Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam
Issue 56 [@1:01:36]: Robert Spencer – When one is under pressure, one may lie in order to protect the religion. This is taught in the Quran, Chapter 3:28, Chapter 16:106.
Rebuttal 56:Nowhere Quran teaches one to lie. Unlike Christianity (see Issues 53, 55), Islam does not need crutches of lies to be protected. Once again, the documentary shied away from quoting the text of the enumerated verses. Why? Because, the said verses do not support how Spencer wants to insinuate the audience, rather the same very verses are opposite of his lies. No verse in Quran teaches one to lie. Period! This rebuttal will not shy away from quoting the said verses which are quoted below:
Alleged permission to take non-Muslims as friends only to guard themselves (3:28):
3:28. The believers should not take the disbelievers as allies rather than believers.
[Footnote] The Muslims, being in a state of war with the disbelievers, were forbidden to look to their enemies to guard their interests or for help of any kind. The clear statement made in 60:8–9 settles the point beyond all doubt: “Allah does not forbid you, with regard to those who do not fight you for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. … Allah forbids you only with regard to those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them”.
And whoever does this [by his careless manner*] has no connection with Allah — except that you guard yourselves against them [from their evil*],
[Footnote] The meaning is: Do not look to them for guarding your interests, rather guard yourselves against them.
Alleged circumstances that compel a Muslim to lie (16:106):
16:106. Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief — not he who is compelled while his heart is content with faith, but he who opens (his) breast for disbelief — they incur Allah’s displeasure, and for them is a grievous punishment.
[Footnote] Only very rare instances are met with in the early history of Islam in which converts even under compulsion ever recanted.
Fundamentally, this movie could not differentiate between lying of Mr. Shoebat (Issue 39b) who has done so to kiss unto and dupe his new coreligionists of this documentary while raking in money for himself (see Part – 1, Part – 2 of Anderson Cooper 360 – CNN, a report about Shoebat – “Ex Terrorist Rakes’ in homeland security bucks” ) and the Spanish citizens, who were victims of Inquisition at the hands of Church when some of the Jews and Muslims recanted their faiths under threat of torture and losing their lives. Essentially, Spanish Inquisition is one of the many examples of forced conversions into Christianity.
No Muslim, living in the present day West can make the claim that s/he is compelled to recant his/her faith. Issue that Spencer alludes to in verse 16:106 is moot, unless Spencer wants to invoke Spanish Inquisition in United States that might then revive circumstances of 16:106 for a possible discussion when some Muslims in the West might have to recant under threat of force.
Spencer is someone whose falsehood is supported by his own Scripture “…for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place.” (Isaiah 28:15 – New International Version)
If one does a search on the internet, there are rampant half-truth quotes by the likes of Spencer who refer to other verses as well alleging deceit. Not surprisingly, when those verses are also quoted in their full context the subject matter comes to light which only proves beyond doubt that there is no sanctioning of lie or deceit in Quran:
In Quran we find a reference where a believer, prophet Aaron, under threat of persecution suppressed his opposition to disbelief of his peers, but NOWHERE WE FIND QURAN SACTIONING A LIE OR A DECEIT IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM, be it that of Moses or Muhammad:
7:148. And Moses’ people made of their ornaments a calf after him — a (lifeless) body, having a lowing sound. Could they not see that it did not speak to them, nor guided them in the way? They took it (for worship) and they were unjust.
7:149. And when they repented and saw that they had gone astray, they said: If our Lord have not mercy on us and forgive us, we shall certainly be losers.
[Footnote] The Israelites’ repentance, though mentioned first, was subsequent to Moses’ return (2:54). The order here connects the repentance with the sin.
7:150. And when Moses returned to his people, angry, grieved, he said: Evil is what you have done after me! Did you hasten on the judgment of your Lord? And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by the head, dragging him towards him. (Aaron) said: Son of my mother, the people reckoned me weak and had almost killed me. So do not make the enemies to rejoice over me and do not count me among the unjust people.
7:151. (Moses) said: My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us to Your mercy, and You are the most Merciful of those who show mercy.
[Footnote] Aaron’s excuse and Moses’ acceptance of it show clearly that Aaron was quite innocent, having had a share neither in making the calf nor in worshipping it. The Bible account, which makes a righteous prophet of God guilty of the most heinous crime, must be rejected as untrue. That forgiveness was not sought for any fault in connection with calf-worship is clear from the fact that Moses joins himself with Aaron in the prayer given in this verse. Forgiveness here, as frequently elsewhere in the Quran, is equivalent to the Divine protection which everyone should seek against the shortcomings of human nature.
7:152. Those who took the calf (for a god) — wrath from their Lord, and disgrace in this world’s life, will surely come upon them. And thus do We recompense those who invent lies.
7:153. And those who do evil deeds, then repent after that and believe — your Lord
after that is surely Forgiving, Merciful.
7:154/ And when Moses’ anger calmed down, he took up the tablets; and in the writing thereof was guidance and mercy for those who fear their Lord.
In another instance, a Muslim and follower of Moses openly professes and advocates the core of his belief to Pharaoh, but apparently not disclosing his label of being a Muslim. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SACTIONING OF A LIE IN QURAN:
40:21. Have they never travelled in the land that they could see how (evil) was the end of their predecessors? They were mightier than these in power and in respect of leaving stronger marks (- monuments etc.) in the land. But Allâh took them to task (and destroyed them) for their sins and they had no saviour from (the punishment of) Allâh.
40:22. That was because their Messengers (of God) came to them with evident proofs but they refused to believe (in them). So Allâh seized them (with destruction). Powerful is He and Stern His retribution.
40:23. And indeed We had already sent Moses with Our Messages and a clear authority,
40:24. Towards Pharaoh, Hâmân and Korah, yet they said, `(This man is) a sorcerer, a great liar.’
40:25. So when he brought them the truth from Us they said, `Go on slaying the sons of those who have believed and joined with him, and go on sparing their womenfolk to make them immodest.‘ But futile are the schemes of the disbelievers (and ever bound to fail).
40:26. And Pharaoh said, `Leave me alone; I will kill Moses. Let him call on his Lord. I fear lest he should change your faith or cause disorder to spread in the land.’
40:27. (On the other hand) Moses said, (to his people,) `I seek refuge in (Him Who is) my Lord and your Lord from every arrogant (person) who does not believe in the Day of Reckoning.’
40:28. And a man who was a believer and belonged to the people of Pharaoh (and) kept his faith hidden said, `Are you bent upon killing a man simply because he says, “Allâh alone is my Lord,” while he has already brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is a liar he will suffer (the sad consequences of) his lie, and if he is truthful then some of the things he threatens you with are sure to befall you. Indeed, Allâh does not guide (to success) the person who exceeds the bounds and is a great liar.
40:29. `O my people! yours is the sovereignty today and you dominate over the country. But who will help us and save us from the punishment of Allâh if it visits us?’ Pharaoh said, `I only point out to you that which I see and understand myself, and I guide you only to the path of rectitude.’
40:30. And he who had infact believed (in the faith brought by Moses) said, `O my people! I fear lest you should encounter the like of the day (of disaster) which befell (other) parties of people (of the past);
40:31. `(And I fear lest you should meet) the like of fate which followed the ways of the people of Noah and `âd and (the people of) Thamûd and those who came after them. And Allâh does not want His servants to go wrong.
