that enabled him to assume this relationship. Although he is divine, yet because he is, I say it reverently, only the Son, the knowledge of the hour, determined by the Father, could be kept from him. This also explains why he said he could do nothing on his own authority. Here we have a golden opportunity to explain to a Muslim just what the title Son of God, when applied to Jesus, really means.

Let me close, however, by taking this subject back to the level of the Muslim's own arguments. All the objections-I have mentioned can be turned to specific advantage in discussion with those who raise them. In Matthew 24.36 Jesus claimed he did not know the hour and Muslims say he thus placed himself among all the other creatures of God who do not know it in contrast with God himself to whom alone it is known. Challenge such an argument with an appeal to examine the text more closely. What, exactly, is Jesus saying? "No one knows" the hour, no man that is, in fact "not even the angels of heaven", nor the Son but the Father only. Where does Jesus place himself in this ascending scale of category of persons? He puts himself above men and angels, describing himself purely in relation to God alone - as the Son of the eternal Father. It is the very title Son here that identifies him - related to the Father alone but subject to him and thus kept unaware of the hour. He does not place himself at the level of God's created beings but on a divine level alone - the very title Son relating him solely to the Father.

The arguments based on John 5.19 and John 5.30 can be turned on their heels in the same manner. Any Muslim who raises them must be made to read the full text of John 5.19: "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise". Once again the meaning of the title Son of God is so harmoniously brought out in the statement - as the Son he is limited to the Father's authority and so does nothing of his own accord, but as the divine Son of God he does exactly what the Father does. Far from being a denial of omnipotence, the whole statement is an emphatic declaration of it. As one writer puts it:
  • A careful study of the passage will show that in it He claimed to do all that God did. How then can he be less than God? (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 120).
A third saying we mentioned, namely "The Father is greater than I" (John 14.28), likewise begs further scrutiny. If this is indeed a declaration of limitation, it is at the same time an awesome claim to greatness. Coming from anyone else the statement would have sounded dreadfully presumptuous - "this sentence would have a touch of blasphemy were it not for the fact that it is spoken by a being existing on a level comparable to that of God the Father, who must necessarily also himself be of divine rank" (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 121). Jesus must have considered himself to possess an eternal greatness to deem it necessary to inform his disciples that God the Father was, in fact, actually greater than he. Once again he measures himself on a divine level alone, relating himself solely to the Father, and expresses a limitation found solely in the fact that he is the Son of God.

It is in answer to these objections that we can show Muslims just what the title Son of God really means, not that God took a wife and obtained offspring through her, but that the second person of the Trinity possesses the same essence as the first, yet is subject to him in authority as the sons of men are to their fathers, and voluntarily became the man Christ Jesus so that he might reconcile us in one Spirit to the Father.

3. Was Jesus the Son of God in a Metaphorical Sense?

We come to another common argument found in Muslim writings. The Qur'an teaches that it is only the followers of Jesus who have made him the Son of God but, when Muslims authors discover that in the New Testament who claims this title, they suggest that this claim in a limited sense, namely in sense in which all true believers can be God. The following quotations are typical of the argument as it appears in Muslim writings:
  • That Jesus ever maintained he was the Son of God, in the sense in which it has been construed by Christian divines and apologists, we totally deny. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 141).
  • The Quran not only excludes all idea of any equal or partner with Allah, it specifically excludes all idea of His having a son except in the purely metaphorical sense in which all mankind are his children, and in which the peacemakers are spoken of, in the Bible as "the children of God" (Matthew 5.9). (Zafrulla Khan' Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 93).
    Islam also rejects the Divine sonship of Jesus. He may be called a son of God in the sense in which all righteous human beings may be called the children of God, but not in a literal or unique sense. (Aziz-us-Samad, A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam, p. 66)
In each case there is an implied admission that Jesus could be regarded as one of the sons of God in the way in which all believers can be called children of God, but the possibility that he could be the unique eternal Son of God expressly denied. The Qur'an, on the other hand, disallows the possibility that anybody could be regarded as a child of God in any sense whatsoever (God is nowhere called "Father" in the book, the expression "children of God" likewise nowhere appears, and it is expressly stated in Surah 6.100 that he has neither sons nor daughters), yet once Muslims discover that Jesus, as quoted in the Gospels, regularly called himself the Son of God, they feel constrained to admit that he applied the title to himself in some sense.

Whenever a Muslim argues that Jesus never claimed to be the absolute Son of God but only took the title in an allegorical or metaphorical sense, the Christian should immediately place him on terms to admit that Jesus did in fact claim to be the Son of God in some form. The Muslim argument has no force unless this admission is made. The issue then is purely to determine in what sense the title was used. Very often the argument is based on the following text:
  • Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming' because I said 'I am the Son of God'?" John 10.34-36.
It is suggested that, by quoting Psalm 82.6 where all true believers are called sons of the Most High God, Jesus was only saying that he was likewise simply one of the children of God when he said "I am the Son of God". The following quotation, based on the above passage, typifies the Muslim conclusion at this point:
  • It is thus clear that even in the mouth of Jesus the term "son of God" was a metaphorical expression, and by taking it literally the Church has destroyed the very foundations of religion. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 40).
The important thing here is the admission that Jesus did call himself the Son of God in one or other sense. The issue then is purely to establish the sense in which the claim was made. The Church has never held that it should be taken literally as the writer claims (a typical Muslim error based on the Qur'an's misconception of the title as it is used by all true Christians). Rather, as already stated, we believe it was made analogically. It defines the status of Jesus in relation to the Father - absolutely one with him in essence and form (John 10.30) but subject to him in authority (John 5.30). Which, then, is the correct interpretation - was it made analogically in the sense that he is the absolute, unique, divine Son of God, or was it made metaphorically in the sense in which all true believers can be called the sons of God?

There can be no doubt that the first interpretation is the only possible one that can be made from an objective study of the Scriptures. When the Jews said to Pilate "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God" (John 19.7), it was in consequence of their conviction that he had spoken blasphemy when he acknowledged before Caiaphas that he was indeed the Son of God (Mark 14.61-62). If he had only claimed to be one of the children of God in a metaphorical sense he would never have been brought to trial on such a charge.

There are a number of sayings of Jesus that make it quite plain that he claimed to be the Son of God in an absolute, eternal sense, for example:
  • "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him". Matthew 11.27
Likewise, when Jesus has given all judgment to said "The Father judges no one, but the Son, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him" (John 5.22, 23), it is well nigh impossible to see how such a claim to be the Son of God could have been made in a metaphorical sense. The statement that all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father cannot be watered down into a suggestion that he was anything less than the eternal, absolute Son of God. One could fill a book with similar quotations but to conclude here let me cite what I believe is the most effective way of handling this objection.

Whenever confronted by the argument that Jesus only claimed to be the Son of God in a lesser sense I immediately turn to the parable of the tenants of the vineyard recorded in Matthew 21.33-43 and also in Mark 12.1-12 and Luke 20.9- 18. Jesus spoke of a number of servants who were sent to the tenants of the vineyard to obtain some of the fruit of the vineyard, but they took them and beat them, wounded yet others and killed them, "so with many others, some they beat and some they killed" (Mark 12.5).

The parable builds up to a climax which we find in the following verse which is also the key one for our purposes:
  • "He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son'. But those tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours'. And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard". Mark 12.6-8.
The sequence shows quite plainly the interpretation of the parable. God sent numerous prophets to the people of Israel to call them to produce the fruits of righteousness, but they mistreated them all, killing some and wounding others. ("Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?" - Acts 7.52). No Muslim will deny that the prophets are the highest of God's chosen faithful on earth, yet in this parable they are all regarded as nothing more than servants. When they had all been sent the owner of the vineyard had still one other - a beloved son - and he sent him, only to see him killed by the tenants as well - a clear prediction of the pending crucifixion of Jesus himself.

In this parable Jesus clearly distinguished himself as the beloved Son of God in contrast with the prophets who were only his servants. It is in this distinction that Christians can show Muslims just how Jesus claimed to be the unique, eternal Son of God, and never used the title in the sense in which all true believers can be called the sons of God.

"This is my beloved Son", the voice said from heaven when Jesus was transfigured (Matthew 17.5). "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son", the Scripture further testifies (John 3.16), and in another place calls him "the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1.18). There can be no doubt that Jesus always used the title for himself in a unique, divine sense and never used it metaphorically as Muslims claim. Christians have a wealth of evidence here to show Muslims just who Jesus really claimed to be and who he truly was - the eternal Son of God.

4. "Flesh and Blood has not Revealed this to You . . ."

We come back to the question of whether God does indeed have a Son and whether that Son became the man Christ Jesus. We have already considered some Muslim arguments discounting the possibility and shall conclude this section by analysing one other, namely that it is not possible for God to be manifest in human flesh, before finishing with a brief assessment of the real issue here - what has ultimately been revealed by God concerning this subject.

Very often one finds Muslims arguing that Jesus could not be the eternal, divine Son of God since he was a human being and, as such, needed to sleep (Mark 4.38), became hungry (Luke 4.2) and thirsty (John 19.28), and so on. Because he needed to eat, drink and sleep like all other men it is claimed he could not have been divine for God is self-subsistent and depends on nothing. The following quote, speaking of Surah 5.114 in the Qur'an but perhaps equally applicable to the Biblical verses quoted, states the argument in a nutshell:
  • This verse also proves that Jesus was not the Son of God' or an incarnation of God, for he felt the necessity of asking for food for his very subsistence. (Ahmad, Jesus in Heaven on Earth, p. 143).
Another similar quotation, but one which within itself tends to expose the weakness of the argument, reads:
  • He ate, drank and acted in a human way. He walked through the market, rode animals, slept at night and so on. God does not have to do any of these human things or even be associated in any way with man. (Assfy, Islam and Christianity, p. 6).
The weak link is found in the words "God does not have to do any of these human things". We might just as well say that God did not have to create man, did not have to create woman from man, did not have to do anything at all. The point is God chose to do these things and, in Philippians 2.5-8 we find likewise that the eternal Son, who was in "the form of God" which, in the original Greek, means he was divine through and through, chose to empty himself of his glory and voluntarily assumed human form. So likewise no one could take his life from him and he did not have to lay it down, but he willingly laid it down of his own accord (John 10.18).

A king does not have to take on the clothes of a servant in his kingdom and submit himself to another master, but what if he chooses to do so for a time to discover the needs of the servants in his kingdom and feel with them in their hopes and sufferings that he might alleviate them? What Muslim is there that would place limitations upon God's power and will by suggesting that God, likewise, cannot choose of his own accord to act in this way? Assfy adds that he does not have to be "associated in any way with man". It is here that we come to the heart of the matter. What if he chose to meet man at his own level and in grace associate very closely with him? The Qur'an says in one place:
  • Say, "If there were settled, on earth, angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should certainly have sent them down from the heavens an angel for an apostle". Surah 17.95
If, therefore, God wished to relate to man himself from heaven, how would he come to earth? Even the Qur'an expressly admits that angels appear in human form when they come to men with messages from God ("We sent to her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects" - Surah 19.17). Is it too hard to accept that the Father would send his own Son in human form if he desired, of his own accord, to relate directly to men on earth? There is nothing to stop him voluntarily assuming human limitations and being subject to our natural dependences while on earth.
The issue is not whether men have to eat and drink, etc., it is purely this - can the human form bear the divine image? If anyone was to suggest that God had become incarnate in a plant, insect or animal, we would reject the idea immediately. None of these creatures can be holy, honest, righteous, just or forgiving, and therefore cannot possibly bear his image. But the Bible says that at the beginning of creation God decreed "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1.26) and thus he created him. Only to man can it be said "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 19.2), "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5.48). Man was so made that he could possess and manifest all God's characteristic attributes - holiness, love, purity, justice, righteousness, compassion, etc. There is nothing in the moral character of God's holiness that cannot be manifested in human form.
  • Man created in the image of God does not mean that God looks like man or that man looks like God. But it does mean that man has profound God-like qualities. (Kateregga and Shenk, Islam and Christianity, p. 19).
The question is not whether God can be confined in human form, it is purely whether humanity can bear the divine image. The answer is an unqualified yes. Jesus Christ manifested every one of God's perfect attributes to the full when he lived on earth as a man. There is no reason why the Son of God could not become the Son of man. In no way was his divine character blurred while he walked among us. On the contrary God's love, grace, forgiveness and compassion were all revealed to the full when he laid down his life to redeem us from all iniquity and prepare us for a heavenly dwelling.

The final issue, then, is simply this - was Jesus revealed to be the Son of God while he was on earth? He constantly claimed to be nothing less than the eternal Son from the Father and it was for this reason that he was crucified and killed (John 19.7). Yet when he was "raised from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Romans 6.4) he was "designated Son of God in power" (Romans 1.4). All his claims proved to be true. We cannot get around the fact that Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God. ("He has made himself the Son of God" - John 19.7) and the events following endorsed this claim completely. If Jesus did not take this honour upon himself, let Muslims explain why we duly agree with them that all God's messengers who went before him were nothing more than prophets and hold this man alone to be the Divine Saviour from heaven.
  • It must be made clear that the Christian doctrine about Jesus is not an imposition upon the facts but rather a conclusion from the facts. (Cragg. The Call of the Minaret, p. 288).
The heart of the matter, perhaps, is found in the occasion when Jesus asked his disciples as they were gathered together away from the crowds, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" (Matthew 16.13). The answer was that he was generally considered to be one of the prophets - John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah perhaps - but nothing more than a prophet. Thusfar the perceptiveness of the Jewish crowds, thusfar the perceptiveness of the Muslim masses.

Jesus went on, however: "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16.15). Peter's answer was: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16.16), that is to say, "The people say you are a prophet but I say you are far more than a prophet, you are the Son of God". The response of Jesus has acute relevance to the very subject we are discussing:
  • "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven". Matthew 16.17
"My Father has revealed this to you", was his reply. The realisation that he was the Son of God came not through ordinary "flesh and blood", that is, human wisdom and perceptiveness, but by a direct revelation from heaven. It was also a proof that Jesus was not one of the children of God in a metaphorical sense but the Divine Son who could only be known by a revelation from the Father himself.
  • Where, we ask, would be the point of Christ's reply if He were the son only in the sense in which all believers are sons of God? (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 9).
There is no reason why God cannot have a Son, why he could not be manifested in human form, and why he could not redeem us by voluntarily laying down his life and taking it again. The only reason the Qur'an denies that Jesus was the Son of God is that Muhammad had no more perceptiveness than the Jews who concluded that Jesus was simply one of the prophets. The teaching of Jesus himself that it requires a revelation from the Father himself before any man can see with the eye of faith that he is truly the eternal Son of God must make us deeply sympathetic towards Muslims in their inability to perceive his true greatness and we need to pray fervently that, while the Prophet of Islam may not have discerned his glory, his followers might yet do so.

Muslims have trod the via negativa to the bitter end and even their acceptance of a doctrine of revelation is limited by the acceptance that here is only a revelation from God and not a revelation primarily of Himself; the Christian comes along the same road as we have seen, but at the end he reaches out with a new confidence because of the Incarnation, to an ultimate and firm persuasion that God has spoken from the midst of human experience, and that He speaks and speaks of Himself, revealing not only His will but Himself, in such a way that man can throw himself with confidence on God. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 2, Vol. 2, p. 327).
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 08-04-2008 at 05:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 05:06 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road


by Silas

Jesus called Himself the "Son of God" throughout the Gospels, (John 3:16-18), and the disciples also identified Him as the Son of God in their writings, (Rom 1:3).

Further, Jesus identified Himself as God revealed in the flesh, (John 8:58), and His disciples identified Him as God, (John 1:1, Phil 2:5-11). How could Jesus be The Son of God, and God at the same time? What does this term - "Son of God" mean? And if Jesus is the Son, in what way is Jesus God's Son? Did God have physical relations with Mary and get her pregnant?

Many Muslims do not understand what this term, according to Christian theology, actually means. They have asked me these or similar questions. This paper focuses on what the term "Son of God" signifies in Christian theology with respect to Muslim understanding.

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, misunderstood what the term "Son of God" meant with respect to Christianity. He thought of it only in terms of sexual reproduction, i.e. that God fathered a child through sexual intercourse with Mary. Therefore he spoke out against it.

Christians also reject that God had physical intercourse with Mary, but we understand Christ being God's Son as an analogical term. We believe that the eternal Son of God, one with the Father from all eternity, united to Him in one Spirit, "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), and took "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). We believe in the incarnation of the Son of God.

Muhammad did hear the Christians proclaim Jesus the Messiah as God's Son, but understanding or not, he specifically denied that Jesus was the Son of God. He said in the Quran,

Sura 2:116 - "They say: "God has begotten a son". Glory be to Him. No, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him."


Sura 9:30 - "The Christians say the Messiah is the Son of God, that is a saying from their mouths."

Muhammad was unable to distinguish between the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Arab Pagan belief in idols as offspring of God, i.e., Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, (these were idols worshipped around Mecca as daughters of the supreme God - or Allah). Muhammad misunderstood that Christians in no way consider Jesus - the Son of God, in the same way the Arab Pagans understood their idols.

Muhammad's misconception of the Sonship of Christ is another proof that the Quran was not revealed to him by God, but rather it was built upon Muhammad's own concepts and ideology.

Because of Muhammad's misunderstanding, Islam places limits on God's power. In view of this, a Christian writer commented that "to assert that God has no Son because He has no wife is like saying that God is not living because He does not draw breath." Daniel, "Islam and the West, p.182.

The expression "Son of God", is an analogical term. It indicates origin, a close association, or identification. In Christian theology it describes the relationship of two persons of the triune God. It expresses an intimate relationship between two persons: God the Father, and God the Son - Jesus the Messiah.

Here are several scriptures illustrating this facet of their relationship:

John 17:5 - "And now Father, glorify me in Your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Here Jesus stated that He was with the Father before the world began.

Colossians 1:13-20 "For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead so that in everything He might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him and through him to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

Here, we see the term "Son of God", brought to light: "the image of the invisible God".

Hebrews 1:1-3 "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

Again, we see the relationship between the Father and the Son disclosed, "the exact representation of His being".

John 1:1-3, 10, 14, 18 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him, nothing was made that has been made......(10) He was in the world and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him....(14) The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father full of grace and truth......(18) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side has made Him known."

John 14:8, 10 "Don't you know me Phillip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"

Jesus plainly told Phillip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father".

From these verses we see that in Christ, the invisible God is revealed. Jesus was with the Father before the world began. Christ, as God the Son, is the Creator of all things. God in all His fullness, dwelt in Christ, reconciling the world. We see that Christ, as the Son of God - God's representation, is God manifest and revealed to the world. Angels, prophets, and things can reveal to us something about God. But God alone can reveal God. It takes God to reveal Himself to mankind. What better way for the eternal revealer to be revealed to mankind on earth than by clothing His self-expresion in human form?


Muslims believe that the Quran - their Word of God - is eternal. The Quran also calls Jesus the Word of God. Since Muslims believe that the Quran is eternal, yet is able to enter into the limitations of time and space, and become available in book form, could not Jesus as the Word of God, be made manifest in human form? If on earth, Muslims believe that the uncreated Word of God - i.e., the Quran - is found as a book making it both uncreated and created, then cannot the uncreated Word of God be revealed as a human, if God willed it? That God has willed this is revealed in the testimony of the Gospels - God's eternal self-expression, His Word, His Son, has entered human form as Jesus the Messiah.

God the Father and God the Son are both God, but they are different persons. They are equal in essence, indeed of one essence, yet one is subject to the other's authority. The human analogy goes no further than this - an earthly father and his son are both human to the full, yet the second must bow to the authority of the first. Jesus is subject to the Father's authority. When He came to earth He came as the Father's ambassador to redeem men from sin and, being found in human form, took His subjection to the Father's authority to the point of a son to a father's relationship.

As the Son of God, Christ, the second person of the Trinity, possesses the same essence as the Father, yet is subject to the Father as an earthly son is subject to his father. Jesus is not the Son of God because of His mighty works and miracles, but He did those works because He is the Son of God.

The prime duty of a son is to honor and obey his father, to serve him freely and fully. The ideas of being a servant and a son are found throughout the Bible. Jesus as God the Son, served God the Father not out of compulsion but because of His unity with the Father, served out of love.


Muslims frequently ask that if Jesus were really God's Son, or God in the flesh, why didn't Jesus know the date of the hour of judgment? Ref. Matthew 24:36.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

Or if Jesus were God in the flesh, why did He say,

"The Son can don nothing of his own accord but only what the sees the Father doing,.....The Father is greater than I,.... I can do nothing on my own authority." John 5:19, 14:28, 5:30.

Muslims will ask rhetorical questions such as, "Wouldn't God know the last hour of Judgment?" Or, "If Jesus were God, why did He say, "the Father is greater than I"?"

The answer lies in what Christ's Sonship on earth entails. The passage that best addresses it is Philippians 2:5-8. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death on the cross."

Here Christ emptied Himself. The Sonship of Christ is revealed in this: He was revealed as God in the flesh, and yet submitted to God the Father. He was limited as a man, and He glorified God the Father. The analogical term "Son" best describes Christ's relationship with God the Father.

Christ's exalted relationship is even seen in the very verse Muslims choose to attack His Sonship... In Mark 13:32 Christ says, "But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Here, Jesus places Himself above men, and above the angels. Jesus describes Himself alone in a category in relation to God.

Likewise, Christ when saying that He does nothing of His own accord, states that "whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." Christ establishes His Sonship and puts Himself in perfect harmony with God. Even Muhammad is declared in the Quran as a sinner in Sura 48:2, but Christ walked in perfect harmony with the Father.

As Muhammad failed to understand what "Son of God" signified, so today, many Muslims continue to misunderstand. The term "Son of God" does not mean that God had intercourse with Mary, or created sons for Himself, but that Jesus, as God, is the image of God, made manifest to men. As Muslims believe that the Quran is eternal, uncreated, and is the Word of God found in physical book form, they should be able to understand that Jesus is eternal, uncreated, and is the Living Word of God in physical living form.


Jesus manifested his eternal abiding glory to John - as opposed to the veiled form of a humble servant he had while he walked this earth - while John was imprisoned on the isle of Patmos, revealing himself as what he truly was and will forever be, God Almighty -

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 22:13, 16. "I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.".....(16) I Jesus have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 05:09 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

The Dajjal: Islam’s Antichrist

The third primary character that dominates Islamic eschatology is a man whose full title is Al-Maseeh (The Messiah) Ad-Dajjal, (The Liar/Deceiver). Usually just referred to as the Dajjal, he is a bizarre character whose description and story seem far more fantastic than either the Mahdi or the Muslim Jesus. There are numerous hadith that contain descriptions of the Dajjal. Here we will just touch on the most common of these traditions to give an overview of just who this mysterious and strange person is.

The Great Deceiver

The Dajjal is described as being a deceiver who will have miraculous powers and who will temporarily hold power over the whole earth:

The Prophet was warning us that in the last days there would be someone who would deceive all of humanity. The Dajjal will possess power over this world. Thus, Muslims must be careful not to have the love of the world in their hearts so they won’t leave their religion and follow him. He will be able to heal the sick by wiping his hand on them, like Jesus did, but with this deceit the Dajjal will lead people down the path to hell. Thus the Dajjal is the false Messiah, or Anti-Christ (Massih ad-Dajjal). He will pretend to be the Messiah, and deceive people by showing them amazing powers. 1

He is One Eyed

Possibly the most frequently quoted reference to the Dajjal is that he is blind in one eye. The Hadith however, are contradictory regarding which eye is blind:

Allah's Messenger made a mention of Dajjal in the presence of the people and said: Allah is not one-eyed and behold that Dajjal is blind of the right eye and his eye would be like a floating grape. 2

Allah's Messenger said: Dajjal is blind of left eye with thick hair and there would be a garden and fire with him and his fire would be a garden and his garden would be fire. 3


The Dajjal is sometimes said to have the word “Infidel” (Kaafir) written in-between his eyes, possibly on his forehead. But this word will only be perceptible to true Muslims, and no one else:

Allah's Messenger said: Dajjal is blind of one eye and there is written between his eyes the word "kaafir" (unbeliever/infidel). He then spelled the word as k. f. r., which every Muslim would be able to read. 4

Very Important is that; this word “Kafir” will be readable only by the believer, literate or illiterate. Non-believer: let him be educated from “Oxford” or “Harvard” will not be able to read it. 5

A False Miracle Worker

Sheikh Kabbani describes some of the Dajjal’s miraculous powers:

The Dajjal will have powers of the devil. He will terrorize the Muslims into following him, converting them into unbelief. He will conceal the truth and bring forth falsehood. The prophet said that the Dajjal will have the power to show the image of one’s dead ancestors on his hand, like a television screen. The relative will say, “Oh my son! This man is correct. I am in Paradise because I was good and I believed in him.” In reality that relative is in hell. If the relative says, “Believe in this man, I am in hell because I didn’t believe,” one must say to the Dajjal, “No, he is in Paradise. This is false.” 6

The Prophet said: the Dajjal will say to a Bedouin Arab, “what will you think if I bring your father and mother back to life for you? Will you bear witness that I am your lord? The Bedouin will say, “Yes.” So two devils will assume the appearance of his father and mother, and say, “O my son, follow him for he is your lord…” 7

The Dajjal Will Claim To Be Jesus Christ And Will Claim To Be Divine

The above tradition shows that the Dajjal’s deceptive signs will be for the purpose of leading people into believing that the Dajjal is actually their “lord”. Muslim scholars universally have concluded that the Dajjal will claim to be divine. According to the very well known Muslim scholar, Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips, the Dajjal, “will claim to be God”. 8

While there are no specific traditions that state such directly, as a result of the fact that the Dajjal is, according to Islamic tradition, the false Jewish Messiah who claims to be God, most Muslims have deduced that the Dajjal will thus claim to be Jesus Christ by name.