40:32. `My people! I fear lest you should have to suffer on the day of calling one another (for help in frightful distress);
40:33. `A day when you will retreat turning your backs. No defender shall you have against (the punishment of) Allâh. Yet none can guide him (to success) whom Allâh forsakes and adjudges to be astray.
40:34. `And Joseph did come to you before (this) with clear proofs but you continued to be in doubt about that which he brought to you, till when he died, you said, “Allâh will never raise a Messenger after him”. That is how Allâh forsakes and adjudges him as having gone astray who is a transgressor and doubter.
35. `Those who dispute concerning the Messages of Allâh without any proof and authority having come to them (from Allâh to support them). This (attitude of theirs) is extremely abhorring to Allâh and to those who believe. That is how it is! Allâh sets a seal upon the heart of every arrogant (and) haughty person.’
40:36. And Pharaoh said, `O Hâmân! build for me a lofty tower that I may find access to the means -
40:37. `The means (of access) to the heavens, so that I may have a look at the God of Moses. Indeed, I consider him to be a liar.’ And in this way his own evil conduct was made fair- seeming to Pharaoh and so he was prevented from following the (right) path. Yet all the schemes of Pharaoh resulted only in ruin.
40:38. And he who had believed (in Moses from the people of Pharaoh) said, `O my people! follow me and I will guide you in the way of rectitude.
40:39. `O my people! the life of this world is but a provision (of a passing nature), and the Hereafter alone is the permanent home.
40:40. `Those who do evil will be recompensed in proportion thereto (- to their evil deeds). But the men and women who believe and (at the same time) do righteous deeds, it is they who will enter Paradise where they will be provided for without measure.
40:41. `O my people! how (strange) it is with me that I call you to salvation whereas you call me to the Fire.
40:42. `You call me to renounce Allâh and to associate with Him that of which I have no knowledge (of being His associate at all), while I call you to the All-Mighty, the Great Protector.
40:43. `No doubt that what you call me to, has no title to be called upon in this world nor in the Hereafter. There is no doubt that we shall all return to Allâh and that the transgressors will be the inmates of the Fire.
40:44. `So you will soon remember what I say to you (by way of advice). I entrust my cause to Allâh. Indeed, Allâh keeps a keen watch over His servants.’
40:45. Thereupon Allâh saved him (- the believer) from the evil of their plans (against him) and the severest of punishment befell the people of Pharaoh.
46. (Their abode is) the Fire. They are presented to it morning and evening. And on the day when the (appointed) Hour comes to pass, (the angels will be commanded,) `Put Pharaoh’s people into the severest torment.’
40:47. And (think of the time) when these (disbelievers) will argue one with another in the Fire and the humble will say to those who sought to be great, `Verily, we were your followers, will you not then relieve us of a portion (of the punishment) of the Fire.’
48. Those who sought to be great will say, `Now we are all (adjudged to suffer) in it. Verily, Allâh has already passed (His) true judgment between (His) servants.’
40:49. And those in the Fire will say to the Keepers of Gehenna, `Call to your Lord that He may relieve us of our agony for a while.’
40:50. These (Keepers) will say, `Did not your Messengers (of God) come to you with clear signs?’ They will answer, `Yes indeed!’ They (the Keepers of Gehenna) will say, `Then call (yourselves and your false deities).’ But the call of the disbelievers will be of no avail. [Nooruddin]
The above instances of one not openly professing one’s belief label is no more than instinctual effort for one’s survivability. It is not lying per se nor sanctioning of a lie in Quran, as misquoted and mislabeled by this documentary.
Alleged sanctioning of deceit in marriage (2:225):
3:224. And do not make Allah by your oaths a hindrance to your doing good and keeping your duty and making peace between people.
[Footnote] This verse refers to the pre-Islamic Arab custom of ila’, a way of temporarily putting off the wife which was effected by an oath in Allah’s name not to have sexual relations with her. The result of this was that the husband considered himself free from all marital obligations. The first step to bring about a reform in the relations of husband and wife was that this practice was abolished. It is in reference to this that the taking of oaths against the doing of good to others is prohibited. The fulfilment of marital obligations is thus referred to as the doing of good and observance of duty and making peace between people. But the subject is generalized and the taking of all oaths to forbid oneself the doing of good or fulfilment of obligations is prohibited. See also 66:2 footnote.
And Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
3:225. Allah will not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned.
[Footnote] By vain oaths are meant unintentional or thoughtless oaths in ordinary conversation, and by what the hearts have earned is meant an oath intentionally taken.
And Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.
3:226. Those who swear that they will not have sexual relations with their wives should wait four months;
[Footnote] Ila’ signifies an oath by a man that he shall not approach his wife. In pre-Islamic times the Arabs used to take such oaths frequently, and as the period of suspension was not limited, the wife was compelled sometimes to pass her whole life having neither the position of a wife nor that of a divorced woman free to marry elsewhere. The Quran declares that if the husband does not reassert conjugal relations within four months, the wife shall be divorced. Cases in which husbands desert wives, having neither conjugal relations with them nor divorcing them, must be dealt with practically as amounting to Ila’, so that after four months the wife should be free if she wants a divorce.
then if they go back, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
3:227. And if they resolve on a divorce,
[Footnote] The Islamic law of divorce is elastic and does not strictly limit the causes of divorce. Divorce is allowed if sufficient reason exists, but the right is to be exercised under exceptional circumstances. A wife can claim a divorce according to the Islamic law, which was not a right conferred on her by Jewish and Christian laws on divorce as formulated in Deuteronomy and Matthew.
Allah is surely Hearing, Knowing.
3:228. Divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses.
[Footnote] The period of waiting, or ‘iddat, forms the first condition in the Islamic law of divorce. But for cases in which marriage is not consummated, no period of waiting is necessary; see 33:49.
And it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day.
Alleged dissolution of one’s oaths for selfish gains(9:3, 66:2):
9:1. A declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
[Footnote] This is a declaration of immunity from obligations with such of the idolatrous tribes of Arabia as had repeatedly broken their agreements with the Muslims. They broke their agreements again and again (8:56), yet the Muslims were enjoined to accept peace if the disbelievers consented to it, even after repeated violations (8:61). But this state of things could not continue long, for it was soon found that it was impossible to trust such neighbours. This repudiation of agreements took place on a large scale when the Muslims were absent on the Tabuk expedition.
9:2. So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot escape Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
9:3. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger.
[Footnote] The first thirteen verses of this chapter were publicly proclaimed by Ali on the occasion of the pilgrimage in 9 A.H.
So if you repent, it will be better for you; and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape Allah. And announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve —
9:4. except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
[Footnote] The exception given here makes it clear that the Muslims were not fighting with the idolaters on account of their religion, but on account of their having been untrue to their agreements.
66:1. O Prophet, why do you forbid (yourself) what Allah has made lawful for you? Do you seek to please your wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Footnote] The reference here is to the well-known temporary separation from his wives which the Prophet resorted to, on account of his wives demanding more of worldly comforts (see 33:28), regarding which the Holy Prophet made a vow.
66:2. Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths; and Allah is your Patron, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.
[Footnote] The expiation of oaths is sanctioned in 5:89. The custom of Ila’, or making a vow not to have conjugal relations with one’s wife, is mentioned as an introduction to the subject of divorce in 2:226, but it is actually prohibited here.
66:3. And when the Prophet confided an information to one of his wives — but when she disclosed it (to others), and Allah informed him of it, he made known part of it and passed over (another) part. So when he told her of it, she said: Who informed you of this? He said: The Knowing, the One Aware, informed me.
[Footnote] There is no trustworthy report showing what particular incident is referred to here. But as these verses speak of the temporary separation of the Holy Prophet from his wives, it is likely that this incident was also in connection with that separation. From what is related in connection with this incident, it appears that originally Aishah and Hafsah led this demand and later on the other wives joined. And when the Prophet on receiving Divine revelation gave an option to his wives either to remain in his house without more worldly comforts or to part company with him and have the desired comforts, he told Aishah not to take a decision without consulting her parents (Bukhari, 46:25). Maybe it was this matter which Aishah disclosed to the others, and hence their united decision to remain in the Prophet’s house with all the worldly privations.
66:4. If both of you (wives) turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are inclined (to this already); and if you back up one another against him, then surely Allah is his Patron, and Gabriel and the righteous believers,and the angels after that are the aiders. 5Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you: submitting (to Allah), believing, obedient (to Allah), penitent, serving (Allah), fasting, widows, and virgins.
[Footnote] This shows that all those qualifications which are mentioned here were met with in the Holy Prophet’s wives. He had been given a choice to divorce any of his wives whom he did not desire but, when the wives decided not to leave him despite the extreme austerity of his home life, he did not divorce any of them; see 33:51–52.
Allegedly, Allah is a schemer and by implication Muslims too are schemers (3:54):
3:52. But when Jesus perceived disbelief on their part, he said: Who will be my helpers in Allah’s way? The disciples said: We are Allah’s helpers, we believe in Allah, and (ask you to) bear witness that we are submitting ones.
3:53. Our Lord, we believe in what You have revealed and we follow the messenger, so write us down with those who bear witness.
3:54. And (the Jews) planned and Allah (also) planned. And Allah is the Best of planners.
[Footnote] The word makr used here is the equivalent of the word plan, the good or evil nature of the plan being dependent on the doer’s intention. The Jews planned to put Jesus to death by crucifixion, and Allah made a plan to frustrate their plans; and Allah’s plan was successful, i.e. he was saved from death on the cross, for which see 3:55 and 4:157.
3:55 When Allah said: O Jesus, I will cause you to die
[Footnote] Ibn Abbas says that the words used here, mutawaffi-ka, mean mumitu-ka, i.e. I will cause you to die (see Bukhari, 65.5:12). These words are used to show that the Jewish plans to cause Jesus’ death on the cross would be frustrated and that he would afterwards die a natural death; see 4:157.
and exalt you in My presence
[Footnote] The word raf‘ signifies raising or elevating, and also exalting or making honourable. When the raf‘ of a human being to Allah is spoken of in the religious literature of Islam, it is always in the sense of exaltation. The exaltation of Jesus is mentioned here as a reply to the Jews, whose object was to make him die an accursed and ignominious death on the cross.
and clear you of those who disbelieve
[Footnote] This signifies clearing Jesus of the false charges relating to the alleged illegitimacy of his birth, and so on, charges of which Jesus was cleared by the Quran.
and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of Resurrection.
This is the fourth promise made to Jesus in this verse, that those who follow Jesus shall be made dominant over his rejectors till the day of Judgment. Its truth is witnessed to this day in the dominance of the Christians over the Jews.
Then to Me is your return, so I shall decide between you in that in which you differ.
[Footnote] Differences of belief are dealt with in the life after death, while the worst of transgressions in deeds are punished even in this life.
4:157. and for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they did not kill him, nor did they cause his death on the cross,
[Footnote] The words used here do not negative that Jesus was nailed to the cross; they negative his having expired on the cross as a result of being nailed to it. That Jesus died a natural death is plainly stated in 5:117. The Gospels contain clear testimony showing that Jesus Christ escaped death on the cross. For example, Jesus remained on the cross for a few hours only (Mark 15:25, John 19:14) but death by crucifixion was always slow. When the side of Jesus was pierced, blood rushed out and this was a certain sign of life (John 19:34). Jesus was not buried but was given into the charge of a wealthy disciple of his, who lavished care on him and put him in a spacious tomb hewn in the side of a rock (Mark 15:46). When the tomb was seen on the third day, the stone was found to have been removed from its mouth (Mark 16:4), which would not have been the case if there had been a supernatural rising. Jesus Christ prayed the whole night before his arrest to be saved from the accursed death on the cross, and he also asked his disciples to pray for him. He seems to have even received a promise from God to be saved, and it was to this promise that he referred when he cried out on the cross: “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” The statements made in the Quran corroborate the testimony found in the Gospels. Jesus did not die on the cross, nor was he killed as were the two thieves who were crucified with him, but to people he appeared as if he were dead.
but he was made to appear to them as such.
[Footnote] These words may bear two interpretations: he was made to be like it to them or the matter was made dubious to them. The story that someone else was made to resemble Jesus is not borne out by the words of the Quran, which could only mean, if an object were mentioned, that Jesus was made to resemble someone, not that someone was made to resemble Jesus.
And certainly those who differ concerning it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture, and they did not kill him for certain;
4:158. rather, Allah exalted him in His presence.
[Footnote] For “exaltation” see 3:55 footnote 2. Being exalted in the Divine presence was opposed to being killed on the cross. Deuteronomy 21:23 explains this, for there we have, he who is hanged is accursed of God. If Jesus had died on the cross he would have been accursed; hence the statement made here — he was not killed on the cross and accursed but he was exalted in the Divine presence.
And Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.
4:159. And there is none of the People of the Book but will believe in this before his death; and on the day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.
[Footnote] Both Jews and Christians necessarily believe in the death of Jesus on the cross, while according to the Quran they have really no sure knowledge of it. The belief of the Jews is that since Jesus died on the cross he was accursed of God, and hence he cannot be a prophet. Following quite a different line of argument, Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross and was accursed, but that unless Jesus were accursed he could not take away the sins of those that believe in him. Hence the belief of both Jews and Christians is that Jesus died on the cross, and the meaning of the verse is clear, i.e., every Jew and Christian, despite having no sure knowledge at all, must believe before his death that Jesus died on the cross.
* [Brackets used in verse 3:28 are not part of original text]. See also translation by Nooruddin – link.
Unless indicated otherwise, all verses and corresponding footnotes above are from the translation and commentary of Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz.
Bible – New International Version – BibleGateway.com
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
Issue 55 [@1:00:54]: Abdullah Al-Araby – Director, The Pen vs. The Sword Publications – “Lying, generally speaking is not allowed in Islam. But, unlike other religions, there are certain situations where a Muslim can lie and that would be acceptable, even encouraged. This concept is called Al-Taqiyya. Al-Taqiyya means prevention. So a Muslim is allowed to prevent harm that may come to him or Islam.”