The Dajjal And His Magic Mule

Muslim Scholar Muhammad Ali ibn Zubair Ali says of the Dajjal, “ He will travel at great speeds and his means of conveyance will be a giant mule… He will travel the entire world.” 9 As strange as this is, it also bears a faint resemblance to Jesus the Messiah who also rode a donkey as he entered Jerusalem during the final week of his ministry.
Cities Of Refuge

It is said that there are three cities that the Dajjal may not enter; Mecca, Medina and Damascus. Muslims are encouraged to seek refuge from the Dajjal in one of these three cities:

The Prophet said, "Ad-Dajjal will come to Medina and find the angels guarding it. So Allah willing, neither Ad-Dajjal, nor plague will be able to come near it." 10

The coming of the Anti-Christ (Dajjal) must occur in the Last Days. This dreadful event is approaching, and in that time only three cities will be safe: Makka, Madina, and Sham (Damascus). If anyone wants safety in that time he will have to run to one of these three cities. 11

Apart from these three cities, it is said that the Dajjal will enter every single city, town and village in the world to test and possibly deceive every human alive. 12

A Surah Of Protection

Muslims believe that if they memorize a particular portion of the Quran that they will be protected from the Dajjal. It is somewhat like a verbal amulet that protects one from the powers of evil:

If the Dajjal comes upon someone who has memorized the first ten verses of Surat al Kahf (Chapter of the Cave) he cannot harm him. And whoever memorizes the last verses of Surat al-Kahf will have light on the day of Judgement. 13

He will be Jewish And Will Be Followed by Jews and Women

Based on various Islamic traditions, Muslims believe that the Dajjal will be Jewish. The title of a book by Muslim author Matloob Ahmed Qasmi, Emergence of the Dajjal, the Jewish King couldn’t make this point more clearly. Imam Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi of the Palestinian Authority articulated the Islamic perspective regarding the expectation of the Jewish people quite well in one of his sermons:

The Jews await the false Jewish messiah, while we await, with Allah's help… the Mahdi and Jesus, peace be upon him. Jesus's pure hands will murder the false Jewish messiah. Where? In the city of Lod, in Palestine. Palestine will be, as it was in the past, a graveyard for the invaders 14

Samuel Shahid, a Christian Arab scholar in his scholarly study of Islamic eschatology says of the Dajjal that he will be, “the embodiment of the Jewish hope and longing. The bulk of his army is recruited from the Jews.”15

As mentioned in the last chapter, the followers of the Dajjal will primarily consist of Jews and women. It is mentioned that women are very ignorant and as such are easily misled. Veliankode states, “Meanwhile, women will also fall to the deviant line of the Antichrist because of their unawareness and ignorance of Islam.” 16

Slain By The Muslim Jesus

As mentioned in the last chapter, it will be the Muslim Jesus who will kill the Dajjal and his followers:

Allah's Messenger said: …the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus son of Mary would descend and would lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allah (Dajjal) would see him… Allah would kill them by his (Jesus’) hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ). 17


1.Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, The Approach of Armageddon? An Islamic Perspective (Canada, Supreme Muslim Council of America, 2003), p. 223

2.Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 7005, reported by Ibn Umar

3.Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 7010, reported by Hudhalfa

4.Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 7009, reported by Anas b. Malik

5.Kamran R’ad, Freemasons and Dajjal, (London, Islamic Academy, 2003), p. 173

6.Kabbani 223-4

7.Sunan Ibn Majah #4067, related by Abu Umamam Al-Bahili, quoted in Kabbani, p. 225

8.Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Ph.D. Ad-Dajjal, The Antichrist, (Alexandria, Soundknowledge Audio Publishers, 2001)

9.Mohammad Ali Ibn Zubair Ali, Signs Of Qiyama, (Abdul Naeem,New Delhi, 2004), p.17

10.Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 248, Narrated by Anas bin Malik:

11.Kabbani, p. 226


13.Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur, as quoted in Kabbani, p.227

14.Excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Palestinian Authority Imam Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi at the Sheikh 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza City, broadcast live on April 12, 2002 by Palestinian Authority television

15.Samuel Shahid, The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study of Christian-Islamic Eschatology (US, Xulon, 2005), p. 254

16.Sidheeque M.A. Veinakode, p. 312

17.Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6924, reported by Abu Huraira
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 05:19 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb The Messiah Dajjal Has Secretly Started Work

The Messiah Dajjal Has Secretly Started Work


It is revealed in a great many reliable hadith that the Messiah Dajjal (Antichrist) will appear in the End Times, the final age before the Day of Judgment, turn people away from religious moral values, and wreak great confusion and oppression on Earth.

The Dajjal wishes to depict his own twisted ideas to Christians as true and legitimate by causing them to ignore the teachings of the Gospels. If Christians who are keenly awaiting the coming of the Messiah, especially the Evangelicals, are deceived by the Dajjal's falsehoods and follow in his path, then they will feel terrible shame and regret because of the slaughter they engaged in when Prophet 'Isa (as) finally comes.

In one of his hadith our Prophet (saas) has drawn attention to the terrible scale of the strife of the Dajjal in the words "Since the birth of Adam (as) till the advent of the Judgment Day there is no fitnah (tribulation) much greater than that of Dajjal," (1) and warned all people against this peril. In another hadith he indicates that the strife of the Dajjal is a grave danger not only for Muslims but for all people in the words "Every prophet came to warn his nation of the deception of the Dajjal." (2)

It would seem from the fact that the portents of the appearance of the Dajjal related by our Prophet (saas) in the hadith have one by one come to pass that the Messiah Dajjal has already appeared. A great many events experienced on Earth are in complete agreement with the information provided by our Prophet (saas) and Islamic scholars regarding the time the Messiah Dajjal will appear and the deeds he will perform. The great Islamic scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi has reported that the power and rule of the Dajjal are based on violence and oppression in the words "...The Dajjal appears to have greater dominion than they deserve, acquired through great oppression and great cruelty and great violence and brutality." (3) The increasing violence, anarchy and chaos, the slaughter and torture, and state and organizational terrorist acts in recent times all show that the Dajjal is at work and is directing all of these.
In his hadith our Prophet (saas) has reported that the Dajjal will resort to all means to turn people away from the path of goodness and will bring large masses of people under his influence by means of deception and cheating. He has stated that in this way the Dajjal will lead people as he wishes in the hadith "The Dajjal has many followers. Many people will line up alongside him." (4)

In order to achieve these aims the Dajjal will seek to deceive believers just as much as he will those who have chosen denial. It is also revealed in hadith that with the propaganda and tactics he employs, the Dajjal will succeed in deceiving many people whose faith is weak, and will thus gather support:

Whoever hears about the Dajjal should keep away from him. By Allah! One will come to him and he will think that he is a believer, but he will follow him [Dajjal] on account of the doubts that he will raise in his mind. (5)
When you hear that the Dajjal has appeared, flee him. Because a person may go to his side while yet intending to deny him, but will remain and follow him. That is because there are many things with the Dajjal that fill the heart with misgivings. (6)

It is indicated in the hadith of our Prophet (saas) that to that end the Dajjal will approach the members of the three revealed religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims, with different methods, and will seek to wreak terrible strife and corruption by turning them against one another. It is revealed in hadith that as a result of this strife of the Dajjal's, the world will become the stage for a great war, that blood will be shed and the numbers of dead will rise dramatically. It is reported that nowhere will be beyond the Dajjal's sights:

[At that time] there will be much tribulation, confusion and disorder, and people will kill one another. People will take their own lives and disasters will enfold the earth. At such a troubled time ... the accursed Dajjal ... will appear. (7)

... The Dajjal will emerge from a rocky place, and will swiftly cause violent mischief on the right and on the left [in other words by sending armies to both sides]. (8)

There is no city which will not be vanquished by the armies of the Dajjal.(9)

In order to depict anarchy, terror, violence, war and bloodshed as supposedly legitimate, the Dajjal seeks to deceive some believers with the falsehood that these disasters must inevitably take place in the End Times. According to the Dajjal's strategy, in order for the glad tidings imparted regarding the End Times to take place, civilizations must first turn against one another, and there must be a terrible war. According to this error, before the appearance of the Messiah, who is expected in the End Times, a terrible battle known as Armageddon must take place, between the Jews and some Christians who support them on the one hand, and Muslims and Catholics on the other. According to the indoctrination of the Dajjal, "there must be a period of disaster lasting seven years; Jews and other believers must be oppressed during that period; and two-thirds of Jews must die in the battle of Armageddon and the lands of Israel must be devastated." By means of a series of figurative, but groundless interpretations of holy scriptures, the Dajjal seeks to make Christians and Jews believe that the Messiah can only come to earth once all these conditions have been fulfilled. According to this belief, inculcated in Christians by the Dajjal, the Jews will win that battle under the leadership of Prophet 'Isa (as), will follow him, and will return to Christianity.

The Dajjal seeks to lead a number of Christian groups in the direction of confusion by making them believe that a number of preconditions need to be met if Prophet 'Isa (as) is to return to earth. The fact is, however, that there is no confusion here at all. Dajjalism is the absence of belief in Allah. The presence of belief in Allah is Messiahhood. The coming of Prophet 'Isa (as) is a miracle from Allah. However, this is not a matter that requires confusion beforehand. Throughout history Allah has supported prophets with a great many miracles. Allah shows people a great many miracles of creation at every moment of their lives. Features such as the perfect equilibrium in the universe, the extraordinarily complex structure in the cell, the marvels in animals and plants, and the flawless functioning of the human body are all great miracles. Allah creates many beauties so that believers may perfect their faith. The coming of Prophet 'Isa (as) is a beautiful event created by Allah for joy of faith, and is a gift of faith. When the time appointed by Allah comes, He will show Prophet 'Isa (as) to all mankind. Involving confusion and many preconditions in such a beautiful event must be seen as part of the Dajjal's devilish plan, and people must be on their guard against that snare.

The Messiah Dajjal Wants Chaos in the Middle East…

The Messiah Dajjal seeks to portray chaos and slaughter as necessary developments in order to make people believe in his system, and for that reason he encourages even innocent children to be murdered.

In this way the Dajjal is trying to make Christians to believe that before the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as) there must be war, chaos and a climate of anarchy on earth. He approves of the idea that the Iraq war assumed a key role in these portents of the Last Day they expect to come about. He causes those people who fall under his spell to believe that speaking of peace before the coming of the Messiah is to go astray, to oppose the holy scriptures, and even Dajjalism. By these means he convinces them that tension in the Middle East should not be lowered. (10) He portrays countries that are opposed to war, and peace movements, as part of the movement of the Dajjal, and intends to make sure the climate of war in the region continues so that there should never be peace there until the coming of the Messiah.

It is clear that there are a number of problems in some Middle East countries, stemming from lack of education and the fact that a culture of democracy has not fully developed. However, the way to resolve these must never be by resorting to war and violence. It must not be forgotten that war always inflicts loss and destruction on both sides. Indeed, in the Iraq War, many innocent Iraqis are dying, losing relatives or being crippled. Similarly, a great many foreign troops in the region are also dying. The loss of these troops, each one of whom is an educated, cultured young person, is a great loss to both their families and their countries. Yet the fact is that it would be easy for both sides to come by a solution without suffering any material or spiritual losses or loss of life. If people live by the love, tolerance and justice required by the moral values commanded by Allah, then all problems can be resolved by peaceful means, and compromise can easily be achieved.

A great many regions of the Middle East are sacred for Christians, Jews and Muslims. These areas are in any case the lands of the forefathers of Christians and Jews. All the prophets loved and respected by Muslims lived in these lands and communicated their message there. These lands, which are most valuable and sacred to all of us, are very wide. Members of the three revealed religions must be able to live as they wish, be free to perform their religious observances, engage in trade and leave in peace and security on these lands. The underground resources possessed by the region, especially oil, can be made use of in such a way that everyone can benefit from them equally. An atmosphere of peace and security is essential for this. What the region needs is for societies to progress in terms of art, medicine and science, for an environment in which fundamental human rights and individual rights are protected to be established, and for a full concept of democracy to be installed. In connection with this it is also important that economic development should be ensured. However, it is a great loss to spend resources that could be set aside for these things on military expenses and weaponry instead. To that end, sincere believers must join forces, and existing means must be used to establish that alliance rather than on waging war.
Problems such as these in the region stem from the fact that people fail to live fully by religious moral values, and from the influence of such ideologies as materialism and atheism, supported by the Dajjal. This, of course, is not a problem limited to the Middle East alone. Moral degeneration caused by people having turned away from religious moral values, serial killings and perversions of various kinds can be seen in a great many regions of the world. What sincere believers need to do is to make genuine endeavors for these practices outside religious moral values to be eliminated. Naturally, the Dajjal will seek to spread this situation all over the world, and will emerge with various tactics and cunning plans in order for the environment of war and terror to persist.

Christians Must Be on Their Guard against the Messiah Dajjal's Snares
Christians and Jews must be on their guard against all these snares of the Dajjal, because the Dajjal will seek to depict all these as religious stipulations. The Dajjal plots against Christians who sincerely believe in the Gospels and tries to attract them to a perverted ideology that actually conflicts with their own sacred texts. He wants to portray his own twisted ideas as right and legitimate by causing Christians to ignore the teachings of the Gospels. In fact, he is laying enormous snares by emerging in the name of Allah and depicting the truth as superstition, and superstition as the truth. He causes them to believe that they are acting in the name of religion and good, and encourages them towards evil by using the name of Allah. In the Qur'an, people are warned against this method employed by the Dajjal: "Mankind! Allah's promise is true. Do not let the life of this world delude you and do not let the Deluder delude you about Allah" (Surah Fatir: 5). It is also reported in the hadith of our Prophet (saas) that the Dajjal will deceive people by depicting good as evil, and evil as good:

He will also have Paradise and Hell with him. Though his Paradise will appear as Jannah [Paradise], in reality it will be Hell, and likewise, though his Hell will appear like Jahannam [Hell], in reality it will be Paradise. (11)
Then the Dajjal will come forth accompanied by a river and fire. He who falls into his fire will certainly receive his reward, and have his load taken off him, but he who falls into his river will have his load retained and his reward taken off him. (12)

Narrated by Hudhaifa;
The Prophet said about Ad-Dajjal that he would have water and fire with him: (what would seem to be) fire, would be cold water and (what would seem to be) water, would be fire. (13)

All the preconditions set out by the Dajjal for the coming of the Messiah, allegedly based on holy scriptures, actually consist of a trap constructed by the Dajjal so that evil should rule the world. As is revealed in the description in the hadith, "His Hell is Paradise, and his Paradise Hell," the Dajjal seeks to portray good as evil and evil as good by distorting everything.

The Dajjal has emerged before Christians at a most unexpected time and employing deceptive tactics they never expected. Approaching them by using the name of Allah and basing his desires on sacred justifications, he has deceived a number of Christians who were expecting his coming under very different conditions. The Dajjal is trying to bring part of the Christian community under his sway by depicting love, peace and security on earth as being part of the Dajjal system, and his own ideological system as a requirement of the religion in which they believe. Telling them to "Believe in Prophet 'Isa" or that "This is commanded in the Gospels," he approaches them by portraying what he wants them to do as perfectly legitimate. His actual target is to establish large communities whom he can direct as he wishes in the struggle against Prophet 'Isa (as), who will return to earth in the End Times. In this way he intends to inflict terrible chaos, confusion, corruption and destruction on the world by turning communities against one another.

He portrays peace, liberation and security, and the achievement of peace in the Middle East as Dajjal-like movement engaged in opposition to holy scriptures; bloodshed, the ruthless killing of innocent men, women and children, and the spread of pitiless savagery over the region are all portrayed as a so-called religious observance. He portrays Catholics, who believe in the same scriptures as them and who recognize Prophet 'Isa (as) as their prophet, and who perform the same acts of worship, as enemies who need to be eliminated. Similarly, he portrays Muslims, who like them believe in Allah, love and respect the same prophets, possess the same moral principles, and who are awaiting the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as) with the same excitement, as a community needing to be combated.

The fact is, however, that Christians, Jews and Muslims are not one another's enemies; on the contrary, they are one another's allies against the atheism supported by the Dajjal. Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in Allah in the same way, and love and respect the same prophets. Prophet Ibrahim (as), Prophet Ishmael (as), Prophet Ishaq (as), Prophet Ya'qub (as), Prophet Yusuf (as), Prophet Musa (as) or Prophet Dawud (as) are just as important to Muslims as they are to Jews. In the same way, Prophet 'Isa (as) is just as valuable and sacred to Muslims as he is to Christians. The entire Islamic world has been announcing the glad tidings of this holy individual's return to earth for the last 1,400 years and preparing for this historic event with the greatest enthusiasm. In addition, the lands lived on by Jews and Muslims, and where they serve Allah, are just as sacred to Muslims as they are to Jews. That being the case, there can be no legitimate reason for a climate of war, chaos and anarchy, or for bloodshed on lands that are sacred to members of all three revealed religions. This subject needs to be considered in a most rational manner: Why should living in peace and security be Dajjalism? Why should centuries of fear and savagery, and catastrophes, be necessary in order for the Messiah to appear? Why should there be no peace, and why should war be sought to be continued, until the coming of the Messiah? Why should two-thirds of Jews have to die? Why should people who believe in the same religion wage war on one another? Why should Catholics and Muslims be the enemies of Jews and other Christians? Why should innocent Christian, or Jewish or Muslim children be killed for nothing?

There is no legitimate reason for any of these things. The Dajjal is trying to portray peace, liberation, brotherhood, love, compassion and affection as actions belonging to the Dajjal. In this way, he is trying to achieve his aims by turning Jews, Christians and Muslims against one another.

It is a great blessing that Christians are devout, fear Allah, feel a sincere love and devotion for the prophets and Prophet 'Isa (as), and engage in the preparations for his second coming. Yet it is most important that they should not fall into the Dajjal's trap. Each one of the conditions he is trying to make Christians blindly believe in, and which he suggests have to be fulfilled in order for Prophet 'Isa (as) to return, are part of a trap that the Dajjal has prepared in order to inflict disappointment and corruption on mankind. His aim is thus to establish a system which will literally lock in terror, violence and anarchy, by bringing a large mass of people under his spell.

All Christians need to see that this is a tactic being employed by the Dajjal, and to respond to this grave danger by keeping to the path indicated by Allah, in a manner appropriate to religious moral values. All the prophets have told the communities among whom they lived that the Dajjal would deceive people by such methods as these. Indeed, his most devilish method of deception will be to seek to influence sincere believers and turn them against one another by appearing in the name of Allah and religion. The Dajjal needs to be evaluated in the light of this information, and people need to be on their guard against such snares laid by him as these.

This Indoctrination by the Dajjal Conflicts with the Torah and the Gospel
The indoctrination carried out by the Dajjal by imputing false interpretations of the Old Testament, suggesting that there needs to be war between Muslims and Catholics, and other Christians and Jews, that the climate of violence and tension needs to be maintained, and that peace has to be prevented, are in complete contradiction of both the New Testament and the Old. This distorted analysis is the complete moral antithesis of the moral values taught to Christians by Prophet 'Isa (as). Christianity is based on love, peace and tolerance. It is written in the Gospel of Matthew that Prophet 'Isa (as) told his disciples to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you..."(Matthew: 5:44). In the Gospel of Luke it is revealed that he said, "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also…" (Luke: 6:29). Nowhere in the New Testament are there any provisions legitimizing violence. There is very definitely no room for any idea favoring the killing of innocent people. Christianity is a religion of love and peace. In the Gospels, Christians are commanded to love even their enemies, to do good to all mankind, and to respond to evil with good. When one looks at the Gospels, one sees that Prophet 'Isa (as) always recommended love, peace and friendship:

"Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else." (1 Thessalonians 5: 15)
Remind them … to obey … showing all humility to all men. (Paul's Epistle to Titus 3: 1-2)

Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honour giving preference to one another. (Romans 12: 10)

Another matter emphasized in Gospel statements is the eradication of discrimination, conflict and disputes, and for peace to be maintained by people uniting around a single idea:

"…all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (Corinthians 1: 10)

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends… (Romans 12: 18-19)
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5: 43-44)

The Dajjal's indoctrination encouraging violence also conflicts with the Old Testament, on which some Christians base their beliefs regarding signs of the Last Day. Stipulations in the Torah include to "stop one's ears against plots of murder" and to "shut one's eyes against contemplating evil" (Isaiah 33:15). Christians and Jews who sincerely believe in Allah need to live by the moral values which they adhere to in so many spheres with regard to these provisions in the Bible, and to support peace. Some quotations from the Torah in which violence and oppression are condemned and peace, love, compassion and proper moral values lauded read as follows:

Do not pervert justice… Do not do anything that endangers your neighbour's life... Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself… (Leviticus 19:15-18)
"Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD Allah Almighty will be with you, just as you say He is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts..." (Amos 5:14-15)

Another provision in the Torah is that blood should not be shed and that the lands of the righteous should not be attacked:

Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed. (Deuteronomy 19:10)

Do not lie in wait like an outlaw against a righteous man's house, do not raid his dwelling place… Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove… (Proverbs 24:15-18)

Although the texts of the Gospel and the Torah were later corrupted, they still include some true provisions compatible with the Qur'an. Devout Christians and Jews must behave in the light of these statements in the Old and New Testaments. Otherwise, as well as contravening their own sacred texts, they need to see that they will actually be serving the Dajjal. It must not be forgotten that the Dajjal's initiatives to shed blood in the Middle East and the rest of the world can only be prevented by the defense of proper moral values.

Muslims Must Also Be on Their Guard against the Wiles of the Dajjal
The Dajjal is trying to use another stratagem against Muslims, similar to that he wishes to employ against Christians. He wishes to bring Muslims under his control in order to create terrible strife and wickedness on earth. By deceiving Muslims, too, he seeks to encourage them to resort to violence in response to the violence aimed at them, and thus quench the devil's thirst for bloodshed. On the other hand, he is also striving to turn Muslims against one another by encouraging terror amongst them. In this way he aims to increase the climate of fear and terror, and by shedding the blood of the innocent to turn the world into a place of strife where his own moral values can prevail.

The great Islamic scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi has warned all Muslims against this peril, and said that the Dajjal would put pressure on the Islamic world and inflict difficult and hard times on devout Muslims:
According to a noble Hadith of the Prophet (saas), noxious and awesome persons like Sufyan and the Dajjal will come to rule over the godless at the end of time, and exploiting the greed, discord and hatred amongst the Muslims and mankind, they will need only a small force to reduce humanity to anarchy and the vast world of Islam to slavery. (14)

Devout Muslims should be aware of this danger and not fall into the Dajjal's trap. As a requirement of the verse "Allah loves those who fight in His Way in ranks like well-built walls" (Surat as-Saff: 4), Muslims must act in a spirit of unshakable unity and union. They must take the moral values of our Prophet (saas), who always sought the path of understanding even with the idolaters, as their role model; they must scrupulously avoid disputes and disagreement. In fact, our Prophet (saas) has warned Muslims against such a danger by reminding them that in the event that believers turn against one another they may fall under the influence of the Dajjal:

In those days believers whose relations between one another are defective will be unable to escape being the target of the Dajjal. (15)
It can be seen from these words of our Prophet (saas) that believers who wish to be protected from the strife of the Dajjal must act in the awareness that all Muslims are brothers. It has been revealed in the Qur'an that the faithful must support one another in solidarity, otherwise there will be great corruption and chaos on earth:

Those who disbelieve are the friends and protectors of one another. If you do not act in this way, there will be turmoil in the land and great corruption. (Surat al-Anfal: 73)

Muslims must also behave towards Christians and Jews in the manner required by the moral values of the Qur'an, in the same way as they must amongst themselves, and must be on their guard against the wiles of the Dajjal in that regard too. In many verses of the Qur'an Allah has revealed the importance of proper moral values, goodness, and responding to evil with good, and has commanded Muslims to treat Jews and Christians, in other words the People of the Book, with good intentions and tolerance. In the Qur'an our Lord commands people to rule with justice, with no discrimination between people, to protect people's rights, to have no allowance for oppression, to support the oppressed against the oppressor, and to help those in need. This concept of justice requires the rights of both sides to be protected when a decision has to be reached, a multi-sided consideration, unprejudiced thought, neutrality, uprightness, honesty, tolerance, compassion and affection. Muslims must always behave in accordance with the verses of the Qur'an against the Dajjal's deceptions of this kind, with patience, submission to Allah, and moderation, and must respond with love and affection. Allah has revealed in the Qur'an that when believers encounter evil they must respond with goodness:

A good action and a bad action are not the same. Repel the bad with something better and, if there is enmity between you and someone else, he will be like a bosom friend. (Surah Fussilat: 34)

One of the finest models on this subject is the moral values displayed by our Prophet (saas). Prophet Muhammad (saas) always behaved most justly and compassionately towards Jews and Christians. He wanted an environment based on love and compromise to be established between Muslims and members of the other revealed religions. In the early years of Islam, some Muslims who suffered oppression at the hands of the polytheists of Mecca lived in friendship and peace with Christians by sheltering with the Christian king of Ethiopia, Negus (or al-Najashi). Believers who migrated to Medina with our Prophet (saas) developed a model of living with the Jews in Medina that constitutes a model for all subsequent generations. During the spread of Islam, the tolerance shown to Jewish and Christian communities in Arabia went down in history as an important example of Muslims' tolerance and justice towards the People of the Book.