Rebuttal 55: Lying is NOT allowed in Islam. Period! (see Issue 53, and Issue 54). This is not a mere tall claim of Islam nor an empty homily of a Muslim. This claim emanates from the fundamentals of Islam that comes to light in the following quotations:
30:138. (We take) Allah’s colour, and who is better than Allah at colouring, and we are His worshippers.
One of the Allah’s colour in Islam that one has to adopt is the Truth:
22:6. …Allah, He is the Truth…
Not only that He is the Truth, He is also its Author, Granter, King (Sovereign) and Guardian as well:
59:23. He is Allah, besides Whom there is no God: the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. Glory be to Allah from what they set up as partners (with Him)!
Thus, when one bows to Allah, one fearlessly bows to Truth in Islam, not to falsehood as alleged by Al-Araby. A Muslim is no more than an instrument to preserve Islam for himself. The ultimate preserver of Islam for the body of humanity is none but Allah who has the track record of sending preservers of Truth, besides others Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Rama, Krishna, Zoroaster, Confucius and finally Muhammad to preserve none but Islam.
There is a fundamental error in Al-Araby’s view about Islam. He believes that one can lie to prevent harm to Islam. What he does not know is that both the core and peripherals of Islam are based upon Truth in all its forms, shades and implications and Truth is part and parcel of beliefs, meanings, thoughts, intentions, speech, policies and implementations in Islam. It would be totally absurd to save “Truth” with a “Lie” just as one cannot preserve ice by exposing it to heat, the diametrically opposites. A lie only damages Islam as it had damaged the Islam of Moses and Jesus before (see Issue 50).
Unlike Bible, there is no room in Quran for lying or Al-Taqiyya, because lying is intricately associated with deception to hide some weakness of the liar. That weakness we find in the message of Bible and Christianity where Paul does not consider it a sin to lie in matters of faith, the hallmark of a man made religion. For example Romans 3 (New International Version) :
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?
4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)
6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?
7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”
8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
Contrary to Bible, Quran expounds moral laws under its core strength of Truth.
61:2. O you who believe, why do you say things which you do not do?
61:3.It is most hateful in the sight of Allah that you say things which you do not do.
[Footnote] It is an exhortation to those who professed belief in the Truth to make their actions correspond with their assertions. The triumph of Truth, which is so definitely foretold in this chapter, could not be brought about by boastful talk but by great deeds of sacrifice, and hence this prelude. Mere words, if not carried into action, are hateful to God. It is deeds that open the way to success.
In the moral the laws of Quran, falsehood in any shape or form is an evil, truthfulness is found in good and one is exhorted to do good while shunning evil:
41:33. And who is better in speech than one who calls to Allah and does good, and says: I am surely one of those who submit?
41:34. And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you is enmity would be as if he were a warm friend.
[Footnote] Editor’s Note: Verses 33–35 show that Muslims should preach Islam by means of speech and not force, by setting an example themselves of doing good deeds, and by responding to evil with good. This approach requires patience and is a great good fortune (v. 35). Thus do you win over your enemy.
41:35. And none is granted it but those who are patient, and none is granted it but the owner of a mighty good fortune.
41:36. And if a false imputation from the devil afflict you, seek refuge in Allah.
[Footnote] The previous verses teach the repelling of evil with good. This verse suggests another remedy for evil. The Prophet is here told that, if his work is interfered with by evildoers or if false imputations are made against him, he should seek refuge in Allah, and Divine help, which always comes to the righteous, will make truth triumphant.
Surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
If anyone, and a Muslim in particular lies, then did it ever occur to Al-Araby that to whom is that person is lying to? According to Islam, such a person is lying only to himself:
4:19-20. He [-Allah] knows the dishonesty of eyes and what the hearts conceal. And Allah judges with truth. And those whom they call upon besides Him judge not at all! Surely Allah is the Hearing, the Seeing.
6:24. See how they lie against their own souls, and what they forged shall fail them!
How innocent, rather ignorant and malicious of Al-Araby when he states – “But, unlike other religions, there are certain situations where a Muslim can lie and that would be acceptable, even encouraged.”
We challenge Al-Araby to quote us a single verse in Quran where it sanctions lying or deceit. But he should not be too surprised that it is almost an article of faith to cheat, deceive and lie as outlined in Old and New Testaments when proselytizing, gaining wealth and/or power. Below is only a sampler:
– The holiest of the holy in the the Bible lied:
8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.
10 When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel ” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites. ” 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory.
7 Elisha went to Damascus, and Ben-Hadad king of Aram was ill. When the king was told, “The man of God has come all the way up here,” 8 he said to Hazael, “Take a gift with you and go to meet the man of God. Consult the Lord through him; ask him, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’”
9 Hazael went to meet Elisha, taking with him as a gift forty camel-loads of all the finest wares of Damascus. He went in and stood before him, and said, “Your son Ben-Hadad king of Aram has sent me to ask, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’”
10 Elisha answered, “Go and say to him, ‘You will certainly recover.’ Nevertheless, the Lord has revealed to me that he will in fact die.” 11 He stared at him with a fixed gaze until Hazael was embarrassed. Then the man of God began to weep.
12 “Why is my lord weeping?” asked Hazael. “Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,” he answered. “You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.”
13 Hazael said, “How could your servant, a mere dog, accomplish such a feat?” “The Lord has shown me that you will become king of Aram,” answered Elisha.
14 Then Hazael left Elisha and returned to his master. When Ben-Hadad asked, “What did Elisha say to you?” Hazael replied, “He told me that you would certainly recover.” 15 But the next day he took a thick cloth, soaked it in water and spread it over the king’s face, so that he died. Then Hazael succeeded him as king.
24 Then Zedekiah said to Jeremiah, “Do not let anyone know about this conversation, or you may die. 25 If the officials hear that I talked with you, and they come to you and say, ‘Tell us what you said to the king and what the king said to you; do not hide it from us or we will kill you,’ 26 then tell them, ‘I was pleading with the king not to send me back to Jonathan’s house to die there.’”
27 All the officials did come to Jeremiah and question him, and he told them everything the king had ordered him to say. So they said no more to him, for no one had heard his conversation with the king.
– Double Standards for personal gains:
Deuteronomy 14:21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 23:19 Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.
Whereas, Quran shuns double standards:
83:1. Woe to the cheaters,
[Footnote] The cheaters are not only those who cheat others by giving them less than what is their due, but also those who make a default in any of their duties. The taking of the measure and the measuring out, in the next two verses, must also be read in a general sense.
83:2. who, when they take the measure (of their dues) from people, take it fully,
83:3. but when they measure out to others or weigh out for them, they give less than is due!
83:4. Do they not think that they will be raised again,
83:5. to a mighty day? —
83:6. the day when mankind will stand before the Lord of the worlds.
The holiest of the holy in Bible lied, practiced double standards and that too under Divine guidance, only to push their agenda, no matter how selfish. Then, it is no wonder that the producers and experts of this movie only followed the footsteps of their Divinely guided when they unflinchingly and dutifully lied through out the documentary, you Mr. Al-Araby included.
Bible – New International Version – BibleGateway.com
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Issue 54 [@1:00:47]: Slide projected with voice – Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Bk. 52, Hadith 269 – The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”
Rebuttal 54: Once again there is an out of context quote of a Hadith in the documentary to frame its distorted and maligned agenda. Why stop at one Hadith, below are three from the preferred translator of the documentary, Muhammad Muhsin Khan:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267: Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.” He called, “War is deceit’.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle called,: “War is deceit.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269: Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”
This is a classical case of ‘lost in translation’, both when translating and when reading the Hadith. We find the full context of the phrase “War is deceit” in the first Hadith above. What the Prophet is telling us is that – war is a deceit for the warmongers, namely the Khosrau of Persians and Caesar of Romans. Their power intoxication will deceive them into a loss against the apparent minnows of Arabia, to which history bears witness. The more appropriate translation would had been “War is a deceit”.
War strategy is based upon tactics. It would be utter imbecility to call a legitimate war tactic as deceit, rather than out-maneuvering and out-classing the enemy. By its very definition, there are no deceits in battlefields, there cannot be because there are no innocent, unaware or unsuspecting parties. In war, each party has to be fully cognizant of any strategy that may unfold against it by the enemy, else it would be labeled as incompetent. Deceit only happens in negotiations and peacetime, when the opposing party is lied to and an underhanded tactic is employed against an unsuspecting party or a previous treaty, contract or oath is breached. Quran vociferously admonishes against deceit:
16:92. And do not be like her who unravels her yarn, disintegrating it into pieces, after she has spun it strongly. You make your oaths to be means of deceit between you because (one) nation is more numerous than (another) nation…
16:94-96. And do not make your oaths a means of deceit between you, so that a foot should slip after its stability, and you should taste evil because you hinder (people) from Allah’s way and severe punishment be your (lot). And do not take a small price for Allah’s covenant. Surely what is with Allah is better for you, if only you knew! What is with you passes away and what is with Allah is enduring…
3:75-77. And among the People of the Book is he who, if you entrust him with a heap of wealth, would pay it back to you; and among them is he who, if you entrust him with a dinar, would not pay it back to you, unless you kept on demanding it. This is because they say there is no blame on us in the matter of the unlearned people and they forge a lie against Allah while they know.
[Footnote] They considered themselves free from all responsibility towards the Arabs, despite any agreement they might have made with them. They are, however, told that God never allowed dishonesty against any people.
No, whoever fulfils his promise and keeps his duty — then Allah surely loves the dutiful. Those who take a small price for the covenant of Allah and their own oaths — they have no portion in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them, nor will He look upon them on the day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, and for them is a painful punishment.
The above verses of Quran were practically affirmed by another Hadith, which confirms honesty and truthfulness in treaties with enemies rather than deceit:
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 391: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr:
The Prophet said, “Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years.”
In Quran, peace has to be preferred over war even at risk of deceit by the enemy:
8:61-62. And if they incline to peace, you (must) incline to it also, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive you, then surely Allah is sufficient for you…
[Footnote] The deceit is in relation to what has been said in the previous verse [8:61], the meaning being that if they intend to deceive you under the cloak of peace, even in such a case peace is to be accepted.
Even if “War is deceit” is taken out of context, it still holds the fundamental moral message of the Prophet that War is a deceit for the warmonger for the mere fact that the instigator with all his ‘shock and awe’ can only initiate a war, but its end can be deceitful to the original ambitions. Ask the Americans, they will tell you that Vietnam war was a deception to themselves from themselves, both for the Pentagon war planners as well the common citizen who was drafted. Similarly, Afghanistan turned out to be a deceit for the power intoxicated Soviets before and NATO now.
The Hadith quoted by the documentary is more accurately as “War is a Stratagem” and draws its beginnings in Battle of the Ditch (or Trench, aka Battle of Allies). The following is an excerpt from the book by Lt. Gen. A. I. Akram “Sword of Allah”, chapter 4 Battle of the Ditch (p. 20 of the full pdf). The author of the book has drawn from Waqidi, and Ibn-Hisham, beside Ibn Qutaiba and Ibn Sad, some of whom are are known for historical exaggerations, but the composite picture proves the point of the said Hadith:
On Monday, February 24, 627 (the 1st of Shawal, 5 Hijri), the Allies, converging from their separate tribal regions, arrived near Madinah and established their camps. The Quraish camped in the area of the stream junction south of the wood, west of Mount Uhud, where they had camped for the Battle of Uhud. The Ghatfan and other tribes camped at Zanab Naqnia, about 2 miles east of Mount Uhud. Having established their camps, the Allies advanced on Madinah.
Hardly had the concentration of the Allies begun when agents brought word of it to Madinah. As more and more tribal contingents gathered, the reports became increasingly alarming. Finally the Prophet received the information that 10,000 warriors bent on destroying the Muslims were marching on Madinah. There was alarm and despondency among the Muslims as this unpleasant intelligence was received. The Muslims had, of course, always been numerically inferior to their enemies. The ratio of relative strengths at Badr and Uhud had been one to three and one to four respectively, and although the number of Muslims at Madinah had now increased to 3,000 able bodied men, many hundreds among them were Hypocrites on whom no reliance could be placed. And 10,000 seemed a terribly large figure. Never before in the history of the Hijaz had such a vast army assembled for battle.
Then came light in the form of a suggestion by Salman the Persian. He explained that when the Persian army had to fight a defensive battle against superior odds, it would dig a ditch, too wide and too deep to cross, in the way of the enemy. To the Arabs this was an unfamiliar method of warfare, but they saw its virtue and the proposal was accepted.
The Prophet ordered the digging of the ditch. Many of the Arabs who could not comprehend such tactics seemed unwilling to get down to the arduous labour of digging, and the Hypocrites as usual went about dissuading the people from taking all this trouble. But the Prophet got down to digging with his own hands, and after this no self?respecting Muslim could keep away from the task. The ditch was sited and its entire length divided among the Muslims at the scale of 40 cubits per group of 10 men.
To guard against surprise, the ditch was lightly covered along its entire length by 200 men, most of whom were placed as pickets on the hills commanding the ditch. A mobile force of 500 men was employed to patrol the various settlements of Madinah and deal with any infiltrators who might enter unseen, and also give some protection to areas not covered by the ditch. (Madinah was not then a city as it is now but consisted of a group of settlements and forts. The center of Madinah, physical and spiritual, was the Prophet’s Mosque.) The women and children were placed in forts and houses away from the main front, which faced north and north-west.
The winter that was now passing had been a severe one. It was also to prove a long winter.
When the Quraish saw the ditch they were first dismayed and then moved to indignation. They had come in such strength that victory had seemed certain. Abu Sufyan had joyfully expected to fight a victorious battle, and now here was this blessed ditch in the way! “By Allah!” Abu Sufyan exploded. “Such stratagems are not the way of the Arab!”
However, the Allies moved up their camp, deployed along the ditch on the north and north?west, and settled down to a siege that was to last 23 days. By day the Allies would come up to the ditch which the Muslims covered lightly from the home side. There would be an exchange of archery which would go on for most of the day, and for the night the Allies would return to their camp. Mostly by day and sometimes by night, Allied patrols would move up and down the ditch trying to find a place at which a crossing could be attempted.