Under the provision of the Constitution of Medina that "The Jews of Banu Awf [non-Muslim minorities] are a community along with the believers. To the Jews their religion, and to the Muslim their religion," the foundations of the tolerance that Muslims showed towards Jewish traditions and belief were again laid in the time of our Prophet (saas).

Another example of these moral values of Muslims was experienced at the time of the Ottoman Empire. At a time when the world was full of intolerance and oppression, the Ottoman Empire went down in history for the great tolerance it displayed towards Jewish communities. Throughout history these Muslim moral values have resulted in Jews sheltering in Islamic lands at various times when they were suffering trouble and difficulty. The Ottoman Empire opened its doors to the Jews who were unjustly expelled from Spain, and the Ottomans sheltered thousands of Jews who had been exiled from their lands. Jews and Muslims lived for centuries in peace and security in Muslim lands. Jewish subjects of the Ottoman Empire were always grateful for the tolerance shown them by the Sublime Porte.

The same thing applied to Christians under Ottoman rule. Christians, too, found tolerance, peace and freedom in Ottoman lands. In the Middle East, which has been in a state of chaos and conflict since the first half of the 20th century, a climate of peace and security was established that lasted throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule. Although Christians and Jews did not acknowledge each other's religions, they enjoyed dialogue and compromise in this tolerant environment established by the Ottoman administration. Under Ottoman sovereignty, Jews worshipped in their synagogues, Christians in their churches and Muslims in their mosques, and members of the three religions lived alongside one another in peace.
The proper moral values, tolerance, and peaceful understanding demonstrated towards the People of the Book by our Prophet (saas) and the Ottoman administration must be a role model for all Muslims. As revealed by Allah in the verse "Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way-except in the case of those of them who do wrong-saying, 'We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our Allah and your Allah are one and we submit to Him,'" (Surat al-'Ankabut: 46) no concession must be made in a struggle to be waged "in the kindest way." On the contrary, it must not be forgotten that a climate of strife and chaos will emerge as the Dajjal wishes. Muslims must approach the People of the Book with respect, love and understanding, based on these foundations, and with the moral values to which they adhere must transmit the call to "unite in a common proposition" in the kindest manner possible:

Say, "People of the Book! Come to a proposition which is the same for us and you-that we should worship none but Allah and not associate any partners with Him and not take one another as lords besides Allah." If they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims." (Surah Al 'Imran: 64)
When people act in the light of this spirit of love and tolerance imparted by Qur'anic moral values, the Dajjal's stratagem aimed at turning civilizations against one another and making the world the scene of bloodshed and war will, by the will of Allah, be thwarted.

The False 'Isa: The Messiah Dajjal
As has been described throughout the course of this discussion, the Dajjal is indoctrinating Christian communities regarding the occurrence of various false portents of the Last Day for the appearance of the Messiah, and is encouraging them to bring these false portents to pass. Once these conditions have been met, the Dajjal will then make claims regarding the "False Messiah" as a requirement of the false order he will have established. Many false Messiahs will appear before the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as), but the Messiah Dajjal will be the most violent of these.

According to the indications in the hadith, various groups among Christians and Jews whom he brings under his influence will organise these phenomena and will portray the Dajjal to people as Prophet 'Isa (as). It is revealed in the hadith of our Prophet (saas) that the Dajjal will first claim "prophethood" and then "so-called divinity" (Allah is truly beyond what they ascribe to Him):

When the Dajjal appears ... everyone will imagine him to be a genuine guide and will flock to his side, and he will continue his work in the same way when he comes to Kufa, and will lay claim to prophethood ... Rational people who see this will depart from him ... Later still, he will lay claim to divine status, and will even say "I am Allah." (16)

He will start by saying that he is a Prophet, but there will be no Prophet after me. Then he will say, "I am your Lord," but you will never see your Lord until you die. (17)

… They [the devils] will say to him [the Dajjal], "We are your helpers and under your command." He will then say to them, "Hurry and tell people that I am their Allah…" (18)

Imam Sharani reported that the Dajjal's claim to divine status would bring nations under his control:

The Dajjal will come to the people and invite them (to a wrong religion); they will affirm their faith in him and respond to him. (19)

It can be seen from all this information that the Dajjal will first portray himself to people as a guide, then will claim to be the Messiah, and then declare himself to be divine (Allah is truly beyond what they ascribe to Him). In order to convince large masses of people, the Dajjal will make use of technological means and use the most advanced special illusive effects and techniques of hypnosis. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi has spoken of these methods to which the Dajjal will resort:

The Dajjal possesses hypnotic properties along the lines of spiritualism ... This unbeliever whose only aim is this world attacks spiritual values with a brazenness and courage stemming from absolute unbelief. People who do not know the true state of affairs will regard this as extraordinary power and courage. (20)

Elsewhere, Bediuzzaman describes the trickery the Dajjal will use to deceive people:
The worst of these who will lead them, the Dajjal, possesses marvels linked to phenomena of spiritualism and magnetism [with such phenomena as hypnotism and contact with the jinns], and will go still further, and will declare his own divinity [Allah is truly beyond what they ascribe to Him], conceiving of a kind of divinity for his forced and false rule... (21)

As stated by Bediuzzaman, the Dajjal will be a mastery of such deceptions as hypnotism and illusion, and will perform fake miracles by means of technological special effects, thus depicting himself as Prophet 'Isa (as). In the hadith of our Prophet (saas) it is described how he will influence people by means of these fake miracles:

He [Dajjal] will say to a Bedouin, "What do you think if I bring your father and mother back to life for you? Will you bear witness that I am your Lord?" The Bedouin will say; "Yes," so two devils will assume the appearance of his father and mother… (22)

At this the Dajjal will ask his villainous people "If I now kill this man and then resurrect him, will you have any doubts about my claim to be divine?" (23)
He will be given power over one person, whom he will kill and cut in two with a saw. Then he will say, "Look at this slave of mine, now I will resurrect him..." (24)

According to the hadith, in claiming a false divine status for himself the Dajjal will call people back from the grave by means of trickery, and present himself as if he resurrected the dead, putting on an unfamiliar and astonishing show for the masses. Christians will think that all these are the miracles they believe Prophet 'Isa (as) would perform, and will thus be easily convinced of the alleged divinity of the Dajjal. Many people will be affected by these exaggerated displays staged by the Dajjal, and will conclude that he is the real Prophet 'Isa (as).

All these ruses of the Dajjal's described so far are compatible with the information about the Dajjal provided in the hadith of our Prophet (saas), in commentaries by Islamic scholars, and in the sacred texts of other religions. It is evident in the light of that information that the activities he organizes are Dajjal-like ones. Therefore, Christians, Jews and Muslims must act in the awareness of this and be careful not to fall victim to the Dajjal's ruses.

The Dajjal Will Continue to Deceive People until the Coming of Prophet 'Isa (as)

The Dajjal is attempting to deceive Christians in the name of preparing the groundwork for the coming of the Messiah. Making preparations for the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as) is of course a great service and is an expression of very pleasing love and respect shown to the prophet.

However, the Dajjal aims to make the people he takes under his spell do this by very different means, depicting oppression and bloodshed as legitimate. In fact, according to the indications in the hadith, the Dajjal's endeavors in this regard will not come to an end until Prophet 'Isa (as) returns to earth, and he will continue to deceive the people he gathers round him in the name of service to Allah and to religion, and loyalty to Prophet 'Isa (as). Neither the unmasking of these wiles of the Dajjal, nor warning people who fall under his spell and incite terror, violence, war and bloodshed will be enough to halt the Dajjal. Some Christians will pay no heed to these warnings, because of the Dajjal making the claims exactly as they are expecting, his appearing at the expected time, and his performing fake marvels that they imagine to be miracles. The strife of the Dajjal, the number of his supporters and the extent of their Dajjal-like actions will increase still further (Allah knows best, of course).

However, it must not be forgotten here that these things will be experienced because they assume that form in destiny. Neither the Dajjal nor those who support him possess any power of their own. Some people think that they are preparing the necessary portents of the Last Day in order for Prophet 'Isa (as) to appear, but it is actually Allah Who is creating these. Those who are making great efforts for Prophet 'Isa (as) to come will attain the result they wish for. Prophet 'Isa (as) will return. However, his coming will be because Allah willed and appointed in destiny, not because the people in question have readied the requisite conditions in the light of their own beliefs. That is because there is no question of anyone having the power to do anything unless Allah so wishes.

In the same way, the Dajjal's portraying his own desires to one group of Christians as legitimate and directing them is also taking place because that is the destiny specified by Allah. Otherwise the Dajjal has appeared exactly in the manner described, and it can be seen from all the portents that he is indeed the Dajjal. Again, however, since that has been determined in destiny, he will succeed in deceiving certain groups from among Christians and Jews. Indeed, despite all these warnings the Dajjal will continue to deceive and plot, and those around him will fail to recognise his false countenance. This will continue to be so until the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as), and Christian communities and other people will only realize these facts with the appearance of the true Messiah.
With the Coming of the True Messiah 'Isa, the Strife of the Dajjal Will Disappear Like Salt Melting in Water

All the Dajjal's stratagems will only be thwarted with the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as). When the Dajjal sees Prophet 'Isa (as), he will dissolve away like salt in water; all his deceptions will be revealed, he will be humiliated in the public eye and will suffer a terrible defeat. It will become plain that all the fake miracles he performed in claiming to be the Messiah were mere deceptions; all his hypnotism, illusions, technological displays and mass shows will be neutralized. This defeat of the Dajjal by means of Prophet 'Isa (as) is reported in the hadith of our Prophet (saas):

When the enemy of Allah [Dajjal] see him [Prophet 'Isa], it will (disappear) just as salt dissolves in water and if he [Prophet 'Isa] were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely. Allah would kill them by his hand. (25)

The son of Mary will kill the Dajjal at the gate of Ludd. (26)

As is revealed in the hadith, the place where the Dajjal will be defeated is Jerusalem. When Prophet 'Isa (as) returns to earth he will encounter the Dajjal at Beit al-Makdis (the Masjid al-Aqsa) and, again as revealed in the hadith, even the breath of Prophet 'Isa (as) will be sufficient for the strife of the Dajjal to be eliminated:

... It is impossible for any unbeliever who scents his [Prophet 'Isa'] breath not to die. The fact that the Dajjal is a liar will radiate out in waves. Dajjalism will be overthrown and his intellectual system destroyed. (27)

Every non-believer who would smell the odour of his [Prophet 'Isa'] self would die and his breath would reach as far as he would be able to see. He would then search for him [Dajjal] until he would catch hold of him at the gate of Ludd and would kill him. (28)

In the light of certain developments that are taking place today, the Dajjal has already settled in this place where he will be defeated. Certain signs show that supporters seeking to set up a false Messiah under false conditions may be hiding the Dajjal in broad facilities they have established under the Masjid al-Aqsa. These people who support the Dajjal may be trying to give the impression that he is the true Messiah by giving the site a mystical appearance (Allah knows best, of course).

The Dajjal wil remain in this temporary location until the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as), the true Messiah. By Allah's leave, however, he will be destroyed by means of Prophet 'Isa (as) before he can construct his temple there.
This situation the Dajjal will encounter is recalled in the verse "Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through it and it vanishes clean away!" (Surat al-Anbiya': 18) In another verse, "Say: 'Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Falsehood is always bound to vanish'" (Surat al-Isra': 81), it is reported that truth will always vanquish falsehood, and this shows that all the stratagems of the Dajjal will eventually be thwarted.

The Responsibility Incumbent on People with True Faith
With the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as) and the Mahdi, those paganistic beliefs and philosophies that deny the infinite might of Allah that the Dajjal seeks to have prevail on earth will be utterly defeated. When people come to live by Qur'anic moral values, the world will be freed from wars, conflicts, hostility, oppression and injustice; and an age of peace, happiness and security will dawn for mankind. Therefore, no matter which belief they have adopted, believers who are sincerely preparing for the coming of Prophet 'Isa (as) should engage in endeavors to construct the infrastructure for such an environment and strive to prevent all forms of discrimination and conflict.

Sincere Christian believers must reveal that the false portents of the Last Day that encourage war, mass slaughter and bloodshed, which the Dajjal makes people believe are obligatory, are in no way compatible with Christian teaching, which supports peace and love. They must show those people who support this idea the error of their situation, and must call them to the truth. With the efforts in this regard of Christians and Muslims possessed of common sense, the increase in tension that is being sought in many parts of the world can, by Allah's leave, be prevented. The need for this morality is recalled in the Qur'an by revealing that Christians and Jews who perform good deeds receive their recompense in the sight of Allah:

Those with faith, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who believe in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Surat al-Baqara: 62)

It must not be forgotten that inciting war and preventing peace, as the Dajjal encourages some Christians to do, will inflict great losses, tears and suffering on both sides. In the event that sincere believers join forces, however, the stratagems the Dajjal is using to turn the world into an arena of war will, by Allah's leave, be thwarted.

1. Sahih Muslim; Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rasul Barzanji , Al-Isha'ah li-ashrat al-sa'ah, p. 225.
2. Sahih Muslim, English translation, Kitab Al-Fitan Wa Ashrat 'As-Sa'ah, Hadith No. 7000.
3. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Collection, Rays of Light, 469
4. At-Tabrizi; Mishkat al-Masabih, 1382/1962, 3:38.2
5. Kanz al-Ummal, no.2057.
6. Abu Dawud, 14.
7. Mukhtasar Tazkirah Qurtubi, 482.
8. Sunan Ibn Majah; Mukhtasar Tazkirah Qurtubi, 493-494.
9. Sahih Muslim, vol. 8, 500.
10. Grace Hallsell, Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War.
11. Sahih Muslim.
12. Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 4232, Narrated Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman.
13. Sahih Bukhari
14. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Collection, The twenthy second letter; al-Hakim; Ibn hibban)
15. Al-Hakim, 4:529-530.
16. al-Tabarani narrated from b. Mu'tamar, the Companion of the Prophet (saas).
17. Sahih Muslim; Sunan Ibn Majah, 4077.
18. Sahih Muslim, al-fitan, Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Fitan Wa Ashrat 'As-Sa'ah (English translation), Hadith No. 7000.
19. Sahih Muslim, 7015.
20 Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Collection, The Flashes.
21 Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Collection, The Letters, 55.
22 Sunan Ibn Majah, 4077.
23 Sahih Bukhari, vol. 15, 6981.
24 Sahih Muslim, 4077.
25 Sahih Muslim, 6924
26 Hadith at-Tirmidhi.
27 Sunen Ibn Majah, 10/32.
28 Sahih Muslim.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 05:24 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Dajjal - Masih ad-Dajjal (Arabic: الدّجّال, literally "The Impostor-Christ")

Dajjal - Masih ad-Dajjal (Arabic: الدّجّال, literally "The Impostor-Christ")

is an evil figure in Islamic eschatology. He is to appear pretending to be god at a time in the future, before Yawm al-Qiyamah (The Day of Resurrection, Judgment Day). It is said that he will have one eye damaged and the other will be working. It is also said that he will have the word " kafir" on his forehead.Contents

[edit] Usage

Dajjal is a common Arabic word, used in the sense of "false prophet", but Masih ad-Dajjal, with the definite article, refers to "the impostor", a specific end-of times deceiver. The term al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl (Arabic for "the false messiah") is a literal translation of the Syriac term Mšīḥā Daggālā, which had been in the common vocabulary of the Middle East and adapted into the Arabic language 400 years prior to the Qur'an via the Pe****ta (which uses that term instead of the Greek "Antichristos")

[edit] Eschatology

The belief is based around the events prior to the Day of Judgment around the Second Coming of The Christ, when ad-Dajjal who is blind in his right eye, shall gather an army of those he has deceived and lead them in a war against Jesus, who shall be accompanied by an army of the righteous.
He will appear somewhere between Syria and Iraq, at which time Jesus will return and Imam Mahdi will defeat ad-Dajjal in Palestine. He will travel the whole world in forty days preaching his falsehood but will be unable to enter Mecca or Medina.

Linguistically, the reason for his name being al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl is simply because masih is a title given to one who travels extensively to increase their influence in the world. Jesus is also called masih because he will roam throughout the world to preach righteousness and virtue, whereas the Dajjal would travel around the world to do just the opposite. He would gain control over the whole world, which is the specific reason he is called masih. Essentially, Jesus is the masih of virtue and righteousness; Dajjal is the masih of evil.[1]

Muhammad had given many signs of the appearance of the Dajjal and exhorted his followers to recite the first and the last ten verses of Sura Al-Kahf, as protection from the trials and mischief of the Dajjal.

[edit] Islam's description

The Qur'an doesn't mention the Dajjal by name, like the Hadith. A couple of hadith describe the Dajjal as follows:
  • The Prophet mentioned the Massiah Ad-Dajjal in front of the people saying, Allah is not one eyed while Messiah, Ad-Dajjal is blind in the right eye and his eye looks like a bulging out grape. While sleeping near the Ka'ba last night, I saw in my dream a man of brown color the best one can see amongst brown color and his hair was long that it fell between his shoulders. His hair was lank and water was dribbling from his head and he was placing his hands on the shoulders of two men while circumambulating the Kaba. I asked, 'Who is this?' They replied, 'This is Jesus, son of Mary.' Behind him I saw a man who had very curly hair and was blind in the right eye, resembling Ibn Qatan (i.e. an infidel) in appearance. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of a person while performing Tawaf around the Ka'ba. I asked, 'Who is this? 'They replied, 'The Masih, Ad-Dajjal.' "[1]
  • Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and then mentioned the Dajjal saying, "l warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed."[2]
  • Allah's Apostle said, "Shall I not tell you about the Dajjal a story of which no prophet told his nation? The Dajjal is one-eyed and will bring with him what will resemble Hell and Paradise, and what he will call Paradise will be actually Hell; so I warn you (against him) as Noah warned his nation against him." [3]
[edit] Dajjal and the Devil

In Islam, the Dajjal and the Devil are defined as two separate beings.
Dajjal: The name given in the Hadith to certain religious impostors who shall appear in the world; a term equivalent to the christian use of the word Antichrist. Muhammad is related to have said there would be about thirty. The Masihu 'd-Dajjal or "the lying Christ" it is said will be the last of the Dajjals for an account of whom refer to article on MASIHU 'D-DAJJAL"[2].

Devil: The devil is believed to be descended from Jann, the progenitor of the evil genii. He is said to have been named 'Azazil, and to have possessed authority over the animal and the spirit kingdom. But when God created Adam, the Devil refused to prostrate before him, and he was therefore expelled from Eden. The sentence of death was then pronounced upon satan Satan; but upon seeking respite, he obtained it until the Day of Judgement, when he will be destroyed, (Vide Qur'an, surah vii, 13) According to the Qu'ran, the devil was created of fire, whilst Adam was created of clay."[3].

Author Maulana Ahmad Ali claims Imam Mahdi will arrange a Muslim army, and will be on the verge of leading the Muslims in morning prayer when Jesus will descend and kill the Dajaal (Abu-Umamah / Ibne Majah).[4]

By definition the Devil & Dajjal are two separate beings (though both evil in Islam) because the Dajjal is a liar who will state that he is Jesus Christ and will be killed by Jesus; the Devil is a being that existed before the creation of Adam who will not die till the Day of Judgement [5].

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2007)
  1. ^ Saifur Rahman, Malik. “Imam Mahdi: The Need, the Signs, and His Coming.” Ahmadiyya Gazette Mar. 1991: 19-20. ^ Patric Hughes. "A Dictionary of Islam" pg 64 &as_brr=0&sig=lv3eYPY59cQeWOaWAvIJDcQEfqQ#PPA64 ,M1 ^ Thomas Patrick Hughes "A Dictionary of Islam" Pg 84 &as_brr=0&sig=lv3eYPY59cQeWOaWAvIJDcQEfqQ#PPA84 ,M1 ^ Maulana Ahmad Ali. "Major Signs Before The Day Of Judgement" Pg 30
  2. ^ Koran 7:11-15
Retrieved from ""

Who is the evil Dajjal (the "anti-Christ")?

by Mohammed Ali Ibn Zubair Ali
Note: Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wassallam) has exhorted the regular recital of Suratul Kahf which will most certainly save one from the Evils of Dajjal.

Hadhrat Imraan bin Husain (R.A.) relates that, "I heard Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) saying: "Since the birth of Adam (A.S.) till the advent of Qiyamah there is no fitnah (evil, test) much greater that of Dajjal."

Hadhrat Huzaifah (R.A.) says, Dajjal will be blind in his left eye. He will have very thick hair on his body and he will also have his own type of Jannat (Heaven) and Jahannam (Hell) with him: Although his Jannat will appear as Jannat, in reality it will be Jahannam and likewise though his Jahannam will appear to be Jahannam, in reality it will be Jannat.

(Hadith: Muslim)
Imraan bin Husain (R.A.) says Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: "Those who hear about Dajjal should stay far from him. By Allah! A person will approach him thinking him to be a Believer, but on seeing his amazing feats he will become his follower."

Ubadah bin Saamit (R.A.) once said, "I have explained Dajjal to you but I fear that you might not have understood. Maseeh Dajjal will be short, and his legs will be crooked. The hair on his head will be extremely twisted. He will have one eye (with which he can see, and this is the protruding eye about which other ahadeeth inform us) while his other eye will be totally flat. It will neither be deep (in its socket) nor protruding.
If you still have any doubt regarding him then remember that your Sustainer (Rabb) is not one-eyed. (Because Dajjal will eventually claim to be Allah). In a lengthy Hadith narrated by Abu Saeed (R.A.), Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) is reported to have said: "Dajjal will come but it will be prohibited and impossible for him to enter Madina. He will set up camp in a barren land outside Madina. One person who will be the best of persons will confront him by saying: "I bear witness that you are the very Dajjal about whom Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) has informed us."
Dajjal will say to his followers, "If I kill this person and then revive him, you people will still doubt me?"

They will reply, "No."

He will then kill this person, (according to another narration he will split this person in two) and thereafter revive him. This person will say, "I am totally convinced more than ever before that you definitely are Dajjal."

Dajjal will attempt to kill this person again but his efforts will now be in vain.
(According to a hadith, after this incident, Dajjal will not be able to harm anyone.)
Hadhrat Anas (R.A.) says that Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: "Dajjal will come and finally reach the outskirts of Madina. There will be three tremors. At that time, all the disbelievers and hypocrites will flee (from Madina).

In this way Madina Munawwarah will be purified of all the evil hypocrites.

Hadhrat Asma bint Yazeed (R.A.) narrates that Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) once came to my house and there he spoke about Dajjal. He said that before the emergence of Dajjal there will be three spells of drought. In one year the skies will withold one third of its rains, causing the earth to withold one third of its produce. In the second year the skies will withold two thirds of its rains, causing the earth to withold two thirds of its produce. In the third year, the skies will withold all its water and there will be no crops that year. All animals, be they hooved or toothed, will die as a result. The greatest evil of Dajjall will be to approach anyone and ask him: "If I bring your camel back to life, will you then believe that I am your Rabb?"

This person will reply, "Most certainly."

Thereafter Shaytaan (from the many Shayateen who will always accompany Dajjal) will appear before this person in the form of his camel with a fat hump and fully laden udders.

Likewise Dajjal will appear before another person whose father and brother have long passed away and ask him, "If I bring your father and brother back to life will you believe that I am your Rabb?"

This person will reply, "Why not?"

Shaytaan will once again take on the appearance of his brother and father...

Hadhrat Mughira ibn Shu'ba (R.A.) says that, "No one asked Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wassallam) about Dajjal as much as myself. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wassallam) said to me, "How can he possibly harm you?"

I said: "People are saying that he will have with him a mountain of bread (provisions) and a river of water."

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wassallam) said: "In the sight of Allah he is much more disgraced than that. (i.e. Allah knows full well that in reality Dajjal has nothing with him, and all that which appears to be with him is but deception). (Bukhari and Muslim).

Other Ahadeeth regarding Dajjal inform us that:
He will emerge between Shaam and Iraq, and his emergence will become known when he is in Isfahaan at a place called Yahudea.

The Yahudis (Jews) of Isfahaan will be his main followers.

Apart from having mainly Yahudi followers, he will have a great number of women followers as well.

He will have with him fire and water, but in reality the fire will be cold water while that what appears to be cold water will in reality be a blazing fire.

Those who obey him will enter "his Jannat" while those who disobey him will enter "his Jahannam."

There will be a thick fingernail-like object in his left eye.

The letters "Kaa" "Faa" "Raa" will appear on his forehead and will be deciphered by all Mu'mineen regardless of them being literate or not.
He will have a wheatish complexion.

He will travel at great speeds and his means of conveyance will be a gigantic mule. It is said that he will play beautiful music which will attract the music lovers.

Dajjal will lay claim to prophethood.

He will then lay claim to Divinity.

He will perform unusual feats.

He will travel the entire world. He will send down rains upon those who believe in him, which in turn will cause good crops to grow, trees to bear fruit and cattle to grow fat.

He will cause drought to those who disbelieve in him, resulting in starvation and hardship for them.

During those trying times the Mu'mineen will satiate their hunger through the recitation of Subhanallah and La'ilaha Ilallahu.

The hidden treasures will spill forth at his command. He will stay on this Earth for a period of forty days; the length of the first day will be one year, the second day will be equal to one month, the third day will be equal to a week and the remaining days will be normal.

He will be unable to enter Makkah because the Malaikah will be guarding the Holy City and nor will he be able to enter Madina because there will be Malaikah guarding each of the seven entrances to Madina; From Madina he will proceed towards Shaam where Imaam Mahdi will be stationed.

Finally Isa (A.S.) will descend from the heavens and pursue him and eventually kill him at present day Lydda (Baad Lud).

from: "Signs of Qiyamah"
by Mohammed Ali Ibn Zubair Ali

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 08-04-2008 at 05:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2008, 04:09 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State
BY Samuel Shahid

FOREWORD Recently a few books have been written about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law. Most of these books presented the Islamic view in a favorable fashion, without unveiling the negative facet inherited in these laws.

This brief study attempts to examine these laws as they are stated by the Four Schools of the Fiqh (jurisprudence). It aims at revealing to the reader the negative implications of these laws without ignoring the more tolerant views of modern reformers.

Our ardent hope that this study will reveal to our readers the bare truth in its both positive and negative facets.

Concept of "Islamic State"

"An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state." This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:
1) An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
2) Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state "should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology." Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
3) An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law "Shari`a" guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they "become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government."
The above view is the representative of the Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are the Malikites, the Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist of all), and the Shafi`ites. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:

a) Qur'an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.
b) Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.
c) Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.
d) Ijma' (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country. Textual laws prescribed in the Qur'an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we shall see later.

Classification of Non-Muslims:
In his article, "The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State," Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories: Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:
1) Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.
2) People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.
3) Musta'min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta'min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta'min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War. This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.
Islamic Law and Zimmis

Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.
The Jizya (tribute)

Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that "the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty." Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.

Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:
" spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country." Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, "Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God's religion. The Qur'anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.' (Qur'an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority."

Zimmis and Religious Practices

Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:
1) Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
2) Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
3) Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
4) Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
5) Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
6) Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
7) Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries. Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:
"In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary."
Apostasy in Islam

Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. "The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one's adherence to Islam." when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur'an indicates,
"How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur'an 3:86-89).
Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: "It is reported by `Abaas ... that the messenger of Allah ... said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him."
In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, "The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence."

A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.
Civic Laws

Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief's hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.
Marriage and Children

A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.

If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.
Capital Punishment

The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmi intentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.

Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the "rightly guided" Caliphs.
The Witness of Zimmis

Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta'min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, "The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah - may He be exalted - said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers'." A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a, "By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness..." All he has to do is to utter the Islamic confession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.
Personal Law

On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.
Political Rights and Duties

The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur'an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.

Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,
"In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur'an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur'an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim."
Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,
"It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work."
These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.
Business World

The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter "if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).

In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:

Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:
Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}.

Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.

Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:
"entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim."
In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers' College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur'an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.
`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: "Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?" Then `Usaymi adds:
Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them... for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.
Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that a Zimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.
Freedom of Expression

Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:
"all non-Muslims will have the freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims."
Mawdudi's views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.

In Mawdudi's statement, the term "limitations" is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.
Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmis only among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.
Muslims and Zimmis

Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.

I. The Forbidden:

A Muslim is not allowed to:
  1. emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.
  2. attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.
  3. lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi's faith.
  4. work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.
  5. make any endowment to churches or temples.
  6. carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.
  7. address Zimmis with any title such as: "my master" or "my lord."
II. The Allowable
A Muslim is allowed to:
  1. financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.
  2. give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.
  3. eat food prepared by the People of the Book.
  4. console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.
  5. congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis' faith, such as: "May Allah exalt you," "May Allah honor you," or "May Allah give your religion victory."

This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.

Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder.

  1. Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin, The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Volume 945, June 5, 1988.
  2. Al Muslimun, Vol. 8; issue No, 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993.
  3. Doi, `Abdur Rahman I.; Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK; 1984.
  4. Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala', The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan. 1982
  5. Muraghi, Abdullah Mustapha, Islamic Law Pertaining to Non-Muslims, Library of Letters. Egypt. Undated
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 06:03 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default Muslims: A Shackled People Enslaved by the Koran

Muslims: A Shackled People Enslaved by the Koran

by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
08 Dec, 2008

In the first week of January 2006, the American Federation of Muslims of Indian-origin (AFMI) and the Talent Promotion Trust, a Bangalore based NGO, jointly held a panel discussion on “Emerging India and Development of Muslims” in Bangalore. Farooque Shaikh, a renowned film star, while addressing the gathering of Muslim intellectuals, said, “Muslims need to introspect as to why their situation has hit the present nadir and should give up blaming others for their dismal educational standard”. He also said that after analyzing the Muslim community he has come to the conclusion that … …religious discrimination, gender bias and other issues are plaguing them”. While commenting on the economic backwardness of the community, he said, “People in the South are lucky that their social and economic conditions are somewhat better than Muslims in the North. Take a trip to the remote regions in the North and the living conditions of the Muslims there are appalling”. “The ritualistic zakat doled out by the rich towards the poor is not enough to elevate the pathetic living standards of the Muslims”, Mr. Shaikh added (Islamic Voice: February, 2006).

On the new role Muslims have to play in the new emerging India, Sadaqath Peeran, chairman of the Al-Ameen Education Society, said, “If Muslims had to be equal partners in emerging India, they had to break the shackle of poverty and illiteracy. English should be introduced in all Urdu schools, if we want to be equipped to face the challenges of this competitive world”. Maqbool Ahmed Siraj, Secretary of the Talent Promotion Trust, said, “The Muslim situation is very bleak all over the world. There is no encouragement and incentive for innovation and creativity in the Muslim world”. Lamenting the low level of economic activity in the Muslim world, Siraj added, “The entire gross domestic product of the Muslim world is just half of what France produces every year”. (Islamic Voice, Feb 2006).

In January 1998, Wasim Sajjad, President of the Islamabad based Ministerial Standing Committee on Scientific and Technological Cooperation (CONSTECH), told a press conference that the countries belonging to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), considering their share of world population, should have 4 million scientists and engineers, but in reality they had only 200,000, merely 5 percent of the expected figure. He also pointed out that Muslims account for 1.3 billion or nearly 32 per cent of the world population, but scientific research papers they publish is negligible, below one percent of global total. And at the same time, they have little contribution in the high tech-areas like computer software and information technology. Mr. Sajjad, while lamenting over the dearth of creativity and poor performance of Muslims in modern science and technology, complained that, considering the share of world population, Islamic countries should spend $ 4.7 million a year for higher education and research, but in reality they were spending as low as $ 130,000 per Year.

The severe dearth of creativity in the Muslim world has been revealed in another study by Hisamul Islam Siddiqi, the president of the Delhi-based NGO, Indian Islamic Council. In India and elsewhere in the world, Muslims, as a community, are most back-ward and top the list in adult illiteracy, infant mortality and poverty. In addressing a seminar on ‘Islamic Heritage: Indian Dimension’ in Delhi in February, 2000, Siddiqi informed that nearly 36 percent of Indian Muslims were urban and almost all of them were slum-dwellers, living below the poverty line. In pointing out the widespread darkness of ignorance and illiteracy amongst Muslims, the Rahat Welfare Trust, a Mumbai based NGO, said, “This darkness makes a mockery of our freedom. … It is only the light of education that can banish this darkness created by ignorance”. Sadatulla Khan, the editor of the Bangalore-based monthly Islamic Voice, lamenting intellectual stagnation and the lack of creativity in the Muslim community, wrote in an editorial entitled ‘Intellectual Stagnation and Its Remedy’ that “Both individually and collectively, Muslims are victims of intellectual stagnation for the past several centuries and are painfully lagging behind in the race of civilization.”

The picture is not different either in the Arab world, the 22 Islamic countries of the Arab League. Though not so poor, people are generally backward in every walk of life. Most of these countries richly endowed with natural resources like natural oil and gas, people do not faced endemic poverty or ethnic conflicts. Moreover, they shook off their foreign bondage, colonial or neo-colonial legacy, quite a long ago. So the question naturally arises: What went wrong? What made them so stuck behind time?

The answer to these questions comes from a 2001 study by a committee of Arab intellectuals and scholars under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The committee, led by Egyptian scholar Nader Fergani, carried out a year-long investigation and thoroughly analyzed the Arab world’s strength and failings. The findings of the study, entitled “Arab Human Development Report 2002”, was published in the first week of July, 2002.

To estimate the performance of a country, the UN, for the past 10 or so years, is using the ‘Human Development Index’ (HDI) that includes life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, school enrolment as well as per capita income. Another index called ‘Alternative Human Development Index’ (AHDI) is also used that drops the per capita income from HDI, but includes additional factors like freedom of speech and similar fundamental rights enjoyed by the people, use of Internet, emissions of carbon dioxide and so on. In both indices, the Arab countries scored lower than almost all other countries in the world.

On the dark side, investigators have identified three major shortcomings. First, one in five Arabs lives on less than $2 a day. Second, their per capita income increased at a rate of 0.5 percent over the past 20 years, lower than anywhere in the world except the sub-Saharan Islamic countries. Third, laments the report that it would take 140 years for an average Arab to double his income at this rate, while many countries set such a target to be achieved within less than a decade.

Lack of freedom, says the report, is the root cause of many evils in the Arab world, such as extremely autocratic governments, holding of bogus elections, confusion between executive and judiciary and constraints on the media and civil society. “This lack of personal freedom leads to patriarchal, intolerant, and in many cases, suffocating social environments”, the report asserts. The great wave of democratization that has opened up so much of the world over past two decades seems to have left the Arab world untouched. “Sometimes democracy is offered as a concession, not as a right. Transfer of power through ballot box is not a common phenomenon in the Arab world”, says the report. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are extremely limited and no Arab country has a genuinely free media. “Civil societies in the Arab world are shackled and the NGOs are hobbled by legal and administrative obstacles”, the report continues.

Although Arabs spend a greater share of their GDP for education than in most other developing regions, the money does not seem to be well spent. Quality of education is pitiably low and there is a severe mismatch between the labour market and the education system. Nearly 10 million children have no schooling at all and “for this poor education system, Arabs are falling further behind in scientific as well as in technological studies and research”, the report says. “Investment in research and development is less than one-seventh of the world average. Only 0.6 percent Arabs uses the Internet and 1.2 per cent have personal computers. All these add to the severe dearth of creativity”, says the report.

One thing that every outsider knows about the Arab world is that it does not treat its womenfolk as full citizens and this suppression of women is another vital reason that makes the Arab world backward. The report rightly considers it as a awful wastage. “How can a community prosper if it stifles half of its production potential”, the report asks. Though women’s literacy has trebled in past 30 years, more than 50 percent of Arab women still cannot read and write. Their participation in social, economic and political fields is negligible in comparison to women of other parts of the world.

In this context, it would be pertinent to say a few words about the Muslim women's affair in India. In a message to the special edition Naree Sakti of the ‘Seva Surabhi 2002’, published from Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand, former President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam wrote, “As we all know, birds have two wings. Unless both the wings grow equally, the bird cannot fly. Similarly, the society has two wings: man and woman. Both have to be developed equally. Then the society will fly”. It is important to note here that when in mid-2003, a verdict of the Supreme Court upheld the necessity of enforcing ‘common civil code’, which could liberate Muslim women of this country from shameful gender discrimination like polygamy and oral divorce, President Kalam indirectly supported the fanatic mullahs by keeping silence.

Mr. Clovis Maksoud, an Egyptian scholar involved in preparing the report, blamed no historical event like Western imperialism, devastation caused by the Second World War or any other outside intervention for the present backwardness of the Arab world, and the Islamic world at large. He indirectly raised his finger to the creed of Islam itself for the said backwardness of the Arab world.

“The most delicate issue of all, again carefully skirted by the authors of the report, is the part Islam plays in delaying and impeding the Arab world’s advance towards every receding renaissance that its intellectuals crave”, says a British commentator. Though an article of the report praises Islam and says that the faith supports justice, peace, tolerance, equilibrium and all good things, most of the experts on the Middle East and the Arab world are convinced that pervasive Islamisation of the society has played havoc and is entirely responsible for stifling constructive Arab thought and progress.

“From the schooldays onwards, Arabs are instructed that they should not defy tradition (laid down by Allah through Koran and Hadith), that they should respect the authority (of Allah) and truth should be sought in the text (i.e. Koran and Hadith) and not in experience”, says the British commentator. “The role of thought (among Muslims) is to explain and transmit (what has been ordained by Allah in Koran and Hadith) and not to search or question (those religious dogmas)”, says a Syrian intellectual.
There is no doubt that such tenets are holding sway and impeding creative thought, innovation and progress in the Muslim world. Even an educated Muslim has to believe in Prophet Muhammad’s journey to heaven (meraj) and his splitting of the moon into two halves. Each and every Muslim, whether educated or not, has to believe in the Koranic version of creation that says that Allah has created this world from nothingness within six days, the human race began its journey from a single pair of man and woman, namely Adam (derived from Sanskrit adim) and Hawa and Prophet Muhammad was the 90th descendant of Adam, which leads to the conclusion that Allah created this world only 4,135 years ago (considering 30 years to be the gap between two successive generations).

At the same time, they are not permitted to make a rational estimate of Prophet Muhammad, and his life and deeds. They are permitted to praise him for everything he did, without passing any critical remark. He should always be projected as an apostle of peace by concealing his terribly cruel deeds like massacring the Jews of Kuraiza and Nazir clan and indiscriminate killings of Arab infidels organizing 82 raids and military campaigns during his ten-year stay at Medina. Every Muslims has to discover divinity in his marrying 12 (or more) wives in his declining years, including his marrying 6-year-old Ayesha at the age of 52, and his marrying Zainab, the wife of his adopted son Zeid. What an insult to one’s intellect! What a colossal intellectual slavery!

All the above mentioned comments and opinions of the scholars who prepared the ‘Arab Human Report 2002’ leads one to conclude that, as a community, Muslims around the world are deprived of their right to freethinking and are intellectually enslaved by the creed of Islam. Or, more pointedly, they are a community of shackled people enslaved by the Koran. Can a community of slaves ever prosper? Only time can tell who liberates them from this slavery and how?

It would be relevant to conclude quoting an eminent scholar of Islam, Sir William Muir. In his celebrated work, The Life of Mahomet, he writes, “The sword of Mohammad, and the Koran, are the most stubborn enemies of Civilization, Liberty and Truth which the world has yet known”.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2008, 04:13 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default Egypt fires on Gaza residents fleeing Gaza

"When Christians kill Muslims, it's the Crusades. When Jews kill Muslims it's murder, and when Muslims kill Muslims, it's like talking about the weather. Nobody really cares about it."
Egyptian border guards have opened fire on Palestinians who breached the border to escape Israel's assault on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. An Egyptian security official said there were at least five breaches along the nine-mile border and hundreds of Palestinian residents were pouring in.

At least 300 Egyptian border guards have been rushed to the area to reseal the border, the official added on condition on anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the press.

A resident of the Gaza Strip side of the border, Fida Kishta, said that Egyptian border guards opened fire to drive back the Palestinians.

Residents have also commandeered a bulldozer to open new breaches.

Palestinians reported several people were wounded by the gunfire....

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2009, 05:57 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Muslim Quotes and other misconceptions

Readers' comments have moved me to try to clear up some evidently prevalent misconceptions about the Middle East. I wish to explain two simple matters. First Arabs and Muslims are two different designations. Muslim countries are not necessarily Arab countries. Second, the Quranic verse, "And you shall kill them wherever you find them" does not refer to all non-believers or to all Jews or Christians at all times. The explanation is a bit long.

A surprising number of people are under the impression that the words "Arabs" and "Muslims" refer to the same group of people. I was even sent a map that showed tiny Israel surrounded by "Arab" countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Iran. None of these countries are Arab, though they might have some Arabs living in them. They are not Semitic peoples and they do not speak Arabic except for religious purposes, but the majority religion (and often the state religion) of these countries is Islam. "Arabs" can refer either to natives of the Arabian peninsula, or to peoples of Arab speaking countries such as Egypt, Lebanon and the North African countries. Most of these countries are Muslim, but there are Christian Arabs of course. The Ottoman Empire was a Muslim empire ruled by Muslim Turks, who spoke Turkish. They were not Arabs. Some Arab peoples were their subjects, as well as some Europeans.

The second problem is more complicated. To our sorrow, we know that there is an ancient and dishonorable industry of "Talmud quotes" - quotes out of context or fabricated quotes invented to slander Judaism (see Jew Hate.) It is hard to explain to anti-Semitic non-Jews who do not want to listen that the entire Jewish people are not responsible for opinions of one or another rabbi 1500 years ago, or that we do not take certain parts of the Torah literally. There is also a similar and more recent trade in "Zionist Quotes." Because of Web sites and books full of such quotes, it is next to impossible to convince non-Zionists that Ben-Gurion never said, "We must expel the Arabs and take their land," or anything like it. It is made more difficult by the fact that right wing Zionist extremists have generated compendiums of similar quotes to "prove" that Zionism favored transfer of Arabs from its inception, as well as old testament quotes that "prove" we are supposed to murder our enemies.

There is a similar industry in Muslim quotes, manufactured out of ignorance or malice, with a grain of truth added here and there. These too are validated by Muslim extremists, who use them in exactly the same way as Jewish extremists do, to "prove" that their ideas are sanctioned by religion and tradition. When I noted that the phrase, "Kill them wherever you find them" is abused and taken out of context (see Terror Nightmare in Mumbai, several readers undertook to lecture me on the Quran and the hadiths. Hadiths are collections of things that Muhammad supposedly said. Some are accepted as genuine by all Muslims, others are more doubtful and may have been devised at a later date to validate some idea. There is no doubt that the Quran and the Hadiths contain a lot of potentially incendiary materials, but these are interpreted in a less than literal fashion by most Muslims, just as most Jews and Christians and Muslims do not literally demand an "eye for an eye" (but this indeed is done in Iran).

The phrase "And you shall kill them wherever you find them" appears in several collections of "Muslim quotes." For example:
Qur'an 2:191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbeliever

Here is a better translation of the Quran (Malik, edited by me) with a bit of context:
2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.

2:191 Kill them wherever they confront you in combat and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you. Though killing is bad, creating mischief is worse than killing. Do not fight them within the precincts of the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there; but if they attack you, put them to the sword; that is the punishment for such unbelievers.

2:192 If they cease hostility, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

2:193 Fight against them until there is no more disorder and Allah’s supremacy is established. If they desist, let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.
What sort of mischief is the Quran dealing with? It is "fitna" - civil war among Muslims. It says "Kill them wherever they confront you in combat." It does not say "Kill them where you find them." It is not very pacifistic, but it looks a bit different than the original

A second example is given here:, which we are assured gives us the words of Muhammad. Here is the so-called "quote":
9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Here is the context and what is evidently the correct translation:
9:3 This is a public proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the Great Hajj (Pilgrimage) that Allah and His Messenger do hereby dissolve treaty obligations with the pagans. Therefore, if you repent, it will be better for you but if you turn away, then you should know that you cannot frustrate the Will of Allah. O Prophet, proclaim a painful punishment to those who are unbelievers.

9:4 Except (this proclamation does not apply to) those pagans who honored their treaties with you in every detail and aided none against you. So fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term; for Allah loves the righteous.

9:5 When the forbidden months (10,11,12 & 1 of the Islamic calendar) are over, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, seize them, besiege them, and lie in ambush for them in every stratagem of war, but if they repent, establish Salah [Muslim prayers which include the Shahada - confession of faith] and pay Zakah [charity tax], then let them go their way: surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

9:6 If anyone from the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then escort him to his place of safety: this should be done because these people do not know the truth.
The verse does not say "kill them wherever you find them. It says "fight the pagans wherever you find them" In the original translation, the word used for "Pagan" was Mushrik, which means polytheist or pagan. I changed all the "Mushrik" to "Pagan." In this Sura the Qur'an is probably discussing the attack on the pagans of Mecca (it is during the "great Hajj" -- pilgrimage to Mecca). Even they are to be granted asylum if they request it, and those who honored treaties are to be respected. The verse is not about Jews or Christians, the "al-khitab." Here is a Muslim explanation of the difference between Al-Khitab and Mushrik.

There are two places in Surrah 4 of Quran that evidently say "Kill them wherever you find them, about those "hypocrites" who abandoned Islam:
4:88 What is the matter with you, why are you divided into two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has cast them off on account of their misdeeds? Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has confounded? Whomever Allah has confounded you cannot find a way for them to be guided.

4:89 Their real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as protectors or helpers.

4:90 The exception to this is for those who take refuge with your allies or come over to you because their hearts restrain them both from fighting against you and from fighting against their own people. If Allah had wanted, He would have given them power over you and they might easily have fought against you; therefore, if they withdraw from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, in that case Allah has not granted you permission to fight against them.

4:91 You will find other hypocrites who wish to be safe from you as well as from their own people; but who would plunge into mischief whenever they get an opportunity. Therefore if they do not keep distance from you and neither offer you peace, nor cease their hostilities against you, you may seize them and kill them wherever you find them, against such people We give you absolute authority.
The underlined passages show that the intent of the verses are that those who want to live in peace should be left to do so. It would be absurd to argue that Muslims did not wage "Jihad" in the bloodiest way possible at times, and not necessarily according to any rules of fairness, whether it was in attacking Khaybar in the days of Muhammad or conquering Anatolia and later parts of Europe for the Ottoman Empire. Muslims certainly misused these and other verses in the Quran to justify their carnage, and some still do. The cry of "Kill them wherever you find them" was heard in the mosques of Palestine in 1929 and 1936 and in the mosques of Gaza during the Second Intifada and it is used by Hizb ut Tahrir and similar organizations in Central and East Asia. But that is not what it says in the Quran evidently. Medieval European kings oppressed their subjects using the doctrine of "divine right" which they could show was derived from the Bible, which had been deliberately mistranslated. They fought long and hard to prevent correct translations. (See History of the King James Bible). That doesn't mean that Christianity is inherently oppressive.

Whenever you see one of those "Muslim quotes" Web pages, or hear those quotes used, think of the "Talmud quotes" and the "Zionist quotes" used to slander Jews and Zionism. A genuine "Talmud quote" is apposite: "Do not do to your neighbor that which is hateful to you."

Ami Isseroff
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 02:10 AM
desertscout desertscout is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 531
desertscout is on a distinguished road

Mark Twain:

Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instincts do not permit them to be moral. - When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane, not in all things, but in religious matters. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it.