For 10 days the siege continued with no decision and no let up on either side. The morale of both sides came under considerable strain, but tended to harden rather than weaken. The Muslims began to feel the pangs of hunger. There were no large stocks of food in Madinah, and the Muslims were now on half rations. The Hypocrites became louder and more open in their criticism of the Prophet. While the ditch was being dug, the Prophet had promised the Muslims that within a few years they would destroy the might of Rome and Persia and possess themselves of the wealth of those empires. The Hypocrites now began to say, “Muhammad promises us the treasures of Caesar and Chosroes, but he cannot get us out of this simple predicament!” The true Believers, however, remained firm and steadfast, and their faith in their leader remained unshaken.
The situation gradually worsened for the Allies too, so that discontent raised its head in their ranks. The Arabs were not used to long sieges and preferred a quick, lively battle to this form of warfare. The weather had remained unpleasant and began to cause a good deal of distress among the Allies. Food also ran short, as Abu Sufyan had made no arrangements for provisions to tide them over such a long period of time. But since the Allies were not themselves under siege some measures were hastily taken to gather provisions from outlying areas. The men began to grumble and Abu Sufyan had to think hard to find some way out of this impasse. Finally, he consulted Huyaiy the Jew [-chief of previously deported Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir/Nazir, which was exiled out of Medina after the Battle of Uhad to the Jewish settlement of Khaibar located at about 90 miles north of Medina], and between them they hit upon a new plan which showed every promise of success.
On the night of Friday, March 7, Huyaiy stole into the settlement of the Bani Quraizah. He knocked at the door of their leader, Kab bin Asad; but the latter, guessing that Huyaiy had come as a Jew and probably intended to incite his fellow Jews against the Prophet, refused to see him. After some wrangling, however, Huyaiy was allowed in, and he gently and cleverly began to work on Kab, pressing him to join the Allies in the war against the Muslims. At first Kab refused. “Muhammad has kept his pact with us, and we have no reason to complain”, he said. “In any case you have no certainty of victory. If we join you and the campaign fails, your idol-worshipers will go back in peace to their homes and we will have to bear the brunt of the wrath of Muhammad.” But the visitor continued to press, now threatening, now tempting, now begging, and eventually got Kab to agree to a pact with the Allies. According to the terms of this pact there would be a simultaneous attack by the Allies and the Bani Quraizah. These Jews had their settlement and their forts two miles south-east of Madinah, and they would attack from this direction and draw some of the Muslims away from the ditch while the Allies attacked frontally. In case the attack failed, the Allies would leave a strong garrison in the Jewish forts to defend the Jews against the Muslims who were bound to turn against them in revenge. The Bani Quraizah asked for 10 days to prepare themselves before the attack was begun, during which period the Allies could continue minor operations from the north.
Thus the last of the Jews of Madinah, following in the footsteps of their coreligionists, broke their pact with the Muslims.
It was not long before the Prophet came to know about this pact. He got the intelligence through one of his agents who entered the camp of the Allies one night and unknown to them, overheard certain conversations. Then rumours of the pact also spread, and the report was ultimately confirmed by the incident of ‘Safiyyah and the Jew’.
Safiyyah was an aunt of the Prophet, and along with other women and children had moved to a small fort in the south-eastern part of Madinah. Present in the fort was Hassaan the Poet, and he was the only man there! One day Safiyyah, looking down from the fort, saw a fully armed Jew moving stealthily beneath the wall as if seeking a way around the fort. Safiyyah at once concluded that he was a scout of the Bani Quraizah who had been sent to reconnoitre a route which the Jews might take in their attack. This Jew would act as a guide, leading his tribe into the unprotected rear of the Muslims.
Safiyyah picked up a club, tied a waist-band around her waist and went down to meet the Jew. The brave lady killed the Jew. Leaving him lying with a crushed skull in a pool of blood.
When the news of this incident reached the Muslims, there was no doubt left in their minds about the treachery of the Bani Quraizah. The situation now became more tense, and the Hypocrites became more outspoken. From half rations the Muslims came down to quarter rations. (Later it was to become no rations!) Their resolution was still unshaken; but if the siege continued very much longer, sheer starvation would force the Muslims to submit. And the Muslims could find no direct military solution to the problem.
The Prophet now decided to use diplomacy to achieve results which were not attainable by force of arms. He started secret negotiations with Uyaina, the commander of the Ghatfan contingent. (Uyaina was a brave and simple soul. A one?eyed man possessing more brawn than brain, he was to earn from the Prophet the nickname of ‘the willing fool’). The aim of the negotiations was to create a rift between the two major Allies, the Ghatfan and the Quraish-by drawing the Ghatfan away from the siege. If this were achieved, other tribes might also pull away from the Quraish; but even if they did not, the absence of the powerful Ghatfan contingent of 2,000 warriors would reduce the Allied strength to manageable proportions, where after military action could be taken to drive the Allies away from Madinah.
“If the Ghatfan secede from the alliance and return to their homes, they shall be given one?third of the date produce of Madinah”, were the terms offered by the Prophet. This offer was accepted by Uyaina who had by now lost all hope of military victory. The pact was drawn up, but before it could be signed and sealed (without which it would not be binding), the Prophet decided to mention the matter to some of the Muslim leaders. These Muslims protested vehemently. “Dates!” they exclaimed. “Let the infidels get nothing from us but the sword!” This disagreement with the Prophet was so general and so strong that he decided to submit to the wishes of the Muslims, and the negotiations were dropped.
These stout hearted Believers could not understand the seriousness of the military situation or the intricacies of diplomacy as well as the Prophet did. He knew that the only solution to the problem lay in breaking the siege by diplomatic manoeuvre, and he now began to look about for another opening. Soon an opening presented itself. Among the Ghatfan was a man by the name of Nuaim bin Masud who had become a Muslim but had kept his conversion a secret. A prominent figure in the region, he was well known to all the three major partners in the alliance-the Quraish, the Ghatfan and the Jews of Bani Quraizah. He was also a very capable man.
Nuaim left the Ghatfan camp one night and slipped into Madinah. He came to the Prophet, explained his position and expressed his desire to be of service to the Muslims. “Send me where you will”, he said. This was just the opportunity for which the Prophet had prayed. In a conference with Nuaim the Prophet went over the entire situation and laid down the course of action which Nuaim was to take.
The same night Nuaim stole into the settlement of the Bani Quraizah and visited Kab. He outlined the dangers of the situation as they applied to the Jews. “Your situation is not like the situation of the Quraish and the Ghatfan”, he explained. “You have your families and your homes here, while their homes and families are at a safe distance from Madinah. They have no great stake in this battle. If they do not succeed in defeating Muhammad, they will return to their homes and leave you to face the wrath of the Muslims. You must take no action in collaboration with them unless they give you hostages from their best families. Thus you will have an assurance of their good faith.”