Islam is long since theoretically dead & cannot be reformed because it's "stuck with the Koran" ... and the Koran is simply an after construction of a successful system of slave parasitism built on a loose framework of Jewish & Christian scriptures.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 03:56 PM
Black eye Black eye is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Black eye is on a distinguished road

انتم تكذبون على انفسكم
من صنع الفتنة بين السنة والشيعة غيركم؟؟؟؟؟
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 05:08 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by Black eye View Post
انتم تكذبون على انفسكم
من صنع الفتنة بين السنة والشيعة غيركم؟؟؟؟؟

First post in english as it is required so others can undersatnd what you are posting and second why do you say I cause sedition between the Sunnis and Shiites?
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Last edited by Paparock; 01-15-2009 at 05:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 09:55 AM
Lieberman78's Avatar
Lieberman78 Lieberman78 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Israel's conscience
Posts: 70
Lieberman78 is on a distinguished road

Arabs and Muslims are terrorists and backward .
This is acquired from the religion of Islam.

I have read many books of Islamic mentality,
This people can`t live in peace with those who differed with him in religion.
Israel has created a new image of the Jew in the world - the image of a working and an intellectual people, of a people that can fight with heroism.”
~David Ben-Gurion quote~
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 10:14 AM
Lieberman78's Avatar
Lieberman78 Lieberman78 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Israel's conscience
Posts: 70
Lieberman78 is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by Black eye View Post
انتم تكذبون على انفسكم
من صنع الفتنة بين السنة والشيعة غيركم؟؟؟؟؟
يُعلّق المسلمون الأغبياء ، تخلفهم وكراهيتهم وعدائهم للآخرين على اليهود
هذا الهراء لا يُمكِن أن تُقنع به العقلاء .
فقط الحمقى هم من يُصدّقونه

Always the Muslim Idiots attached the balderdash and hatred and hostility against to the Jews.

This nonsense can not convince the wise.

Only fools who`s believe this .
Israel has created a new image of the Jew in the world - the image of a working and an intellectual people, of a people that can fight with heroism.”
~David Ben-Gurion quote~
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 06:20 PM
New Ron's Avatar
New Ron New Ron is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Israel Military Forum
Posts: 8,447
New Ron is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by Black eye View Post
انتم تكذبون على انفسكم
من صنع الفتنة بين السنة والشيعة غيركم؟؟؟؟؟

You will post in english only! Or you will get banned let that be a warning to you Black eye!
Shalom to everyone!
No extreme is good. Neither in religion, nor in science.

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~

Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 03:58 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Suicide Bombings and Islam

Suicide Bombings and Islam
An ex-Muslim points to the theological foundations.
By: Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza, the author of Roots of Islamic Terrorism and co-author of Beyond Jihad and Leaving Islam-Apostates Speak Out.

FP: Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Mirza: Thank you Jamie.

FP: I would like to talk to you today about suicide bombing as a phenomenon in Islamic warfare. We are witnessing this horrifying pathology in Gaza today, as Hamas militants are carrying out different forms of suicide operations, using their children and women as human shields, etc.

Let me begin with this question: many apologists of Islamic suicide bombing point out that other cultures and groups employ suicide bombing and that, therefore, no one has a right to point a finger at Muslims or Islam in this regard. What would you say to that?

Mirza: Yes, Islamic apologists often argue that suicide bombings are not just committed by the Muslims, but by many other nations – among them Tamils, Jews and Japanese. According to these apologists, since these groups engaged in suicide bombings for the cause of freedom in their eyes, then it means that Muslims are doing the same. The implication here is that Muslims are committing suicide for a freedom struggle and their suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam. But a serious question can be asked here: Are all those past suicide bombings the same as Islamic suicide bombings? Are their patterns the same? Let us examine the facts:

The so called Tamil Tigers, Jews or Japanese Kamikazes may have used a technique of suicide bombings very rarely in their desperate quest—but only, in their view, to defend or free their own motherland, and their suicide acts were absolutely limited to targeting soldiers and leaders; they never targeted innocent civilians.

Tamils, Jews, Kamikazes or the IRA never blasted bombs in other countries outside their own geographical boundary; they only primarily blasted bombs within their own border or on enemy troops. Rarely, an isolated single bomb went off in the vicinity of the border, such as in the Tamils’ killing of Razib Ghandi, for his support of the Sri Lankan Government. But they never came to America, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. to blast suicide bombs inside restaurants, buses, trains, metros, ocean beaches, tourist resorts etc. None of them engaged in suicide bombings throughout the whole world like Islamists vigorously do today. How many Tamils blasted suicide bombs in Europe or America? Was there any global jihadi phenomenon of suicide bombings by Tamil Tigers like there is the one waged by Islamists?

FP: Apologists for Islam also argue that the Qur’an prohibits suicide.

Mirza: It’s a lie to say that the Qur’an prohibits committing suicide. The Qur’an only prohibits taking one’s life for no holy purpose. The Qur’an condemns killing one-self only out of frustrations and for no good reason. But to die in the process of killing non-muslims/kaffirs for the cause of Islam is considered a good deed for believers, and Allah promises many rewards for it.

FP: Ok, so expand for us on the place of suicide bombings in Islam.

Mirza: There is one most important and appropriate quote that we must consider in beginning a discussion on this issue: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” (Blaise Pascal, 1670).

The Holy Qur’an and Sahih (pure) hadiths do encourage believers to commit suicide if necessary, in order to kill infidels/kaffirs, for the sake of Islam. The Qur’an repeatedly promises terrestrial handsome rewards for those who can kill kaffirs (enemy of Allah and His messenger) and dreadful punishing hellfire for those who refuse to kill kaffirs.

Muslims believe that their actual life starts after death and they have very little desire to prolong their life in this material world. The Qur’an also incites followers to sacrifice their lives in order to kill kaffirs in exchange of a much better and lucrative after life. In the Qur’anic verse 9:111, we find the incentive for jihadis to die in battle: the rewards of paradise, which involves sex with virgins. There are many other verses that promise rewards in paradise for death in jihad (i.e. 4:74, 4:95, 3:169). Such verses clearly order devout Muslims to kill and be killed. Allah is teaching Muslims to sacrifice their own lives, to commit suicide, in His cause in order to kill infidels (enemies of Allah).

The verse 9:111 says: “Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed.”

This verse very precisely justifies suicide bombing - the most lethal, terrifying, inhuman and successful weapon Islamic terrorists are using today to kill Allah's enemies. It is the perfect example (without any ambiguity) of the suicidal method Allah has prescribed for devout Muslims. In verse 9:111 Allah is clearly saying that He has purchased life and property of believers in exchange of lustful and unimaginable lucrative heavenly pleasures for those who will die (commit suicide) for the cause of killing kaffirs. And the Qur’an is loaded with many more verses ordering the ardent followers to carry out endless killing of infidels/unbelievers until only Muslims remain to inhibit this Earth owned by the Islamic Allah (i.e. 8:39, 9:29, 3:85, 9:39, 9:73, 8:65, 8:66, 4:78, 2:193, 2:216, 5:33, 4:89, 9:5, 9:28, 8:67, 8:17, 9:23, 3:28, 5:45, 47:4, 9:123, 2:191, 8:12).

FP: The hadiths preach the same thing, yes?

Mirza: Absolutely. Killing and dying for the cause of Allah (Jihad) was sanctioned widely in sahi hadiths, which often incite Islamic suicide terrorists. Almost one-third of the fourth of nine volumes of Bukhari, Islam's principal collector of Hadith, focused on jihad as physical war. In Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44, for example, Abu Huraira narrated: “A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."

Many other hadiths stress the same themes: Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53, Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 1:814, Sahi Bukhari 35, page-102. etc.

Now, does it take a rocket scientist to understand the source of the fanatical will of the September 11 terrorists? Does it ring a bell from where Islamic terrorists all over the world get their inspiration and hope? Will our Islamists still say, "Islam is a religion of peace," or that "Qur'an is full of kind and compassionate advises."?

Purely and solely—the real motivation behind suicide terrorism by Islamic terrorists is the teachings of Qur’an and Sunnah (Prophetic traditions). Western politicians erroneously and ignorantly call it “radical Islam” or “evil or distorted ideology.” This is absolutely a wrong statement by the politically correct western politicians. That ideology is nothing but the ideology of pure Islam, which is the holy teaching of the Qur’an.

Palestinian problems, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. are all rooted in the Islamic plea to wage Islamic Jihad. Poverty or frustrations are not the cause of terrorism, because poverty and frustrations also exist amongst millions of poor people from other religions. Will any poor Christian, Hindu or a Buddhist bother to commit suicide to kill innocent westerners? Absolutely not.

FP: And Islamic terrorists consistently refer to the teachings of their religious texts to sanction their violence.

Mirza: Absolutely. All Islamic terrorists arrested by police in Europe – like Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam, Netherlands -- readily cited the Qur’an as their teacher to commit their crimes. Bouyeri confessed his guilt and showed no remorse for his act of Islamic slaughter. During the court trial he stated to the victim’s mother: “I don’t feel your pain because I was driven by my religious conviction.” He also said, “If I were released and would have the chance to do it again…I would do exactly the same thing.” At another point he said to the victim’s mother, “I have to admit I don’t have sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because I think you are a non-believer.”

In the train terrorism incident in Madrid, Spain, the Islamic terrorists were all longtime residents of Spain -- and North American and Syrian born. They admitted to police that they were inspired by the Qur’an and the doctrines of Islam to rise up against their adopted host country to kill 191 Spanish innocent citizen.

During 2005-2006, in Bangladesh experienced an epidemic of bomb blasts by Islamic terrorists (homegrown in Bangladeshi) which included scores of suicide bombings to kill judges in the various court premises. In this process of suicide bombing attempts, two terrorists were captured by the police. When asked by reporters why they were going to kill people by suicide, they answered: "We were doing it by the order of the Qur’anic instructions by Allah."

When Bangladesh terrorist leaders Maulana Shaikh Rahman and Bangla Bhai were captured by police, Maulana Shaikh Rahman explained their actions: "We did it to establish Allah's laws in Bangladesh and we were doing it according to the Quran." Showing one copy of the Qur’an in his hand, Maulana said: "If I am a terrorist, then the Qur’an is also a terrorist."

In America, the 20th hijacker of 9/11 terrorism, Zacaria Moussaoui, proudly declared in court: "I wish I could kill more Americans, because my religion Islam demands that I kill infidels." Moussaoui or any other Islamic terrorist never told anyone that they had been incited to engage in terrorism for the reasons of “poverty” or “political oppression.”

FP: Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda jihadis have also frequently cited many passages from the Qur’an to justify their acts of terrorism and suicide bombings.

Mirza: Yes indeed. In his famous 'fatwa' of declared war against Americans in 1998, bin Laden repeatedly used verses from the Qur’an, that I cited earlier, to incite his followers to kill Americans and infidels -- primarily by the act of suicide bombing.

All the 9/11 Islamic terrorists left their private notes (especially Muhammad Ata) citing Qur’anic killing verses and they all committed suicide to kill American infidels and kaffirs according to the Qur’anic verse 9:111. Not a single time have they have ever claimed or mentioned any other inciting agent for their killing spree. Israel has captured numerous would-be suicide bombers (who failed to detonate themselves) and they were all interviewed by western reporters in their Israeli prison cell. All of them told the reporters that they wanted to die by killing infidels because the Qur’an instructed them to do so – and they also wanted to achieve heavenly pleasures with 72 virgin houris.

FP: Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Mirza: Thank you sir.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 03:54 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default How Muhammad failed the "test of a prophet" again and again

How Muhammad failed the "test of a prophet" again and again
Jochen Katz

The Qur'an speaks of a certain encounter that Muhammad had with some Jews, and their arguments by which they resisted and rejected Muhammad and his message. In this passage (S. 3:181-185) we also find the following statement:
Those same men said, ‘God has made covenant with us, that we believe not any Messenger until he brings to us a sacrifice devoured by fire.’ Say: ‘Messengers have come to you before me bearing clear signs, and that you spoke of; why therefore did you slay them, if you speak truly?’ S. 3:183 Arberry
This is a somewhat cryptic statement that we need to unpack in order to understand what it means, and to see the reasons why it is wrong.

Obviously, this fire is not a usual fire that is lit by people to burn a sacrifice (or anything else), but a miraculous fire. It is supposed to be an authenticating sign given by God that this messenger is a true prophet of God; i.e. this verse refers to "fire from heaven". It is God himself who sends the fire to devour the sacrifice. This understanding is also reflected in many Muslim translations of this verse. I will quote only two:
Those (Jews) who said: "Verily, Allah has taken our promise not to believe in any Messenger unless he brings to us an offering which the fire (from heaven) shall devour." Say: "Verily, there came to you Messengers before me, with clear signs and even with what you speak of; why then did you kill them, if you are truthful?" Al-Hilali & Khan

(The same are) those who say: Lo! Allah hath charged us that we believe not in any messenger until he bring us an offering which fire (from heaven) shall devour. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Messengers came unto you before me with miracles, and with that (very miracle) which ye describe. Why then did ye slay them? (Answer that) if ye are truthful! Pickthall
Whom is Muhammad talking about?

Which messenger brought fire from heaven to devour a sacrifice and was (then) slain by whom? The nearer and wider context of this verse makes it most likely that this refers to a dispute Muhammad had with some Jews (as also Al-Hilali & Khan indicate in their translation). Thus, the reference point for this discussion has to be the Jewish scriptures, the Old Testament of the Bible.

Biblical facts: It is true, there were several occasions on which God sent fire to devour a sacrifice prepared by a prophet, judge or king of Israel (Leviticus 9:23-24, Judges 6:20-22, 1 Chronicles 21:26, 2 Chronicles 7:1-3, 1 Kings 18). Moreover, the Bible speaks often about false prophets and gives the Children of Israel a number of criteria to distinguish false prophets from true prophets (1, 2). It is also correct that on one occasion fire from heaven consumed a sacrifice as a sign of confirmation for the divine authority of the prophet Elijah over against the prophets of the false god Baal (1 Kings 18).

However, "bringing a sacrifice devoured by fire from heaven" was never made a general criterion or a distinguishing sign that Israelites should demand from everyone who claims to be a prophet. No such command is in the Bible. Such a "covenant" does not exist. Moreover, the vast majority of the true prophets sent by God never experienced this particular miracle.

Therefore, we need to ask: Who lied?

The statement, ‘God has made covenant with us, that we believe not any Messenger until he brings to us a sacrifice devoured by fire’, was either a lie by these Jews, or the author of the Qur'an / Muhammad lied by putting this wrong statement into the mouth of the Jews, although they never made such a claim.

In the latter case, if Muhammad made up this false argument and put it into the mouth of the Jews, then he is a liar and is disqualified as a prophet from God. If the author of the Qur'an invents false statements about the Jews (or anyone else for that matter), then the Qur'an is exposed as cheap polemics, and it does not come from God who is the truth.

In the former case, Muhammad had the perfect occasion to show that he is truly inspired by God by exposing that the claim of these Jews is wrong. He could simply have said: "God tells me that you are lying. Show me where in your scriptures you are commanded this!" They would not have been able to show it. His opponents would have been silenced, and Muhammad would have gained credibility.

Excursus: Muhammad had to struggle over and over again with the problem that he was not able to do any miracles. He claimed to be a prophet from the same God who had sent the earlier prophets. On the one hand, he included many stories about the miracles done by these earlier prophets in his own message; on the other hand, he demanded from his audience to be accepted as another prophet like them but without showing any miracle that would authenticate his divine authority.

It is no surprise that Muhammad was confronted time and again with the sceptical question, "Why has no sign (miracle) been sent down upon him from his Lord?", or some similar formulation. Such questions are found in S. 2:118, 6:37, 10:20, 11:12, 13:7, 13:27, 20:133, 29:50. There are a number of different ways that Muhammad / the author of the Qur'an responds to such demands. One answer that is given a number of times is the claim that even if God were to send such miraculous signs, they would still not believe (2:145, 17:59, 28:48, 37:14-15), i.e. there is no point in giving miracles. (Muhammad and Miracles is a detailed article discussing the statements of the Quran on this matter.)

S. 3:183 belongs to this group of verses that seek to directly or indirectly divert the attention from Muhammad's lack of miracles by claiming that there is no point in giving them. Specifically, the demand of the Jews is answered here by a rhetorical question: Why do you demand a miracle when you killed the earlier prophets that performed various miracles for you, including the specific miracle which you are demanding from me?

Back to the main topic of this article. S. 3:183 reports an objectively wrong statement, an assertion that was allegedly made by some Jews who opposed Muhammad's claim to prophethood. We may never know whether these particular Jews tried to trick or deceive Muhammad with this "divine criterion", and the Qur'an only recorded this, or if Muhammad lied about the Jews.

Be that as it may, the question now is how does an inspired prophet respond to a false claim about God's earlier revelation? Even though Muhammad was not able to perform miracles, if he had exposed their false claim, he could have made some progress in regard to his own credibility.

However, instead of exposing their demand as a false claim, a fabrication, he attacks the honesty or sincerety of the questioners. Instead of dealing with the content of their criterion of prophethood, he uses an ad hominem approach in order to avoid the uncomfortable issue of his own authentication:
Those (Jews) who said: "Verily, Allah has taken our promise not to believe in any Messenger unless he brings to us an offering which the fire (from heaven) shall devour." Say: "Verily, there came to you Messengers before me, with clear signs and even with what you speak of; why then did you kill them, if you are truthful?" S. 3:183 Al-Hilali & Khan
These Jews put before Muhammad a criterion or test of prophethood that he was not able to satisfy. Seeing attack as his only way of defense, Muhammad in return questions their sincerety. The accusation and conclusion that is implicit in the rhetorical question given to them in response is this: Because you killed the prophets which came to you with miracles, you are not truthful and have therefore no right to question me. Suddenly the question is no longer what is the correct criterion for a true prophet, and whether Muhammad satisfies this criterion, but the issue now is the sincerety of the people questioning Muhammad.

Given that Muhammad was not able to show any miracles to authenticate his claim to be a true prophet of God, this was probably the best he could do. In some way, that was a clever move. Too bad that the Qur'an does not give any room for the comments of the Jews on Muhammad's diversion tactics. However, those skeptical Jews were a constant threat to Muhammad's credibility. He was not willing to tolerate that his authority be undermined by a repeated questioning of his status as a prophet. Therefore, Muhammad decided to get rid of them, and he expelled or killed all the Jews living in Medina in order to solve this problem once and for all, see the section on Muhammad and the Jews.

Viewing it as Muhammad's personal response, as coming from an imperfect human being, I can understand all that. However, Islam expects us to believe that the Qur'an is not Muhammad's word, but God's word. His answer to the claim of those Jews was allegedly not Muhammad's idea, but God told him to give this answer. And that causes considerable problems.

God knew exactly that the criterion put forward by these Jews was wrong. God never gave such a command, and he is not forgetful about his earlier revelations. God could have given a decisive answer that would have exposed them as fabricating a command of God.

Muhammad, on the other hand, was ignorant on the matter. He may have had a suspicion that these Jews tried to deceive him, but he was not sure, and their criterion could just as well be taken from their scriptures. Therefore, he could not directly charge them with deception in this specific matter. He ends his answer with "if you are truthful", which is not only part of his counterattack, but also an admission of his own ignorance. This is the first indication that the answer did not come from God but from Muhammad's mind.

Furthermore, the answer reveals not only the uncertainty of the author, it contains also a clear error and thus exposes his ignorance about certain facts of Biblical history. Muhammad does not only raise a question about the honesty and sincerety of these Jews, he also makes positive statements which can be checked against the Bible.

The answer, "Verily, there came to you Messengers before me, with clear signs and even with what you speak of; why then did you kill them, ...?" presents three statements as if they were facts:
  1. Messengers (from God) came to the Jews who brought clear signs, i.e. miracles.
  2. At least some of these came even with the specific sign that fire from heaven devoured a sacrifice that they had prepared.
  3. The Jews killed those messengers.
Whom is Muhammad talking about? What are the names of those alleged messengers? Again, Muhammad is not certain enough about the details, so he remains vague in his statements. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that this idea is inspired by the story of Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel that is reported in 1 Kings 18 and belongs to the better known stories of the Bible. [Read at least 1 Kings 18:25-39 if you are not familiar with the story, but it would be even better to read the whole story of Elijah starting in 1 Kings 16:29.]

The first statement is true: God sent messengers / prophets to the Israelites and some of them God confirmed with miracles.

The second statement is questionable: The Qur'an seems to speak about a plurality of messengers who prepared a sacrifice that was then devoured by fire which was sent directly by God as a public confirmation that these are true prophets.

However, Elijah was the only prophet to whom this sign was given before a skeptical audience so that the people should see that Elijah's God was the true God, and that Elijah was truly sent by God.

There were a number of further occasions where a sacrifice was devoured by fire sent by God, but in none of these cases did it serve the purpose of confirming the prophet as being a true prophet. In Leviticus 9:23-24 fire from the Lord devours the sacrifice prepared by Aaron according to the instructions of Moses. However, Moses had already done many miracles and the people did not doubt his divine authority. The fire did not come to confirm Moses as a prophet. The occasion was the inauguration of the priestly service of Aaron and his sons. In Judges 6:20-22 we read that Gideon's offering is consumed by fire from the Lord, but it is a sign only for Gideon to confirm for him that it is really the Lord who is speaking to him. It is not a sign that Gideon brings to the people. There is nobody else present. In 1 Chronicles 21:26 God sent fire on the sacrifice after David's prayer of repentance as sign that God had accepted David's repentance for the sin he had committed. David was the king of Israel and nobody questioned his authority. The fire was not to confirm David as prophet or king, but to show him that his repentance and sacrifice was accepted by God. Finally, in 2 Chronicles 7:1-3 God sent fire from heaven in response to Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the Temple. Again, there was no question about Solomon's authority. He was the king. God gave this fire as a sign that he accepted the Temple as the place where his presence would dwell.

There was only one time when God authenticated a prophet before the people by sending fire on a sacrifice, and that was the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18). The second statement is wrong when it claims this was given as a sign of public authentification for several messengers.

The third statement is definitely false: Even if we allow all the above given names of people who experienced that God sent fire to devour their sacrifice (Moses, Aaron, Gideon, David, Solomon, Elijah), there is not even one among them who was killed by the Jews. Ironically, the only prophet whom this miracle was given as confirmation, did not even die on this earth, but was taken up to heaven by God (2 Kings 2:11). It is true that there were plans to kill Elijah, but it was not the Jews who tried to kill him. Ahab, the king of Israel, had married Jezebel, a foreign woman who brought an idolatrous pagan religion with her. She sought to kill Elijah after he had defeated and killed the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:1-2). However, God protected Elijah and, eventually, Elijah was taken to heaven without dying (2 Kings 2:11).

As so often, the author of the Qur'an messed up on the details of the Biblical stories. It is true that a number of prophets sent to the Jews were persecuted and some even killed. It is also true that there were some men of God who experienced that fire from the Lord devoured their sacrifice. However, not one of those men of God who were given the sign of "fire from heaven devouring their sacrifice" were killed by the Jews.

God certainly knew this. But Muhammad was ignorant about the details and often confused the Biblical stories (*). This error is again strong evidence that Muhammad himself is the author, and it was not God who gave him this response as an answer to the Jews.

Again, the answer to the Jews was made up by Muhammad, and the error contained in it exposes the ignorance of the author. This is a false claim in the Qur'an and it constitutes evidence that Muhammad fabricated himself[1] what he claimed to have received as divine revelation. To claim that God is the author of the Qur'an is an insult to God, because it means to ascribe ignorance to God and blame him for the errors in the Qur'an.

Without question, the issue of testing a prophet is very important. In the Bible God spoke several times about the matter of how to discern true prophets from false prophets (1, 2). Muhammad was confronted with this question a number of times, but this core issue was only evaded by the author of the Quran. The Jews came with a criterion. Why has Allah not corrected their wrong criterion and given the right criterion? Instead, Muhammad simply evaded the matter with an ad hominem attack on the questioner. That is not what I would expect from God. It is unworthy of God. That observation also points to Muhammad as the originator of this text. Muhammad did not have an answer on this matter.[2]

A possible Muslim objection
Some Muslims may try to avoid the charge that Muhammad's answer in the Qur'an was ignorant by claiming either that the Bible is wrong on Elijah, or that this passage does not talk about Elijah but about some other prophets whose story is not recorded in the Old Testament.

This explanation does not work. After all, Muhammad's counterattack will only be able to silence the Jews if they know what he is talking about. If they are not aware of any prophet who brought fire from heaven and which was then killed by the Jews, Muhammad's answer will not be able to convince them, but only make them laugh about his ignorance. And what the Jews know about their prophets is found in their scriptures. The answer presupposes that this is a known fact among the Jews. But Muhammad was wrong in this assumption. Again, I would love to know what these Jews said in response, whether in direct response to Muhammad, or only among themselves, but the Qur'an does not report that.

An internal contradiction
We have seen that the third statement above is false according to the Bible. However, it is worse than that. The author of the Qur'an does not only say that "some Jews (in the past) killed those messengers" but "why then did YOU kill them", addressing the questioners directly. This is not only factually wrong, it also contradicts the teaching of Islam in other passages of the Qur'an.