Nuaim next went to the Quraish and spoke to Abu Sufyan, who knew him well and had respect for his judgement. “You have made a pact”, he said, “with a people who are treacherous and unreliable. I have come to know through friends in Madinah that the Bani Quraizah have repented and entered into a fresh pact with Muhammad. To prove their loyalty to Muhammad, they are going to ask you for hostages from your best families, whom they will promptly hand over to Muhammad, who will put them to death. The Jews will then openly come out as allies of the Muslims and both will make a joint attack against us. On no account must you give hostages to the Jews!”
He then went to the Ghatfan where he painted the same picture. By the time Nuaim had finished, the seeds of doubt and discord had been firmly planted in the minds of the Allies.
The uncertainty began to tell on Abu Sufyan, who had relied unquestioningly on the alliance with the Jews. He decided to hasten the course of battle and put the intentions of the Jews to test. During the night of Friday, March 14, following the visit of Nuaim, he sent a delegation headed by Ikrimah to the Bani Quraizah. “This is a terrible situation”, explained Ikrimah. “This cannot be allowed to continue any longer. We attack tomorrow. You have a pact with us against Muhammad. You must join in the attack from the direction of your settlement.”
The Jews hummed and hawed for a while and then came out with their terms. “Our position is more delicate than yours. If you have no success you may abandon us, and then we will be left alone to face the wrath of Muhammad. To make sure that this does not happen, you must give us hostages from your best families who will stay with us until the battle has been fought to a satisfactory conclusion. Anyway, tomorrow is Saturday and Jews are forbidden to fight on the Sabbath. Those who break the Sabbath are turned by Allah into pigs and monkeys.” Ikrimah returned empty?handed. Abu Sufyan then decided to make one more attempt at persuading the Jews to join battle on the morrow, and sent another delegation to Kab; but the stand of the two sides remained the same:
Quraish: No hostages; fight tomorrow!
Jews: No fighting on the Sabbath; anyway, hostages first!
All three groups now said, “Nuaim was right. How wise he was in his advice to us!” Nuaim had done his work well. The Bani Quraizah had been neatly detached from the alliance.
Then on Tuesday night, March 18, the area of Madinah was struck by a storm. Cold winds lashed at the Allied camp and howled across the valley. The temperature dropped sharply. The Allied camp was more exposed than the Muslim camp and the storm appeared to strike the Allies with a vengeance. It put out fires, knocked down cooking pots, carried away tents. The Allies sat huddled under their blankets and cloaks as the storm raged around them, waiting for an end that would not come.
Abu Sufyan could take no more. He leapt to his feet, and raising his voice against the storm, shouted to his men: “This is no proper abode for us. Men and animals have suffered grievously from exposure. The Bani Quraizah have turned out to be pigs and monkeys and have betrayed us in our hour of need. The storm has ravaged our camp, put out our fires, knocked down our tents. Let us return to Makkah. Lo, I am one who goes!”
Having made this last speech, Abu Sufyan jumped on to his camel and rode out with his men, hoping to get away from the pitiless storm. But the demons of the storm were to pursue him the whole night. The Ghatfan now came to know of the movement of the Quraish and so did the other tribes. Without further delay they mounted their camels and departed for their settlements and pastures. In the rear of the Quraish army rode Khalid and Amr bin Al Aas with their cavalry squadrons acting as a rear guard in case the Muslims should come out of Madinah and attempted to interfere with the Quraish movement. It was a bitter and disillusioned Abu Sufyan who led his army back to Makkah. The burden of failure lay heavy on his heart.
The next morning the Muslims found the Allies gone, and returned to their homes. This was the last attempt by the Quraish to crush the Muslims; henceforth they would remain on the defensive.
The Battle of the Ditch was over. Each side had lost four men. It was a victory for the Muslims in that they achieved their aim of defending themselves and their homes against the Allies, while the Allies failed in their attempt to crush the Muslims. In fact the Allies failed to do any damage at all. The siege had lasted 23 days and had imposed a terrible strain on both sides. It had been ended by the storm, but the storm was not the cause of the raising of the siege. It was the last straw. Strictly speaking, this operation was a siege and a confrontation rather than a battle, for the two armies never actually came to grips.
This was the first instance in Muslim history of the use of politics and diplomacy in war, and it shows the interplay of politics and arms in the achievement of the national aim. The use of armed force is one aspect of war-a violent and destructive aspect-to be used only when political measures fail to achieve the aims of the State. When a shooting war becomes inevitable, politics, with diplomacy as its principle instrument, prepares the ground for the use of armed force. It sets the stage, weakens the enemy, and reduces his strength to a state where armed force can be employed against him with the maximum prospect of success.
And this is just what the Prophet did. He used the instrument of diplomacy to split and weaken the enemy, not only in numbers but also in spirit. Most of the Muslims could not understand this, but they were learning from their leader. The Prophet’s words, “War is stratagem”, were to be remembered and frequently quoted in later Muslim campaigns.
Fazlul Bari – Urdu Translation of Sahih Bukhari – Muhammad Ali, hadith # 3027, 3028, footnote 2.
Translation of Sahih Bukhari – Muhsin Khan
Hadith numbers mapped between – Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Ali
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin Al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns – A. I. Akram (pdf)
Issue 53 [@59:48]: Robert Spencer: Author, Islam Unveiled – Islam is a religion and a political system, that dictates that one must carryout warfare against unbelievers until they either convert or submit, and this is the justification that terrorist around the world are using for what they are doing. And that justification is based upon core elements of Islamic tradition. That being the case, its very difficult for moderate Muslims, peaceful Muslims, to standup within the Islamic community and say this is not part of Islam. They only do so out of conscious deception intending to mislead the Westerners in accord with Islamic doctrine of taqiyya or deception or they do so simply on the basis of being unaware of what Islam actually teaches.
Rebuttal 53: The fundamental core argument in above statement by Spencer is a lie pure and simple. Nowhere does Quran, Islam or Muhammad’s tradition “dictates that one must carryout warfare against unbelievers until they either convert or submit.” If it were so, the documentary makers would not hesitate to quote it. Absence of such a (validated) quote in this documentary is by itself a proof of this lie.
There is no word taqiyya or any implied reference to it in Quran, the source of all Islamic doctrines, nor does taqiyya has anything to do with Prophet Muhammad. Nowhere does Quran teach deception. Truthfulness is the very purpose of the message of Quran. For example:
7:1. I, Allah, am the Best Knower, the Truthful.
3:95. Say: Allah speaks the truth; so follow the religion of Abraham, the upright one. And he was not one of those who set up partners (with Allah).
4:112. …And who is more truthful in word than Allah?
9:119. O you who believe, keep your duty to Allah and be with the truthful.
2:42. And do not mix up truth with falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know.
4:19-20. He knows the dishonesty of eyes and what the hearts conceal. And Allah judges with truth. And those whom they call upon besides Him judge not at all! Surely Allah is the Hearing, the Seeing.
On the reverse, we find taqiyya to preach one’s faith as one of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, by none but St. Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 9 (21st Century King James Version):
19 For though I am free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain those who are under the law;
21 to those who are outside the law, as outside the law (though not outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ), that I might gain those who are outside the law.
22 To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the Gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Not surprising, even the God in Bible sanctions deception – 1 Kings 22:20-23 (New International Version):
20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that.
21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.
“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”
God in Bible even deceives the prophets – Ezekiel 14:9 (New International Version):
9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand upon him and will destroy him from the midst of My people Israel.
Even the prophets in Bible complain of being deceived by their God – Jeremiah 20:7 (21st Century King James Version):
7 O Lord, Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; Thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed. I am in derision daily; every one mocketh me.
If the Paul and God in Bible sanction lying or opportunistic deception, then it is no wonder that Spencer, Trifkovic, Shoebat, Al-Araby, Ye’or and the movie producers are merely carrying out the morality of their scriptures and are plain liars and deceivers without any qualms when they made this documentary. The recent history of global colonization, slavery and exploitations is a testament of taqiyya as practiced by the West, when they first approached foreign lands in guise of traders and priests but ended up enslaving not only the body but also the soul of the nations. Everything and every means was a fair game then and even now to a certain extent, as long it served the interests of the State and the Church.
Spencer might be willfully ignorant, but the fact is that mega-mega-Majority of Muslims neither ratify taqiyya nor endorse “terrorists around the world” nor terrorist acts by individuals, groups, nations or occupying forces because truthfulness and non-aggression and its “justification is based upon core elements of Islamic tradition”. It might be more accurate to state that you, Mr. Spencer are the perpetrator of taqiyya or deception of hate and fear against Islam. The ‘mein kampf‘ of Breivik testifies to it [NY Times].
New International Version – Bible Gateway.com
21st Century King James Version – Bible Gateway.com
Anders Behring Breivik – Manifesto – Wikipedia
Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S. – New York Times
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
A tool which the Western critics of Islam have recently been employing is to accuse Islam and its followers of anti-semitism. (They are, of course, helped in their argument by the foolish pronouncements of certain Muslim political and religious leaders.)
Yet when Hitler was conducting the oppression of the Jews in Germany, before the Second World War began, very few people in the U.K., U.S.A., France, and like countries, condemned his actions. In fact, a large number of people in these countries supported various policies of Hitler until they were compelled to fight Germany’s aggression towards its neighbours.
But who condemned Hitler’s anti-Jewish measures at an early stage?
It was Muslims.
Please see at this link a page from The Light of Lahore, an English language Muslim journal, dated 8 April 1933, just two months after Hitler came to power. On this page there is a comment in the right-hand column near the foot of the page, which is headed Hitlerism.
“The West may rightly be described as a continent of “isms”. Capitalism, Socialism, Bolshevism, Facism, Communism — these are the so many manifestations of a restless soul seeking after some true solution of a social system. On top of them all now comes in Germany what may be called Hitlerism. Whether this new tide will take the German people back to the promised land flowing with milk and honey is yet to be seen. In the meantime it has launched a bitter campaign of hatred against the Jews who, as reports show, are subjected to severe persecutions all over Germany. This is deplorable, to say the least and no movement based on hatred can be expected to blow any good to humanity. Europe in quest of a social order has tried so many isms, each having landed it in deeper social bogs. Will it not give a trial to the one “ism” that sprang from the soil of Arabia and which combines all that is best and is free from all that is evil in all the “isms” it has so far tried, viz., Islamism?”
(The bolding is mine.)
It is nothing short of astonishing, if not a Divine miracle, that a Muslim organ based so far from Europe, writes that Hitler’s policies will lead to no good because they are based on hatred and on persecuting the Jews. Please remember that during the 1930s eminent persons in the West outside Nazi Germany (particularly the U.K.) believed that many of Hitler’s policies were admirable.
Challenge number 1 to critics of Islam: How many persons can you point out in the civilised West who, at the very time Hitler came to power, condemned Hitler’s persecution of Jews and predicted that it would lead to no good for humanity?
If this was not enough, I refer you to statements of the Imam of the Woking Mosque in 1939. The Woking Mosque was, at that time, the main Muslim centre in the U.K., frequented by leaders of various nations when visiting Britain, and its Imam was the spokesman of the Muslim community.
1. In 1939 he was asked if Nazism was compatible with Islamic teachings. He replied that:
“The present-day legislation in Germany is inspired by racial discrimination and religious distinctions. It, to begin with, believes in racial superiority, it believes in exiling people for their religious opinions. It has actually pulled down synagogues.
… there can be no two opinions on the matter. Islam has come to establish in reality the Brotherhood of Man which is the imperative need of the present-day world. Enough of dissensions. Let us talk of ways enabling us to treat each other as brothers and members of one family.”
He went on to denounce the persecution of Jews in Germany. See: www.wokingmuslim.org/work/imams-reply-mar40.htm
2. In the Eid-ul-Fitr khutba, 13 November 1939, he declared:
“A Muslim is bound to wage war against any person, whether of his own kith and kin and religion or not, who interferes with the beliefs of a non-Muslim. … Muslims are ordered to sacrifice their lives not only to save their own mosques but the religious houses of other peoples as well. …
The Zionist policy in Palestine has done us great harm. Untold miseries has it brought upon our brethren in the faith in that country. But the very fact that synagogues have been pulled down in Germany upon the slightest pretext makes it obligatory upon us Muslims to throw our weight into the cause of the Allies. ”
Challenge number 2 to critics of Islam: How many Christian religious leaders at the time preached from the pulpit that it was the religious duty of Christians to take up arms against those who destroy synagogues?
Issue 52 [@54:30]: Serge Trifkovic – “If we look at the tectonic plates between Islamic world and non-Islamic world today, we notice something very interesting. That very diverse Muslim societies which cannot be branded under one civilization label is something very common and it is their tendency to be in conflict with their neighbors. If we look at the extreme South-Eastern outreach of Islam,we see East Timor where Indonesian Muslims slaughtered a third of the population of its former Portuguese colony, who by the way are Roman Catholics. In Southern Philippines we see an extremely violent Islamic rebellion which has been simmering and has been more or less violent for years. In Indonesia itself we had religious conflict in Spice Islands where beleaguered Christian minorities are in danger of extinction. We have very active Islamic movements both in Thailand and in China in Xingchiang. In the Indian sub-continent the history is tragic indeed where Hindu Holocaust took place in medieval times, a little known episode in the history of Islam in the Western world, but the one that left deep traumatic mark on the people of the region and the conflict is still left latent in the province of Kashmir. In Africa there is constant war in Sudan which is finally gained some prominence in the Western decision making circles, but has been going on for twenty years and it is impossible to estimate the number of lives it claimed but it certainly goes into many hundreds and thousands. There is constant instability in Nigeria between resurgent central-northern states which are increasingly pressurizing the government in Lagos into accepting Sharia Law as the law of the land in those provinces. And of course there is Mauritania where Muslims constantly battle non-Muslim Southerners. Then there is of course the Caucuses, Chechnya. In Europe itself, we have the conflict in former Yugoslavia between Bosnian Muslims and Serbs and Croats respectively. And the conflict between Albanians and Serb Albanians in Macedonia and quite possibly before too long Albanians and Greeks. So, if we eliminate these conflicts, if we eliminate from the equation Chechnya, the Balkans, Sudan, the world is pretty peaceful place. If we eliminate from the terrorist equation, terrorist acts carried out by Muslim over the past five years, we come to realize that war on terror is unnecessary because terror is not a very big problem.
Rebuttal 52: The above senseless allegations and broad statements of