According to Islam there is no original sin and no one is accused or punished for what his parents did. We know that during Muhammad's time there were no prophets sent to the Jews. Nevertheless, in this verse Muhammad is accusing the Jews of his time of killing the prophets. This contradicts his own message and theology. This matter is discussed in more detail in footnote 2 of the companion article, Which Prophets Did the Jews Kill?

How Muhammad failed the test in multiple ways
Some Jews came to Muhammad and confronted him with a test of his prophethood. This is only fair, since Muhammad demanded from them that they would accept him as a prophet, and the Bible tells us that we should test everyone who comes claiming to be a prophet. This encounter became a test of Muhammad's prophethood in several ways, and Muhammad failed in all respects.

First, Muhammad failed because he did not satisfy the criterion of a physical miracle to authenticate his claim to be a prophet of God like the earlier prophets. The Jews were wrong to demand only this one specific sign of "fire that devoures a sacrifice", but their scriptures report how God regularly confirmed his true prophets with miracles. The Jews were certainly justified to expect that a genuine prophet of God would have a confirming supernatural sign.

Muhammad was not able to bring any miracles of the kind given to the earlier prophets, neither fire from heaven, nor any other supernatural sign.

Second, even if the claim of the Jews that God's test is fire from heaven was wrong, being faced with a false claim is a test in itself. Perhaps this was even intentional, i.e. the test which the Jews brought was not on the surface of their claim; they didn't actually want to see supernatural fire, but they wanted to see whether Muhammad was able to give an answer to their trick question that exhibited divine insight. Intentional or not, Muhammad failed this "test behind the test" because he did not recognize that the criterion was not genuine.

Third, Muhammad failed because his answer contained a factually wrong statement that exposed his ignorance of the Bible. The Jews didn't kill any prophet who had brought the miracle of fire from God which devoured a sacrifice.

And it doesn't help Muhammad at all that he attributed his wrong answer to God. On the contrary, by doing so he exposed himself as a false prophet.

The first two failures may be specific to this particular encounter, but the third one we see over and over again in the Qur'an. Muhammad was not a prophet from God because his allegedly divine revelation contains numerous false statements ranging from apparently small numerical inaccuracies, e.g. the age of Noah (*), to more substantial errors regarding the history of Israel and the Jewish prophets (like the one discussed in this present article) to grave misrepresentations of essential doctrines of the Christian Faith, like the crucifixion of Jesus (*), his divine sonship (*), and the doctrine of the Trinity (*).

In addition to that there is the questionable morality of Muhammad (endorsing marriage to minors in general and having sex with a nine-year old himself, the assassination of his critics, etc.), his being a victim of magic, etc., see the articles listed in the section on the person of Muhammad (*).

1. If we recognize that Muhammad fabricated revelation and put forged words in the mouth of God, then it becomes a definite possibility that he may as well have forged the whole thing and put false claims into the mouth of the Jews, even though they never said this. However, this is only a side note, Muhammad failed the test of a true prophet in either case. The main purpose of this verse may actually be something else. This verse belongs to a series of similar verses. It is one of Muhammad's frequent attacks against the Jews, see the article Which Prophets Did the Jews Kill?

2. In fact, the issue of false prophets is totally absent from the Quran. In my opinion, the reason is obvious: Muhammad preferred not to stir up trouble. If he gave criteria, people could wake up to the fact that prophets are not simply to be believed but that God expects the believers to test people who claim to be prophets. Claims to prophethood are to be questioned and closely examined. Muhammad could not risk that. God's true prophets never had to fear such questioning. Only false prophets have a problem in this regard. And it is obvious that Muhammad did not like the idea that people would evaluate his claim to prophethood based on objective criteria.
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 07:01 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb A Complete Guide to Pedophilia in Islam

A Complete Guide to Pedophilia in Islam

by Amar Khan (editor)
09 Feb, 2009


There has been a great deal of debate over pedophilia in Islam. We, ex-Muslims, have collected a lot of data in bits and pieces regarding the pedophilic character of Muhammad. For the readers, particularly those with limited access to Internet around the world, to have an access to all the data regarding Islamic pedophilia with a single click, I have compiled them into a booklet. Many authors have contributed to forking out the information contained in this book and credit should go mostly to them. The following main contributors deserve a special mention:
  1. Hector [forum, Faith Freedom International]
  2. Khalil Feriel [forum, Faith Freedom International]
  3. Yezeevee [forum, Faith Freedom International]
  4. Abdul Kasem

I urge readers to distribute this e-book among your fellows. You can email that to anyone. If you want your offspring to live on the planet earth happily, in peace, then Islam is to be tamed or eradicated.

We have to reach the Muslim youth before the jihadis reach them. If we can not reach them ahead of the jihadis, the world will suffer. If you want to save the world, stop terrorism and stop oppression then you will have to tell people the truth of Islam and its founder.

Forward it to others; perhaps your email stops a suicide bomber or someone from funding terrorism. Your single click of the mouse may save human blood, which is being shed in the jihad for Islam, which, in all likelihood, will increase further in the time ahead.

Perhaps, your distribution of this book will alleviate sufferings of the billion-plus Muslims, who are the primary victim of Islam. It will, perhaps, many nations from horrendous attacks like the 9/11 (US), 7/7 (London), 3/11 (Madrid) and 11/26 (Mumbai). Perhaps your action slow, and eventually stop, the site meter of Islamic terror attacks, which stands at 12690 today since 9/11.

This meter is running very fast. We do not know who will fall victim to the next Islamic terror or suicide attack: maybe me, maybe you. Your sharing this e-book with your friends, colleagues and contacts may reduce the chances of you and I be the next victim. We at the Islam watch and faith freedom are working hard to save the world from the atrocious demon, called Islam.

The work done here is voluntary. Dr. Ali Sina and M.A. Khan have left their jobs and working on this most pressing issue of our time at great personal sacrifice. You can support and help this venture in any way possible: you can promote us, give our link to others, talk about us or share our contents in other forums.

About the editor

I was born in Pakistan as an atheist. Then Islam, a cult, was imposed upon me as a religion. Muslim invaders who conquered large parts of my country forced my ancestors to convert to their religion. Once one generation succumbed to Islam, the successive generations were either threatened or brainwashed so that they would never leave this evil cult. My forefathers were even used by Muslim invaders to spread their evil faith and empire. I was a fundamentalist Muslim with beard. I, however, managed to realize that Islam, in the guise of a religion, is actually an imperialistic ideology, similar to Nazism. It is like a net with the spider waiting for the big meal. It spreads through aggression and deception. It is time that we all try to understand 'what Islam truly is' and unite humankind to confront this vicious doctrine of hate. This book is a small step in that direction.

Amaar khan

Pedophilia in the Quran
The Quran allows pedophilia. Though there is no verse, which gives clear sanction to pedophilia, there are some verses, which clearly allows the practice.

The Quran has stipulated a waiting period for divorced women to get remarried. This waiting period is called Iddah as mentioned in the Quran. But there is an exception; Allah, the God of the Quran, prescribes no Iddah for a category of divorced women:
O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely.

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo itha nakahtumu almuminati thumma tallaqtumoohunna min qabli an tamassoohunna fama lakum AAalayhinna min AAiddatin taAAtaddoonaha famattiAAoohunna wasarrihoohunna sarahan jameelan [Quran. 33:49]

From this verses, it is understood that Iddah (stipulated waiting period) is tied to consummation of the marriage. If a woman is divorced by her husband before touching her, i.e. before having sex with her, she need not observe any waiting period to get remarried.

Clearly the reasons for Allah to stipulate Iddah is to avoid chances of pregnancy as a result of sexual relations between the married couple before their divorce.

In cases of divorces, where the husband had sex with the wife, the Quran specifies the Iddah, a waiting period of three months, in verse 65:4:
Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

Waalla-ee ya-isna mina almaheedi min nisa-ikum ini irtabtum faAAiddatuhunna thalathatu ashhurin waalla-ee lam yahidna waolatu al-ahmali ajaluhunna an yadaAAna hamlahunna waman yattaqi Allaha yajAAal lahu min amrihi yusran.

Here, Iddah is prescribed to two categories of women. First it says: “Yaisna mina al-maheedhi”—that is, “those women who are desperate of menses”. This indicates women, who reached the stage of menstruation but do not menstruate. The other category are those, who have reached menopause. Desperate of menses points to women, who, though reached the age, fail to menstruate. Their Iddah period is three months. This is prescribed probably to take maximum precaution about her being pregnant. Next, there comes “Wallaee Lam yahidhna”—that is, “those who have not menstruated yet”; this group of women are prepubescent girls, who have not menstruated yet. Here, the Iddah prescribed for them is the same: three months.

[I would urge readers to take particular attention on the phrase “Wallaee Lam Yahidhna”; because, it is going to be most important in this article.]

Let us sum up the two verses: a woman, divorced before sex, need not observe any Iddah at all [33:49].

But what is the reason for the prescribed Iddah for girls, who haven’t menstruated yet?

It is, obviously, because sexual intercourse has occurred between the child and her husband. It is, thus, clear that marrying prepubescent girls and having sex with them is sanctioned by the Quran.

Muslim Denials
Quranic verses with such obvious sanction of pedophilia is not enough to convinced some Muslims that pedophilia is permitted in Islam. They like to assign a different meaning and interpretation to the phrase “Lam Yahidhna” (“Not menstruated yet”) in verses 65:4. Some Muslims argue that this phrase only refers to women, who have reached the age of puberty, but fail to have courses. This is the main argument. But it holds little water, because the group of women, who have reached the age of puberty and do not menstruate, is covered in the verse in phrase: ”Yaisna min al-Maheedhi”i.e. desperate for menstruation. Two categories of women can be desperate of menses:
1. Women, who have reached menopause, and
2. Women, who have reached the stage of puberty but do not menstruate.

Women, who have reached the stage of menstruation but fail to have menstrual courses, have been covered in the phrase “Yaisna Min al-Maheedhi”. The phrase under trial here is “Lam Yahidhna”, which comes next to it. It is a simple logic that a group of women, already covered in the earlier phrase, need not be repeated or covered again in next phrase. The Quran is the words of almighty Allah; it is not a matter of joke.

The secondly argument that comes from such Muslims is word “Nisa” in verse 65:4. They argue that “Nisa” means women; so the verse does not refer to prepubescent girls, but mature women. But this is an utterly lame excuse, which can be refuted using the same Quran. See some verses from Quran where we find the word “Nisa”:
      1. And [remember the time] when we saved you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with cruel suffering, slaughtering your sons and sparing [only] your women - which was an awesome trial from your Sustainer;
        (Waith najjaynakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi yuthabbihoona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun) [Quran. 2:49]
      2. Said the chiefs of Pharaoh's people: "Wilt thou leave Moses and his people, to spread mischief in the land, and to abandon thee and thy gods?" He said: "Their male children will we slay; (only) their females will we save alive; and we have over them (power) irresistible."
        (Waqala almalao min qawmi firawna atatharu moosa waqawmahu liyufsidoo fee alardi wayatharaka waalihataka qala sanuqattilu abnaahum wanastahyee Nisaahum wainna fawqahum qahiroona) [Quran 7:127]
      3. And remember we rescued you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with the worst of penalties, who slew your male children and saved alive your females: in that was a momentous trial from your Lord.
        (Waith anjaynakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi yuqattiloona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun) [Quran 7: 141]
      4. Remember! Moses said to his people: "Call to mind the favour of Allah to you when He delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: they set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons, and let your females live: therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.
        (Waith qala moosa liqawmihi othkuroo niAAmata Allahi AAalaykum ith anjakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi wayuthabbihoona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun) [Quran 14:6]
      5. And when he brought them the Truth from Our presence, they said: Slay the sons of those who believe with him, and spare their females. But the plot of disbelievers is in naught but error.
        (Falamma jaahum bialhaqqi min AAindina qaloo oqtuloo abnaa allatheena amanoo maAAahu waistahyoo Nisaahum wama kaydu alkafireena illa fee dalalin) [Quran 40:25]
In these verses, the word “NISA” is used to signify “Female infants”; it's use is not restricted to refer to mature women. To get the picture right, it is necessary to quote from the Old Testament, because these verses are replicas of story depicted in Exodus:
And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah; and he said: 'When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, ye shall look upon the birth-stool: if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.' [Exodus, 1:15-16]

And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. [Exodus, 1:22]

The story of Israelites under Pharaoh and his command to kill all male infants but let female newborns alive..! If we check all those Quranic verses, NISA is obviously used to signify female infants. So, “NISA” simply means females of all ages, according to the Quran.

Quranic Tafsirs justifying pedophilia
To Muslims' denial that the Quran sanctions marriage of prepubescent girls and sex with them, which amounts to pedophilia, is pure nonsense, rest of this article will look into most authentic Tafsirs (Interpretation of Quran) to get the exact message of the verse of Iddah, Quran 65:4. First of all, let us look at the tafsir of modern scholars. Renowned Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (d. 1979) in Tafhim al Quran (Commentary on the Quran) interprets verse 65:4 as:
And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.

Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Quran the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible.

Note here what Maududi mentions giving prepubescent girls in marriage and consummating the marriage. He affirms that it is permitted by the Quran; no Muslims can question or forbid it. This viewpoint is shared by late Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Mufti Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen al-Wuhaibi al-Tamimi (19252001 CE) [Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen, Majmoo’at As’ilah tahumm al-Usrah al-Muslimah, p. 6163; see here]:
If a woman does not menstruate, either because she is very young or old and past menopause, then her ‘iddah is three months, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise [Quran. Surah al-Talaaq 65:4]

The reason for bringing two modern scholars is only to show nothing has changed in Islamic tenets on marrying and having sex with prepubescent girls even in our era. Now, let us have a glance at classical Tafsirs of the Quran. Only relevant parts of the Tafsirs will be quoted here to save space.

Bukhari writes regarding this hadith:
Narrated Sahl bin Sad:
While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, "Marry her to me O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet asked (him), "Have you got anything?" He said, "I have got nothing." The Prophet said, "Not even an iron ring?" He said, "Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half." The Prophet; said, "No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?" He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl BEFORE PUBERTY is three months (in the above Verse). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63)

First of all, most prominent of all Mufassirs (Quran interpreters) Ibn Kathir says:
Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. 2:228). The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their 'Iddah is three months like those in menopause. [Ibn Kathir on Quran 65:4]

Note that Ibn Kathir clearly mentions women in menopause as well as young girls, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Next, Tafsir Jalalain of Imam Jalaluddin Mahalli and Jalaluddin Suyuti also interpret the verse in the same way:
And [as for] those of your women who no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months. [Tafsir Jalalain on Quran 65:4]

Notice that, here too, these two famous Mufassirs interpret “Those who haven’t not menstruated yet” in verse 65:4 as prepubescent girls.

These are amongst the greatest scholars of Islam. The Tafsirs of other scholars are not available in English. I will, therefore, include here other famous Tafsirs, now available only in Arabic, as listed in, with English translations:

[Tafsir Abu-Hayyan. On Quran 65:4] The underlined text: “Those who have not menstruated yet” denotes those not menstruated because of being young.

More can be brought from authentic Quran interpreters, which says the same and will only consume space. In all these greatest of Tafsirs, what is common is that all of them interpret the phrase “Those who have not menstruated” in Quran 65:4 as “Those girls who have not reached the age of menstruation due to their young age”. We, therefore, have an unequivocal evidence that the Quran stipulates Iddah or waiting period for prepubescent girls too, simply because the consummation of the marriage has taken place.

Conclusion: Quran 65:4 obviously stipulates Iddah to divorced prepubescent girls. Moreover, the Quran prescribes no waiting period or Iddah for a divorced woman, who makes no sexual contact with her husband. Therefore, divorced prepubescent girls need to observe Iddah, simply because sexual contact has occurred between her and her husband. This proves beyond any scope of doubt that the Quran endorses pedophilia, the most abominable and perverted of all sexual crimes.

Pedophilia in the Hadith

1. Sahih Hadiths of al-Bukhari (810-870)
1a. "Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old." [Bukhari 5:236, p.153]

1b. The same points are in [Bukhari 5:234, p.152]

1c. "Narrated ‘Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six year old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). [Bukhari 7:88, p.65]

1d. Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect. [Bukhari 7:163]

1e. "Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam), and (I don't remember) a single day passing without our being visited by Allah’s Apostle in the morning and in the evening." [Bukhari 5:245, p.158]. Thus ‘Aisha was either not very old or not born yet when her parents became Muslims. This is consistent with her being a child when her marriage with Mohammed was consummated.

1f. Mohammed lusting for a "woman" who still has a wet nurse:
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:

Narrated Abu Usaid:
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, "Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift." She said, "Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family." Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses. (See Hadith No. 541).
2. Sahih Hadiths of Abu Muslim (817-875)

This is generally considered the second most reliable collection of hadiths.
2a. "‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She too hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have shared in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me.
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him." [Sahih Muslim 2:3309, p.715-716]

2b. "‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old."

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married here when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and here dolls were with her: and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old." [Sahih Muslim 2:3310,3311, p.716]

2c. "’A’isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her. [Sahih Muslim 4:5981, p.1299]

2d. "This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Hisham with the same chain of transmitters with a slight variation of wording." [Sahih Muslim 4:5982, p.1299]
3. Sahih Hadith of Abu Dawud (817-888/9)
3a. "‘A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said : Or six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old." [Abu Dawud 2:2116, p.569]

3b. "(4913) ‘A’ishah said: I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in." [Sunan Abu Dawud 3:4913, p.1373]
Note carefully this is NOT saying Mohammed had intercourse with Aisha while her playmates were watching. Rather it says the playmates played with her, and they went out when Mohammed came by, and could come back after he left.
3c. "(4915) ‘A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

Abu Dawud said: That is to say: I menstruated, and I was brought in a house, and there were some women of the Ansari (Helpers) in it. They said: With good luck and blessing. The tradition of one of them has been included in the other.

3d. (4916) The tradition mentioned above has also been transmitted by Abu Usamah in a similar manner through a different chain of narrators. This version has: ‘With good fortune.’ She (Umm Ruman) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and redressed me. No one came to me suddenly except the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) in the forenoon. So they entrusted me to him

3e. (4917) ‘A’ishah said: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were [sp] up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.

3f. (4918) The tradition mentioned above has also been transmitted by Hisham b. ‘Urwah through a different chain of narrators. This version adds: I was swinging and I had my friends. They brought me to a house; there were some women of the Ansar (Helpers). They said: With good luck and blessing.

3g. (4919) ‘A’ishah said: We came to Medina and stayed with Banu al-Harith b. al-Khazraj. She said: I swear by Allah, I was swinging between two date-palms. Then my mother came, and made me come down; and I had my hair up to the ears. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition." [Sunan Abu Dawud 3:4915-4919, p.1374]

Conclusion on Abu Dawud: Seven references and no counter-references affirm that Aisha was nine.

4. Sahih Hadith of Abu Nas’ai (830-915)
4a. When Hadrat ‘A’isha passed nine years of married life, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fell in mortal sickness. On the 9th or the 12th of Rabi-ul-Awwal 11 A.H., he left this mortal world…Hadrat ‘A’isha was eighteen years of age at the time when the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) passed away and she remained a widow for forty-eight years till she died at the age of sixty-seven." [Sunan Nasa’i 1 #18, p.108]

Note that she had nine years of married life with Mohammed, and since he died when she was eighteen, she was nine years old when she started her married life with Mohammed.

Conclusion on Sunan Nas’ai: One reference and no counter-references say Aisha was nine at the time of her marriage to Muhammad..

6. Ibn-i-Majah 824-886/887 A.D. 273 A.H.
6a. A’isha was married when she was six years old, and nine when she went to Mohammed’s house. [Ibn-i-Majah 3:1876, p.133]

6b. A’isha was married at seven, went to Mohammed’s house at nine, and was 18 when Mohammed died. According to al-Zawa’id, its isnad is sahih according to the condition of Bukhari. However Abu ‘Ubaida did not hear from his father, so it is munqata (has a gap) [Ibn-i-Majah 3:1877, p.134]

7. The Historian Ibn Ishaq [d. 767 or 773]
7a. "Yahya b. Abbad b. Abdullah b. al-Zubayr from his father told me that he heard Aisha say: "The apostle died in my bosom during my turn: I had wronged none in regard to him. It was due to my ignorance and extreme youth that the apostle died in my arms.""
(Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, page 682). A’isha said she was an extreme youth when Mohammed died.
7b. Muhammad even wanted to marry a crawling baby-girl. Let us read what ibn Ishaq, the most authentic biographer of Muhammad wrote about this.

(Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I. I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’l–Fadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba… (ibn Ishaq, 2001, p. 311).
8. Musnad Ahmad
8.a Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said, "If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her." (Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636)
9. The Historian al-Tabari (d. 923)
9a. ‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. al-Tabari vol.9 p.129-131. Muhammad b. ‘Amr is one of the transmitters.

9b. ‘Aisha was 6-7 when married, and came the marriage was consummated when she was 9-10, three months after coming to Mecca al-Tabari vol.7 p.7. The chain of transmission includes an unnamed man from the Quraysh.

X 9c. Aisha died in June-July 678 A.D. (A.H. 5 at the age of 66. That would make her born in 610 A.D. It says she consummated her marriage with the prophet when she was nine years old. al-Tabari Vol. 39, p. 171,173. (al-Tabari wrote 38 volumes of history, plus a 39th volume called Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors.)

9c. On the other hand, al-Tabari also wrote that i.e. "All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wivesthe names of whom we have already mentionedduring the pre-Islamic period." [Tarikhu'l-umam wa'l-mamlu'k, Al-Tabari, vol.4, p.50, Arabic, Dara'l-fikr, Beirut, 1979. Al-Tabari vol.11, p.141 also mentions this with footnote 766 saying al-Tabari has a conflict here. The footnote also says that al-Baladhuri’s Ansab I, p. 409-411; Ibn Hajar’s Isabah IV, p. 359-360 supports her being married by 9 years old.]

9d. Why did Muhammad wait three years between marrying Aisha when she was six and having sex with her when she was nine?

The Prophet left us and his daughters behind when he emigrated to Medina. Having arrived at Medina, he sent Zayd b. Harithah and his client Abu Rafi’ for us. He gave them two camels and 500 dirhams he had taken from Abu Bakr to buy [other] beasts they needed. Abu Bakr sent with them ‘Abdallah b. Urayqit al-Dili, with two or three camels. He wrote to [his son] ‘Abdallah b. Abi Bakr to take his wife Umm Ruman, together with me and my sister Asma’, al-Zubayr’s wife, [and leave for Medina]. They all left [Medina] together, and when they arrived at Qudayd Zayd b. Harithah bought three camels with those 500 dirhams. All of them then entered Mecca, where they met Talhah b. ‘Ubaydallah on his way to leave town, together with Abu Bakr’s family. So we all left: Zayd b. Harithah, Abu Rafi’, Fatimah, Umm Kulthum, and Sawdah bt. Zam‘ah. Ayd mounted Umm Ayman and [his son] Usamah b. Zayd on a riding beast; ‘Abdallah b. Abi Bakr took Umm Ruman and his two sisters, and Talhah b. ‘Ubaydallah came [too]. We all went together, and when we reached Bayd in Tamanni my camel broke loose. I was sitting in the litter together with my mother, and she started exclaiming "Alas, my daughter, alas [you] bride"; then they caught up with our camel, after it had safely descended the Lift. We then arrived at Medina, and I stayed with Abu Bakr’s children, and [Abu Bakr] went to the Prophet. The latter was then busy building the mosque and our homes around it, where he [later] housed his wives. We stayed in Abu Bakr’s house for a few days; then Abu Bakr asked [the Prophet] "O Messenger of God, what prevents you from consummating the marriage with your wife?" The Prophet said "The bridal gift (sadaq)." Abu Bakr gave him the bridal gift, twelve and a half ounces [of gold], and the Prophet sent for us. He consummated our marriage in my house, the one where I live now and where he passed away. [The History of Al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors, translated by Ella Landau-Tasseron, SUNY Press, Albany, 1998, Volume XXXIX, pp. 171-173]
10. Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals:Islamic teachings on sex with infants:
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister." [The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"]
11. Umar ibn al-Khattab married 10 or 12 year old girl:
Umar ibn al-Khattab, the 3rd caliph of Islam, at the age of 55 married Umm Kulthum bint Ali when she was between 10 and 12 years old. Some sources even say that she was five years old when Umar married her.

"'Umar asked 'Ali for the hand of his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage. 'Ali replied that she has not yet attained the age (of maturity). 'Umar replied, 'By Allah, this is not true. You do not want her to marry me. If she is underage, send her to me'. Thus 'Ali gave his daughter Umm Kulthum a dress and asked her to go to 'Umar and tell him that her father wants to know what this dress is for. When she came to Umar and gave him the message, he grabbed her hand and forcibly pulled her towards him. 'Umm Kulthum asked him to leave her hand, which Umar did and said, 'You are a very mannered lady with great morals. Go and tell your father that you are very pretty and you are not what he said of you'. With that 'Ali married Umm Kulthum to 'Umar." [In Tarikh Khamees, Volume 2, p. 384 ('Dhikr Umm Kalthum') and Zakhair Al-Aqba, p. 168]
Pedophilia in Islamic Fatwas

1) Fatwas by Ulemas:
By “sheikh mohammed al munajid” of Islam QA (see here).
Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?

I have not yet reached the age of puberty. Is it correct that a girl could get married before her menses start, or is that just a traditional myth?.
Praise be to Allaah.

Marriage to a young girl before she reaches puberty is permissible according to sharee’ah, and it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.

1. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah states that for those who do not menstruate – because they are young and have not yet reached the age of puberty – the ‘iddah in the case of divorce is three months. This clearly indicates that it is permissible for a young girl who has not started her periods to marry.
Al-Tabari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The interpretation of the verse “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”. He said: The same applies to the ‘idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.

Tafseer al-Tabari, 14/142

2. It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine, and she stayed with him for nine years.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4840; Muslim, 1422.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that a father may marry off his young daughter without consulting her. The Messenger of Allaah married ‘Aa’ishah bint Abi Bakr when she was young, six or seven years old, when her father married her to him.

Al-Istidhkaar, 16/49-50.

The fact that it is permissible to marry a minor girl does not imply that it is permissible to have intercourse with her, rather the husband should not have intercourse with her until she becomes able for that. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed consummating the marriage to ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her).
And Allaah knows best.
2) Fatwas By Islam Web
Fatwa No.: 88199; Fatwa Title: Age for marriage in Islam Fatwa; Date: 19 Jumaadaa Al-Uolaa 1425 / 07-07-2004
What is the normal age for a Muslim to marry?
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

The preferred age for marriage for a young man is when he is fit to get married, can provide for his wife and can fulfill marital requirements. The Prophet () advised the youth to get married and illustrated its benefits, like lowering the gaze and protecting the private parts from illegal sexual relationship.
Bukhari and Muslim reported that the Prophet said: "O, young people whoever among you can marry, should marry, because it helps him lower his gaze, and guard his modesty (i.e. his private parts from committing illegal sexual intercourse, etc.), and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual power." [Al- Bukhari]
Therefore, young people should put this Hadith into practice. Poverty should not be a hindrance to getting married.

Allaah promised the person who wants to get married in order to guard his chastity to make him rich. Allaah says interpretation of meaning): "The Prophet () said: " Allaah promises to help three types of people: 'The Mujahid (a person who strives in the path of Allaah), the slave who signs a contract with his master to be freed in return for some money, and the person who gets married in order to guard his chastity." (Ahmed, Nasa'i, Al-Thirmidhi and Ibn Majah).
As regards, the age of getting married for a girl, it is when she becomes physically fit for sexual intercourse. It is confirmed in Sahih Al Bukhari that the Prophet married Aisha, when she was 6 years of age, and consummated the marriage with her when she was 9 years of age.

The guardian of a girl should take the initiative to marry her off if he finds a suitable person who has the required characteristics that the Prophet illustrated when he said: If any man whose religion and character are satisfactory proposes to marry one of your women, marry him, otherwise there will be great mischief and corruption on earth”. [Al-Thirmidhi and others].

Myth of Aisha's Age Contradiction

The majority of Muslims agree that Aisha was only 9 years old when the Prophet married her. This site makes no apology for her young age and accuses the modernists for humbugging the Westerns morality and denying the truth.

This other site also defends Muhammad for marrying Aisha at 9 claiming that girls reach puberty at that age and therefore are considered adult and having sex with them at such tender age is acceptable.

However there are some “modernist” Muslims who dispute this fact such as in this site.

Arguement 1:
According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Aisha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
Even if we assume this narrative to be accurate, we have no reason to give it more weight than those that are so detailed about Aisha ’s age, describing her playing with her dolls, talking about her girlfriends coming to play with her and hiding when Muhammad entered the room, her memories of playing on the swing when her mother called her and washed her face and took her to Muhammad, her ignorance of what was going on and her “surprise” when Muhammad got into action taking his role as the husband, etc. These events are more likely to be remembered by someone of her childhood than when a particular Surah was revealed. It is more probable that a person confuse one Surah with the other than confuse all those details of her own life.
Argument 2:
According to a number of narratives, Aisha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Aisha 's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.
This is a weak excuse. When the Battle of Badr and Ohud occurred Aisha was 10 to 11 years old. She did not go to be a warier, like the boys. She went to keep Muhammad warm during the nights. Boys who were less than 15 were sent back, but this did not apply to her.
Argument 3:
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Aisha (ra) was ten years older than Aisha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
When someone gets that old, people don’t care too much about her exact age. It is very easy to say she was 100 years old when in fact she was only 90. The difference is not noticeable to the younger folks and 100 is a round figure. Assuming the Hadith is authentic, it could be an honest mistake. Since in those days people did not carry birth certificates, it is very much likely that the person who reported her age to be 100 did not know that she was 10 years older than Aisha and did not sit to make the calculations and deductions. She was not an important person and it did not occur to anyone that 1300 years later it would become the subject of a controversy. This could be a genuine mistake by the narrator of the Hadith.
Argument 4:
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Aisha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.
Tabari’s narratives do not have the distinction to be known Sahih. Even if we assumed that this narratives is not forged, there is no reason to discard all those strong, detailed and explicit hadithes that concord with each other and confirm the age of Aisha was 9 when she married the Prophet, to accept this narrative that, could very well be also an innocent slip on the part of the narrator. People remember important events better than those that are relatively insignificant. The date of the birth of the children of Abu Bakr was not an important subject for Muslims to record. But the details of the Prophet's marriages were more important. As you can read in the story of Safiyah's wedding even the kind of food served is recorded.
Argument 5:
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Aisha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Aisha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Aisha 's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Aisha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.
The apologist fails to provide the references to the hadithes that he quotes. But obviously this is an error. To understand and accept a religion, one must he at least intelligent enough to make such decision. That is about 15 years old. But let us be generous and say that age is about 12. If Aisha accepted Islam during the first year of Islam, she must have been 26 years old when Muhammad married her. (12+14) First of all, in those days girls married at much younger age. No one stayed that long to get married. And it is very unlikely that a 26-year-old woman plays with her dolls. It shows that some of the Muslim apologists are embarrassed of what the Prophet did and are desperately looking for excuses to exonerate him of his improprieties.
Argument 6:
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut'amwith whose son Aisha (ra) was engagedand asked him to take Aisha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Aisha (ra). Now, if Aisha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Aisha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
It was an Arab tradition to betroth a girl to a boy even when the girl was a newborn. This tradition is still carried on in many Islamic countries. This is no proof that Aisha was a grown up.
Argument 7
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Aisha 's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
This explanation is absolutely incorrect. Bikr means virgin and, just as in English is not age specific. In fact Aisha was the second wife of Muhammad (after Khadijah) but Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with her for three years because she was too young. Instead he had to content himself with Umma Salamah, until Aisha matured a little bit more. It would not have made sense to marry a beautiful woman like Aisha and wait for three years to take her home.
Argument 8:
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Aisha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Aisha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.
Of course this information cannot be taken as correct. If Aisha was five years older than Fatimah, and Fatimah was born when the Prophet was 35 years old, then Aisha was only 30 years younger than the Prophet. So at the time of her marriage when the Prophet was 54, Aisha must have been 24 yeas old. This is not certainly correct, for the reasons explained above and also it contradicts the Hadith that the apologist quoted about the age of Asma, Aisha ’s sister, who according to that Hadith was 10 years older that Aisha and died in 73 Hijra. So at the time of Hijra Asma must have been 100 – 73 = 27 years old, but according to this Hadith she was 34 years old. The discrepancy between these two hadithes quoted by the same apologist, demonstrate their inaccuracy. It all goes to show that in those days numbers did not mean much. It is more likely that people forget the dates. But events are better remembered. The reports of the tender age of Aisha is consistent with the stories of her childhood, playing with her toys, her girlfriends hiding when Muhammad entered the room, the Prophet playing with her, her ignorance and “surprise” in the night of the nuptials, etc. All those hadithes confirm that she was a little girl. Those who deny the facts and try to prove otherwise, demonstrate their embarrassment of the acts of the Prophet. Perhaps they should be credited for having some scruples and realizing that what the Prophet did was wrong but we cannot praise them for their intellectual honesty or lack of it.
Final argument:
“In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Aisha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.”
I respect his opinion, but disagree with him completely. Not only this WAS the tradition of the Arabs, it is still their tradition and it has become the tradition of other counties that converted to Islam. Even up to this day it is very common to find girls as young as 9-years given for matrimony. Of course the reason that no one objected to the marriage of Muhammad and a 9-year-old girl, is because it was a costume. The reason when it was reported in so many hadithes that neither the author nor the scholars objected is because it was nothing out of the ordinary.

Just a few weeks ago I read in the news that in Iran a 9-year-old girl filed for divorce from her 15-year-old husband just after 20 days of marriage because he would constantly beat her. When the young man was questioned he said: “She neglects her housework and plays with her dolls all the time”

Proof that Ayesha was Prepubescent While Her Marriage

Many Muslims wish that Ayesha had reached the age of puberty when she slept with Mohammed. But in reality she was a pre-pubescent child at that time. Mohammed did not care for her mental and physical health while satisfying his lust.

Muslim apologetics use different tactics to justify Mohammed’s lustful act. The following is the complete and well written proof that Ayesha was prepubescent at the time of marriage.

Part 1: Word consummate means “have sex"
Some Muslims cannot bring themselves to accept Bukhari's Sahih Ahadith, which clearly says that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Ayesha, when she was nine years old. They typically resort to questioning the English translations of Dr Mohsin Khan without themselves reading the ahadith in the original Arabic. An examination of the Arabic text shows that, according to the Sahih Ahadith, Muhammad did have sexual intercourse with Ayesha when she was nine.

There are many ahadith relating the same fact in question. The one most in contention is the following hadith:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.

[An Ayeshath Radhiyallahu Anha: AnnaNnabiyya Sallallahu Alaihi Vasallama Thazawwajaha vahiya binthu sitha sineen, va udkhilath alaihi vahiya binthu this’in.]
In this hadith, the word “udkhilath” was translated by Dr Mohsin Khan to mean “consummated his marriage”.

Some Muslims claim that Muhammad “zawaj”ed Ayesha, when she was six and “nikah”ed her when she was nine (for example, Abdur Rahman Squires). They thus posit 'zawaj' to mean betrothal and 'nikah' to mean marriage. In this way, some Muslims claim that Dr Mohsin Khan’s “poor” translation of nikah as “consummation of marriage”, instead of just “marriage”, had inadvertently raised a sexual connotation when none was intended.

The Arabic text shows this reasoning to be false: Bukhari used zawaj and nikah interchangeably as synonyms to mean marriage (as does the Quran in verses 33:37, 44:54 & 52:20). Secondly, according to hadith, the relevant word was not “nikah” (which does not appear in Bukhari 7:62:64) but udkhilath.

The root of the verb “udkhilath” is “dakhala” which means to “enter”. This is the common Arabic meaning. There are other definitions, none of which fits with the context of the hadith.

Some Muslims try to cast doubt on the meaning of dakhala as sexual intercourse by pointing to these other definitions. One Muslim even gives the definitions below, albeit conveniently without the sexual definition despite claiming a fullness of definition:
Here is the full definition of دخل (dakhala):

1. insert, enter, thrust, admit, drive in, let in, show in, make or let enter

2. turmoil, turbulence, topsy-turvy, abnormality, fuddle, tangle, riot, ruction, restiveness, chaos, fuss, disorder, clutter, confusion, commotion, defectiveness, disturbance, tumult, imperfection

3. aberration, imperfection, defect, blemish, abnormality, flaw, fault, vice, shortcoming

4. yield, revenue, proceeds, income, earnings, taking

5. conscience, innermost feelings, inward thoughts, inner self, soul, design

6. doubtfulness, doubt, mistrust, uncertainty, overconcern, peradventure, incertitude, suspicion, extreme solicitude, abnormal anxiety, anxiety

7. tie-in, pertinence, concern, connection, connectedness, contact, conjunction, association, business, yoke, nexus, linkup, liaison, linkage, link, relevance, affair

8. imperfection, vice, flaw, shortcoming, blemish, aberration, defect, fault, abnormality
Typically, the Muslim reasoning is that "consummation" could mean “completion” of the marriage or wedding ceremony, as in completion of a business transaction. However, this is erroneous as dakhala does not mean the English word “consummate” but the English phrase “consummate the marriage”. There is an important difference. This misunderstanding is due to the Muslim’s attack on the English word “consummate” and not the Arabic word “dakhala”. While the English word “consummate” may mean completion (as of a business transaction), the Arabic word “dakhala” carries no such connotation.

Further, an English speaker will never take “consummate the marriage” to mean complete the marriage or enter the marriage, but will always understand it to mean sexual intercourse. It is the only possible understanding of the euphemism. This is what these Muslims failed to understand: the meaning of the verb is dependent on the object in question. As the object is “marriage”, the verb “consummate” means sexual intercourse. This is because of the historical English (or more correctly Catholic) custom in which a marriage is considered to be consummated when the sexual act has taken place. It was a case for annulment if the sexual act was not performed, i.e. the marriage was not consummated. This has been the definition for centuries. Since ancient times to until quite recently, the wedding bed linen was displayed to the couple’s relatives on the morning after the wedding to signify consummation of the marriage. A bride was expected to be a virgin and a bloodstained sheet left no doubt as to both the bride’s honor and the finality of the marriage contracti.e. it had been consummated and that there would be no question as to its legality.

A common English definition of the word dakhala, such as in Hans-Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary, p. 273: “to enter, to pierce, to penetrate, to consummate the marriage, cohabit, sleep with a woman”.

Some Muslims attack this definition, thinking that each definition is a separate alternate. Unfortunately for them all the Hans-Wehr definitions are exactly the same. Just as in the English language “consummate the marriage” is an euphemism for sexual intercourse, “cohabit” does not mean merely sharing the same roof but is a euphemism for living together in a sexual relationship, and “sleeping with a woman” does not mean merely sharing the same bed but engaging in a sexual relationship.

Here is the complete list of the Quranic verses containing the word “dakhala”:
dakhala (3;37, 3;97, 4;23, 4;23, 5;23, 5;61, 7;38, 12;36, 12;58, 12;68, 12;69, 12;88, 12;99, 15;52, 17;7, 18;35, 18;39, 24;61, 27;34, 28;15, 38;22, 51;25, 71;28 ); yadkhulu (2;111, 2;114, 2;214, 3;142, 4;124, 5;22, 5;24, 7;40, 7;46, 12;67, 13;23, 16;31, 17;7, 19;60, 24;27, 24;28, 24;29, 33;53, 35;33, 40;40, 40;60, 48;27, 49;14, 68;24, 110;2); udkhul (2;58, 2;208, 4;154, 5;21, 5;23, 7;38, 7;49, 7;161, 12;67, 12;99, 15;46, 16;29, 16;32, 27;18, 27;44, 33;53, 36;26, 39;72, 39;73, 40;76, 43;70, 50;34, 66;10, 89;29, 89;30); dukhila (33;14); dakhil (5;22, 66;10); dakhal (16;92, 16;94); muddakhal (9;57); mudkhal (4;31, 17;80, 22;59); adkhala (5;65, 21;75, 21;86); yudkhilu (3;192, 3;195, 4;13, 4;14, 4;31, 4;57, 4;122, 4;175, 5;12, 5;84, 9;99, 22;14, 22;23, 22;59, 29;9, 42;8, 45;30, 47;6, 47;12, 48;5, 48;17, 48;25, 58;22, 61;12, 64;9, 65;11, 66;8, 76;31); adkhil (7;151, 17;80, 27;12, 27;19, 40;8, 40;46); udkhila (3;185, 14;23, 71;25); yudkhalu (70;38 ).

In all ayats, except 16:92 and 16:94 (dakhal = deception), the meaning is to enter or gain admittance or be granted admission to some location such as a house, gate, fire, paradise, hell, or someone’s presence etc. In the Quran dakhala is never used to denote “participation” as in the English phrases “enter a transaction” or “enter a marriage” or “completion” of any activity.

There is only ONE instance (twice in verse 4:23), where the Quran uses the verb 'dakhala' in relation to marriage or women, and it is clear that the meaning here is SEXUAL INTERCOURSE:
Daryabadi: Forbidden unto you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your father's sisters and your mother's sisters, and your brother's daughters and your sister's daughters. and your foster mothers and your foster sisters, and the mothers of your wives and your step-daughters, that are your wards, born of your wives unto whom ye have gone in, but if ye have not gone in unto them, no sin shall be on you, and the wives of your sons that are from your own loins, and, also that ye should have two sisters together, except that which hath already passed; verily Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

[Transliterated Arabic: Hurrimat AAalaykum ommahatukum wabanatukum waakhawatukum waAAammatukum wakhalatukum wabanatu al-akhi wabanatu al-okhti waommahatukumu allatee ardaAAnakum waakhawatukum mina alrradaAAati waommahatu nisa-ikum waraba-ibukumu allatee fee hujoorikum min nisa-ikumu allatee dakhaltum bihinna fa-in lam takoonoo dakhaltum bihinna fala junaha AAalaykum wahala-ilu abna-ikumu allatheena min aslabikum waan tajmaAAoo bayna al-okhtayni illa ma qad salafa inna Allaha kana ghafooran raheeman]

Other Muslim scholars also translate dakhaltum to mean sexual intercourse: Grand Sheikh Qaribullah & Sheikh Darwish (lain with); Sheikh Muhammad Sarwar (had carnal knowledge with); Ahmed Ali (slept with); Imam Al-Mawdudi (consummated the marriage); Mohammad Habib Shakir (gone in); Dr Muhammad Ayub Khan (gone into); and Imam Ibn Kathir (sexual relations with).

Thus, eminent Muslim scholars translate the verb dakhaltum (root, dakhala) to mean sexual intercourse, because the literal meaning is to “enter”, “insert into”, “penetrate” or “pierce” a woman. It does not mean “enter a marriage”: it means “enter” the woman.

When applied the meaning of dakhala to Bukhari 7:62:64, it becomes clear that the object “marriage” is absent in relation to the verb “dakhala”; the object is “Ayesha”—that is, Muhammad “dakhala”ed her (grammatically, he “udkhilath alaihi”). Thus, clearly the meaning is that he “entered” or “had sexual intercourse with” her.

Here is another translation of the root “dakhala”: he, or it, entered; or went, came, passed, or got in; to enter, go in, join one’s self in company, visit, intrude, meddle, have intercourse with, go into (one’s wife), intrigue, penetrate, deceit, corrupt. The primary signification is a thing that enters into another thing and is not of it.

Other definitions: He had an unsoundness in his intellect, or in his body, or in his grounds of pretension to respect; his affair, or case, or state, was, or became, intrinsically bad or corrupt or unsound. Income, or revenue, or profit that comes in, or accrues, to a man from his immovable property, such as land and houses and palm trees, and from merchandise. A disease; a fault, defect, or blemish, and particularly in one’s grounds of pretension to respect. Tangled, or luxuriant, or abundant and dense, trees. [taken from An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume three, p. 858–861; and The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 174–175]

It is clear that the only meaning of dakhala applicable to the context of the hadith is 'sexual intercourse'.

To further confound Muslim apologists, the Bukhari Sahih Ahadith use another phrase to convey the fact that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Ayesha.

Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236
Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.

[An Hisham An Abeehi Qala thuwaffiyath Khadijathu qabla makhrajannabiyyi sallallahu Alaihi Vasallama ilal Madeenathi bi thalatha sineenaa falabitha sanathaini ou qareeban min dhalika va nakaha Ayesha vahiya binthu sithi sineena thumma bana biha vahiya binthu this”I sineen.]

and, Sahih Bukhari 7:62:65
Narrated 'Aisha that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)."

An Ayeshath AnnaNabiyya Sallallahu alaihi vasallama thazawwajaha vahiya binthu Sitha sineena, va bana biha vahiya binthu This”I sineen. Qala Hisham : Va unbiethu Annaha kanath Indahu This”I Sineen.

The Arabic word, “bana” means to build or construct. But if we add biha, which means with her (biha is a feminine verb in Arabic), the meaning is entirely different. Literally “bana biha” means build with her. But this is a phrase that is commonly used to denote intimate sexual relations. If we say in Arabic: Muhammad bana bi Ayesha, the meaning is: Muhammad had intercourse with Ayesha. This is the only possible Arabic understanding of the phrase. So, again it is apparent that Dr Mohsin Khan had used the euphemism “consummated the marriage” to denote the sexual act.

Other Bukhari ahadith that use the phrase “bana biha” to mean sexual intercourse (though not between Muhammad and Ayesha) include 4:53:353 and 7:62:87.

A reading of the relevant Bukhari ahadith makes it clear that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Ayesha when she was nine years old. The terms used are “udkhilath” and “bana biha”, which can only mean sexual intercourse in the context of the ahadith. The Muslim confusion comes from their lack of understanding of the English phrase “consummation of marriage”, and their unwillingness to admit that their prophet had sexual intercourse with a nine year old child. Thus, instead of attacking the English phrase, “consummation of marriage”, it might be better served for Muslim apologists to read the relevant ahadith in the original Arabic.

Part 2: Proof that doll-playing girls are prepubescent
Playing with dolls and having pictures is strictly prohibited in Islam except for children not reached puberty. Therefore, Ayesha was allowed to have dolls. This proved that she had not reached at the age of puberty yet.

This is what the great hadith scholar, Shaykh al-Islam Imam Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani, Commander of the Faithful in Hadith, Qadi of Egypt, said regarding doll-playing and little girls:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8:73:151:
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari, p. 143, Vol.13)

How do we know that Ibn Hajar made the doll-playing exegesis: “The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty”?

The reference to Fateh-al-Bari and a look at other translations of Bukhari 8:151, conveys the same message.

Alternative translation 1:
On the authority of Aisha (RA), who said: I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (SAW). And I had girl-friends (playmates) who played along with me. They would hide (feeling shy) from him (SAW) whenever he entered. But, he (SAW) would send for them to join me and they would play with me. (Sahih Bukhari & Muslim)

[The translator then provides some discussion about translations of various versions of this hadith before he follows up with Ibn Hajar and Fath-al-Bari]
Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baaree (Fath al-Baaree, no. 6130, Kitaab: al-Adab, Baab: al-Inbisaat ilaa an-Naas): This Hadith has been used as a proof for the permissibility of possessing (suwar - of) dolls and toys for the purpose of the little girls playing with them. This has been especially exempted from the general prohibition of possession of images (suwar).

Alternative translation 2:
But if these images and dolls are toys for children, the Sunnah indicates that they are permissible. In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had female friends who would play with me…” [al-Bukhaari 6130; Muslim 2440]

Ibn Hajar said: This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to have images of girls (i.e., dolls) and toys for girls to play with. This is an exception from the general meaning of the prohibition on having images. This was stated by ‘Iyaad and was narrated from the majority. They permitted the sale of dolls to girls so as to teach them from a young age how to take care of their homes and children. Ibn Hibbaan stated that it is permissible for young girls to play with toys…

Alternative translation 3:
Aaishah said, “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (pbuh), and my girlfriends used to play along with me. Whenever, Allaah's Messenger (pbuh) would enter, they would hide from him. So he called them to play with me.”

In the classical commentary on Saheeh al-Bukhaare entitled Fat-h al-Baaree, Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaanee wrote the following: “This hadeeth is used as evidence for the permissibility of making dolls and toys with human and animal forms for the purpose of girls playing with them. This category has been specifically excluded from the general prohibition against making images. ‘Iyaad stated this to be categorically so and related that it was the position of the majority of scholars. He further related that they permitted the selling of toys for girls in order to train them from their youth in their household affairs and in dealing with their children…”

Note the great similarity in the commentaries of Ibn Hajar in Fateh al-Bari all four versions of the hadith. The words are different because of the different translators but the essential message is unchanged: only little girls (i.e. before puberty) are permitted to play with dolls.

How do we know that little girls are prepubescent? Because Islamic customs and laws specifically state so.

For example:

Girls reach puberty and adulthood when they experience the above three signs. However, they have a fourth sign, that is, menstruation (hayd). Whenever a girl experiences it, she is a woman even if she is 12 years old.

Islam and the Age of Puberty
Islam clearly teaches that adulthood starts when a person have attained puberty.

These Islamic Websites provide the evidence that in Islam, when a girl reaches puberty, she ceases to be a girl and becomes a woman. Therefore, little girls must be prepubescent according to Islamic customs and laws.

We also have commentaries by hadith scholars that reinforce this point.
Al-Qaadee 'Iyaad has stated this position with definiteness, and transmitted it as the position of the Majority (Jumhoor) of the Scholars; and that they declared permissible the selling of toys/dolls (al-lu'ab) for little girls, to train them from childhood for the household responsibilities and child-rearing.

Al-Khattaabee said: … it is understood that playing with dolls (al-banaat) is not like the amusement from other images (suwar) concerning which the threat (wa'eed) of punishment is mentioned. The only reason why permission in this was given to Aisha (RA) is because she had not, at that time, reached the age of puberty.
… Abu 'Ubaid, who said: We don't see there being any reason for that (permission to play with her dolls), except due to the fact that these toys are a source of amusement (lahw) for the children. So, if they were owned by adults, it would definitely have been detestable (makhrooh).

Part 3: Proof that Aisha was prepubescent when Muhammad first had sex with her

Tabari IX:131:
My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.

This hadith suggests that Muhammad had sex with Aisha in her house on her wedding day. However, was this event really on her wedding day? This is proven by the Sahih Bukhari hadith below. Note the similarity in accounts, although the Bukhari 5:234 hadith is more expansive on the fact that the events took place on Aisha’s wedding day.
Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age." [Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234]
Sahih Muslim 8:3311:
'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and (s)he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he died she was eighteen years old.

Note that Sahih Muslim says that Aisha still had her dolls with her when she was taken to Muhammad’s house as a bride. Applying Ibn Hajar’s doll-playing exegesis from Part 1, it becomes clear that Aisha was pre-pubescent when she became a bride.

Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the hadiths that Aisha was pre-pubescent when Muhammad first had sex with her on her wedding day.

Part 4: Proof that scientifically nine-year old girl is prepubescent
Scientific studies have also proven that the average age of menarche was older in earlier times compared to present. The evidence is that about 20% of all girls (today) reach puberty at the age of 14 or older.

According to a Scientific research paper posted at the John Hopkins University Website:

International Variability of Ages at Menarche and Menopause:
Patterns and Main Determinants

Mean Age at Menarche and References
Algeria 14.3 Grassivaro-
Egypt 13.2 Attallah (1978)
Morocco 13.75* Loukid et al.
Sudan 13.75 Attallah et al. (1983)
Yemen 14.4 Yemen Arab Republic Fertility

Cameroon 14.61 Biyong et al.
Congo-Brazza 12.0 Samba (1982)
Congo-Kinshasa 13.83 Rashid-Tozin
Ghana 13.98 Adadevoh et al.
Kenya 14.4 Rogo et al. (1987)
Nigeria 15.0* Morabia et al.
Senegal 16.1 Simondon et al. (1997)
Somalia 14.78 Gallo (1975)
Sudan 13.75 Attallah et al. (1983)
Tanzania 15.21 Hautvast (1971)
Zambia 13.7 Katzarski et al. (1980)
Zimbabwe 13.5 Mbizvo et al. (1995)
USA 12.8 Malina and Bouchard (1991)
Britain 13.3 Mascie-Taylor
According to, History shows us another trend:
Historical Data on Age at Menarche
Ancient Rome 12-14

Medieval Europe 12-14

Medieval Middle East 12-13

From above given data, it is very clear that even historically the mean age of puberty is much higher than nine. So, Ayesha was undoubtedly prepubescent at the time Muhammad slept with her.

Part 5: When did Ayesha get her first menses?
There are two narrations of Ayesha regarding her first menses. When she first experienced it, she started weeping and Mohammed consoled her.
Sahih Bukhari 1:6:293:
Narrated Al-Qasim:
'Aisha said, "We set out with the sole intention of performing Hajj and when we reached Sarif, (a place six miles from Mecca) I got my menses. Allah's Apostle came to me while I was weeping. He said 'What is the matter with you? Have you got your menses?' I replied, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is a thing which Allah has ordained for the daughters of Adam. So do what all the pilgrims do with the exception of the Taw-af (Circumambulation) round the Ka'ba." 'Aisha added, "Allah's Apostle sacrificed cows on behalf of his wives."

Sahih Bukhari 2:26:631
Narrated Al-Qasim bin Muhammad:
' Aisha said, "We set out with Allah's Apostles in the months of Hajj, and (in) the nights of Hajj, and at the time and places of Hajj and in a state of Hajj. We dismounted at Sarif (a village six miles from Mecca). The Prophet then addressed his companions and said, "Anyone who has not got the Hadi and likes to do Umra instead of Hajj may do so (i.e. Hajj-al-Tamattu) and anyone who has got the Hadi should not finish the Ihram after performing ' Umra). (i.e. Hajj-al-Qiran). Aisha added, "The companions of the Prophet obeyed the above (order) and some of them (i.e. who did not have Hadi) finished their Ihram after Umra." Allah's Apostle and some of his companions were resourceful and had the Hadi with them, they could not perform Umra (alone) (but had to perform both Hajj and Umra with one Ihram). Aisha added, "Allah's Apostle came to me and saw me weeping and said, "What makes you weep, O Hantah?" I replied, "I have heard your conversation with your companions and I cannot perform the Umra." He asked, "What is wrong with you?' I replied, 'I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, 'It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that." Aisha further added, "Then we proceeded for Hajj till we reached Mina and I became clean from my menses.
(Note: The second hadith has been shortened by deleting the last part which has no relevance here at all.)

Now, I want to dissect these two hadiths. There are more in Bukhari as repetitions of the same incident, but I just quoted two for the purpose. And I will focus on the second, since it is more descriptive.

Hadith unravels an incident when Muhammad along with Ayesha and some of his companions went for Hajj. But Ayesha struck in the middle weeping…. Please notice she began to weep, and what was the reason?

Muhammad asks what’s wrong with you my darling ? (Hanatha is difficult to translate to English, that should be why the translator himself put the same Arabic word.) Anyway, just have an idea Hanatha is someone who bought all opulence for a man. It is a term used to address the most beloved women in Arabic.

Ayesha replies I can not pray, because something has occurred (As you can say in the first hadith she has begun to menstruate) . NOW: Please be very attentive to Muhammad’s reply: It will NOT HARM you, for you are one among the daughters of Adam and Allah has written it for them.

Ayesha was having her first experience, because many of you women know first experience of menstruation is always somewhat frightful or an emotional experience. Since it was the first time she experienced such, she should have frightened and started to weep.

Muhammad does a good job here; consoling Menstruation is not harmful, but quite natural as all those females born Adam should necessarily go through it. If Ayesha had any previous experience, Muhammad shouldn't have used this consoling words...! But like a counselor, he convinces his beloved wife "Menstruation is not harmful" Lesson from Muhammad for a girl who is having her first experience.
There are some other narrations where an other wife of Mohammed (Saffiya) got her menses but Mohammed did not console her. But in above case Ayesha was having her first menses so Mohammed consoles her.

Islam allows and promotes child marriage

Islam allows and promotes child marriages. This is the reason that many child marriages take place in Islamic countries. Few examples are:
  • Roshan Qasem, 11, will joining the household of Said Mohammed, 55; his first wife; their three sons; and their daughter, who is the same age as Roshan.
  • Ghulan Haider, 11, is to be married to Faiz Mohammed, 40. She had hoped to become a teacher but was forced to quit her classes when she became engaged.
  • Majabin Mohammed, 13, at left, sits with her husband of six months, Mohammed Fazal, 45. Village elders advised him to accept Majabin as payment for a gambling debt.
Bad effects of child marriages
According to United Nations, Principle II:
Member States shall take legislative action to specify a minimum age for marriage, which in any case shall not be less than fifteen years of age; no marriage shall be legally entered into by any person under this age, except where a competent authority has granted a dispensation as to age, for serious reasons, in the interest of the intending spouses.
In many countries, child marriage is a crime. And if a Muslim tries to follow his prophet’s Sunnah, he will have to face sever consequences.


Adolescent pregnancy is alarmingly common in many countries. Every year, adolescents* give birth to 15 million infants.1 These young girls face considerable health risks during pregnancy and childbirth. Girls aged 15–19 are twice as likely to die from childbirth as women in their twenties; those under age 15 are five times as likely to die.2 Because early childbearing is so frequent, and carries so many health risks, pregnancy-related complications are the main cause of death for 15–19 year old girls worldwide.3

* The World Health Organization defines adolescence as the period of life between ages 10 and 19.

Sexual Behaviour and Childbearing

• Globally, most people become sexually active during adolescence. Rates are highest in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than half of girls aged 15–19 in seven countries are sexually experienced.4

• Millions of adolescents are bearing children. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than half of women give birth before age 20. In Latin America and the Caribbean, this figure drops to one third.5

Why is Adolescent Pregnancy So Common?

A lack of information and services: Adolescents often have poor information about reproduction and sexuality, and little access to family planning and reproductive health services.

In Sri Lanka, one-third of young adults age 16–24 did not know the duration of a normal pregnancy. Fewer than 5% had discussed reproductive health with their parents.3

Cultural values: In many developing countries, female status is equated with marriage and motherhood. Adolescents often marry early; more than 50 countries allow marriage at age 16 or below, and seven allow marriage as early as age 12. 6 Even the youngest brides face immediate pressure to prove that they are fertile.7

Health Risks

Reproductive health problems and deaths are more common among sexually active adolescents than among women in their 20’s and early 30’s.4 Physiologically and socially, adolescents are more vulnerable to:

Maternal death: Girls age 15–19 are up to twice as likely to die during pregnancy or delivery as women age 20–34.4

Infant and child mortality: Children born to adolescents are more likely to die during their first five years of life than those born to women age 20–29.9

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs): Each year, 1 in 20 adolescents worldwide contracts an STD (including HIV/AIDS).3
At Kenyatta Hospital in Nairobi, one-quarter of girls age 15-19 seeking antenatal care had an STD (gonorrhoea, chlamydia or herpes).10

Violence/sexual abuse: Adolescent girls may lack the confidence and decision-making skills to refuse unwanted sex. Girls who are subject to sexual abuse and rape can suffer serious, life-long physical and emotional consequences.

In interviews with adolescents in Peru and Colombia, 60% said they had been sexually abused within the previous year.11

Unsafe abortion: Each year, girls age 15-19 undergo at least five million induced abortions.12 Because abortion is legally restricted in many countries, adolescents often resort to unsafe procedures by unskilled providers. Adolescent girls therefore suffer a significant – and disproportionate – share of death and disability from unsafe abortion.13

O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2009, 05:41 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"

January 12, 2009

Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"

Life TV’s Father Zakaria Botros recently ran a show dedicated to discussing the question of morality and how it is—or should be—one of the hallmarks of “prophethood.” At the start, he posed the focal question of the show: “Was Muhammad the prophet a moral man—the most upright man, worthy of being emulated by the world?”

He opened the show by relying on an Ibn Taymiyya quote, which evaluated the signs of prophethood. Taymiyya asserted that there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” a contemporary of Muhammad. Taymiyya concluded that many of these so-called prophets are, in fact, “possessed,” and that the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography (sira) and deeds, and see if he be found worthy of the title.

Being that this is the first of several episodes devoted to examining the concepts of morality and prophethood (with the notion that the former reinforces the latter), the theme for this particular episode was “purity” (tahara): "Was Muhammad a 'pure' man?"—in this context, a question concerning his sexual mores (or lack thereof).

After the preliminaries, Botros looked at the camera and gave a stern warning: “This episode is for adults only! I am going to discuss many things that make me blush for shame, so please: have the women and children leave the room.”

He then asked Muslims watching to keep in mind the question “Is this the prophet I follow?” as he delineated some of Muhammad’s sexual habits.
First, from the Koran, Botros read verses unequivocally stating that Muhammad is the paragon of all virtue and morality, such as “And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality [68: 4].” He further quoted the ulema, such as Ibn Kathir, all insisting that Muhammad was the “Noblest of all humanity, and the greatest of prophets.”

Botros and his ex-Muslim cohost—the priest had insisted that it be a man for this particular show, lest he be too ashamed to delineate Muhammad’s sexual habits—discussed Koran 4:3, which “limits” a Muslim's wives to four, plus “what your right hands possess,” that is, slave-girls.

That was apparently not good enough for Muhammad, asserted Botros; an entire verse had to be “revealed” justifying more women for him (Koran 33:50). In fact, Father Botros has carefully compiled a list of all the women—66 are known—to have had sexual relations with Muhammad.

Botros said that was only normal: according to Sirat Al-Halabi, Muhammad can have a woman no matter what, even against her will; and if Muhammad desired a married woman, her husband would have had to divorce her. According to Ibn Sa’ad, who wrote another authoritative biographical account of Muhammad, “The prophet did not die till all women were permitted him” (see Kitab Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, v.8, 194).

The co-host, rather abruptly, interjected – “What of all those rumors that Muhammad exhibited homosexual tendencies?”

Botros dropped his face in his hands and mumbled, “So you still insist we discuss that?” The co-host was adamant, saying it was for Muslims’ own good to know everything.

Thus Botros, after profusely apologizing to his Muslim viewers, saying how embarrassing this was for him, declared: “Look! We’re merely readers here, bringing up what we have read in Islam’s own books! If Muslims don't like it, they should go and burn these books.”

The first anecdote discussed by the priest revolved around a hadith that, while some ulema say is “weak,” is, nonetheless according to Botros, present in 44 Islamic books—including some highly respected collections, such as Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi.

According to this hadith, a man named Zahir, who used to declare that “the prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest—prayers and blessings upon him."

Another curious hadith contained in Sunan Bayhaqi and which traces to Sunan Abu Dawud (one of the six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man who proceeded to kiss his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”

Botros looked casually at the camera and said, “Imagine if the sheikh of Al Azhar [nearest Muslim equivalent to the pope] went around lifting his shirt for men to kiss his torso” (he proceeded to make smacking kissing noises, for effect).

Said the co-host: “Surely there’s more?”

Botros: “Indeed there is. No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls"...

Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet," Part II

This being the continuation of Fr. Botros' examination of Muhammad's sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I. Last we left the priest and his co-host, the former noted that, "No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls.”

Botros proceeded to read aloud from various sources, such as a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory.

Next he read a hadith of Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Fr Botros also added that the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the perspicacious priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s 'activities' with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”

With an extremely disgusted look on his face, Botros turned towards the camera and said: “Dear lady, imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your husband sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who on record used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys: Are these the activities of the man described in the Koran as being the pinnacle of moral perfection?”

Cohost: “More!”

“Muhammad would not sleep until he kissed his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom [the priest provided the appropriate sources]. Dear lady! what would you say to your husband sleeping with his face in your daughter’s breast—is that the height of morality?!”

At this point, Fr Botros, looking downcast, began apologizing profusely, saying he could only imagine how all these anecdotes must be troubling for Muslims, to which the co-host reassured him: “It’s not your fault, father, but rather the fault of those Muslims recording these vile incidences. Either way: Muslims must know. More please.”

Botros continued reading more revealing hadiths, including one from the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”

Another hadith goes on to say that Muhammad ended up dying before this particular girl reached marriage age, to which the by now vexed priest, unable to contain himself, exclaimed, “Awwww! Poor prophet! He missed one!”

Botros then told viewers to keep this last hadith in mind, for “context,” as he read another hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”

“What prophet is this you follow?!” cried the outraged Coptic priest. “Where is his morality? This is the man that Muslims follow slavishly? Use your minds!”

It was late in the night, yet Fr Botros was not done cataloging his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits (these shows are an hour and a half long). So, when he moved on to a hadith depicting Muhammad lying next to a dead woman in her grave, as well as pointing to hadith categories called “intercourse with a dead woman,” I happily turned off the satellite and called it a night—till this moment, as I am (somewhat reluctantly) revisiting my notes to prepare this report.

Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet" Part III

Last we left the Coptic priest, he was reading from hadith reports stating that the prophet of Islam “admired” a 2-3 year old girl (saying that he hoped to live long enough to make her his wife), and “laid” in the grave with a dead woman.

In this episode, he began with the prophet’s “transvestite” tendencies. He read from several hadiths, including Sahih Bukhari—Fr Botros claims that there are no less than 32 different references to this phenomenon in Islam’s books—wherein Muhammad often laid in bed dressed in women’s clothes, specifically his child-bride Aisha’s.

Fr. Botros: “Perhaps Muslims think that he only dressed in Aisha’s clothes? Being that she was his “favorite,” perhaps after being intimate with her, he would merely lay in bed with her clothes?” (Here the priest put his face in his hands lamenting that he had to talk of such shameful things.)

Then he offered an interesting and revealing hadith, from Sahih Bukhari (2/911), which records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.

Fr Botros next moved on to some commentaries in the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. He read one anecdote where Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”—in the nude. Elsewhere, Qurtubi concludes that, “the prophet—prayers and blessings upon him—was constantly preoccupied with women.”

Fr Botros to Muslims: “So this is your prophet—the most morally upright man? Instead of being preoccupied with, say, prayer or good deeds, he was preoccupied with women?”

He next read from Faid al-Qabir (3/371), wherein Muhammad is on record saying, “My greatest loves are women and perfume: the hungry is satisfied after eating, but I never have enough of women.” Another hadith: “I can hold back from food and drink—but not from women.” After reading these hadiths, Fr Botros would just look at the screen in silence, shaking his head.

He next read an interesting narrative (contained in Umdat al-Qari and Faid al-Qabir). Reportedly, Allah sent Gabriel with some sort of celestial food (called al-kofid) to Muhammad, commanding the latter to “Eat!”—identical to when Gabriel came to Muhammad saying “Read!” (i.e., iqra, the word for Koran). The report goes on to quote Muhammad saying that the food given to him “gave me the sexual potency of 40 heavenly men.” Fr Botros next read from the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi, where it says that the “heavenly man” has the sexual potency of 100 mortal men.

Wondered the priest: “So, doing the math, 40x100, we can conclude that Muhammad, whenever he ate his heavenly aphrodisiac, had the sexual potency of 4000 men? Really, O umma, is this the claim to fame of your prophet—that he was a raving sex maniac?" Then, less seriously, "Imagine the surprise when Westerners find out that, once again, it was Muhammad who first discovered Viagra!”

Zakaria Botros went on to read from more sources, such as Sunan al-Nisa’i, wherein Muhammad used to in a single night "visit" all his women, without washing in between. Asked the priest: “Why even record such obscene and embarrassing things?"

Perhaps most entertaining, Fr Botros spent some time analyzing an anecdote recorded in Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya we al-Nihaya. Here is a translation for this lengthy account:

After conquering the Jews of Khaybar, and plundering their belongings, among other things, a donkey fell into the lot of the prophet, who proceeded to ask the donkey: “What is your name?"

The donkey answered, "Yazid Ibn Shihab. Allah had brought forth from my ancestry 60 donkeys, none of whom were ridden on except by prophets. None of the descendants of my grandfather remain but me, and none of the prophets remain but you and I expected you to ride me. Before you, I belonged to a Jewish man, whom I caused to stumble and fall frequently so he used to kick my stomach and beat my back."

Here, chuckling, the priest added, “a taqiyya-practicing donkey!” He continued reading, "The prophet – may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him – said to him, ‘I will call you Ya’foor. O Ya’foor!’ Ya’foor replied, ‘I obey.’ The prophet asked, ‘Do you lust after females?’ The donkey replied, ‘No!’"

Cried the priest: “Even the donkey blushed for shame concerning your prophet’s over-sexed inquiries! Here we have what is supposed to be a miracle—a talking donkey; and of all things to communicate to this animal, your prophet’s most urgent question was whether the donkey lusts after females?”

Next, reading from Sahih Bukhari (5/2012), Fr Botros relayed an account where Muhammad went into the house of a young woman named Umaima bint Nua’m and commanded her to “Give yourself to me!” The woman responded, “Shall a queen give herself to the rabble?" Shaking his fist, Muhammad threatened her, and then sent her off to her parents.

Zakaria Botros: “You see, people, even back then, in those dark ages, there were still people who had principles, who did not give way to threats and coercion. However, the real question here is, why was Muhammad contradicting the commandments of his own Koran—“if a believing woman gives herself to the prophet” (33:50)—trying to coerce this young lady?”
Finally, with a most distasteful look on his face, the priest read from a hadith in al-Siyuti (6/395), where Muhammad asserts that, “In heaven, Mary mother of Jesus, will be one of my wives.”

“Please, O prophet,” quoth the Coptic Orthodox priest, “do not implicate our saints with your filthy practices…”

Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet" Part IV

Once again, at the start of the show, Fr Botros read from a famous Ibn Taymiyya excerpt regarding how to differentiate between real and false prophets. Taymiyya asserted that there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” that many of these so-called prophets were, in fact, “possessed,” and that the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography (sira) and deeds, and see if he be found worthy of the title of prophet.

After reading the lengthy quote, Fr Botros concluded with a, “Good for you, Ibn Taymiyya! You at least knew this much.”

The viewers were then given the usual warning: “This show is for adults only! Young ladies and children should leave now.” He then exhorted the viewers to keep in mind as he reads about Muhammad that “this is the prophet you follow. Bear this in mind, O you Muslim!”

Fr Botros then lamented how for 1400 years barriers have been erected around Muhammad so no one—Muslim or infidel—could critique his life: “But the time has come, my friends; the barrier is broken!”

Next he recapped the past three episodes dealing with Muhammad’s sexual habits—including (but not limited to) his sucking the tongues of boys and girls, kissing the breasts of his daughter Fatima, "lusting" after 2-3 year-old girls, laying with a dead woman, homosexual inclinations, receiving revelations while dressed in women’s clothing, copulating with nine women in a row without washing in between (and then bragging about it), greeting people while in the nude, and proclaiming that he will copulate with Mary the mother of Jesus in heaven. (To this latter one, the priest, with a disgusted look on his face, said, “Come on, guy! Get real.”)

He began this episode by saying that no less than 34 books, including the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi and Sahih Muslim, record that Muhammad used to “fondle”—Botros scowled at the screen—“kiss and have sex while fasting, though he forbade others from doing so.”

Said the host: “Interesting. But we know that prophets have special dispensations: Do you have anything more explicit?”

Fr Botros: “Fine. How’s this: the prophet used to visit [copulate with] his women when they were menstruating -- so sorry for this disgusting topic! Forgive me, people!”

He then pointed out that the main problem with this is that the Koran (2:222)—“Muhammad’s own words,” as he put it—forbade Muslims from going near menstruating women.

He went on to quote from a number of hadiths affirming that Muhammad freely had sex with menstruating women, including from Sahih Bukhari (v.5, p. 350), which said that if Muhammad desired a menstruating woman, he placed a sheet around her and proceeded with his business, to which the priest cried:

“Come on man! Couldn’t you find another one of your 66 women? It just had to be the one menstruating?”

Then, earnestly looking into the camera: “But seriously, people: are you not ashamed of these things? I know I am—just mentioning them. And this is your ‘prophet’—the ‘exemplary man’?”

He then read a hadith, narrated by Aisha, and contained in the canonical six, wherein the prophet’s young wife recounted how, whenever she was menstruating, if the prophet “wanted her,” he used to “command” her to have sex with him, to which the priest exclaimed—“Commanded! This is rape! Who is this character you are following?”

He read from a number of other hadiths, all demonstrative of Muhammad’s sexual proclivities toward menstruating women—which the Koran forbids—adding, “People, if this is how the ‘prophet of God’ behaves, what can we expect from the average man?”

Asked the host: “Well, could other men behave this way?”

Fr Botros: “Sure, the prophet was always generous to his followers, giving them ways out. According to eight hadith compilations, Ibn Abbas relayed that Muhammad said if a man cannot help himself and copulates with his menstruating wife, all he has to do is pay one dinar in atonement; if he sleeps with her towards the end of her cycle, when she isn’t bleeding as much, he need only pay half a dinar—a discount!" [saying “discount” in English and laughing].

Host: “As you pointed out, since Muhammad had so many women, why did he even feel the need to resort to the ones that were menstruating?”

Fr Botros: “Ahhhh. I see you are wisely connecting the dots. The simple reason, my friend, is that Muhammad used to like smelling”—here he went sniff, sniff—“menstruation blood.” He then quoted from al-Siyuti, where Aisha relayed that Muhammad said to her “Come here,” to which she replied, “But I am menstruating, O prophet of God.” So he said “Expose your thighs”; she did so and “he proceeded to lay his cheek and chest on her thighs.”

Fr Botros: “Help me people! How can such perverse behavior come from a prophet—the ‘greatest role model’?”

He then read a Sahih Bukhari hadith (v.6, p.2744) relayed by Aisha where she said that, while menstruating, the prophet used to lay his head on her thighs and recite the Koran.

Fr Botros: “While reciting the Koran!!”

Next he read from Ahkam al-Koran (v.3, p.444) where a woman declared that she used to cup water from a well that had, not just menstruation blood, but dog flesh, and all manner of filth, and give Muhammad to drink.

Fr Botros: “What happened to Koran 2:222?! Yet the ‘seal of the prophets’ can drink such foul water?"

Then, while shaking his head with eyes downcast: "O Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad..."
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum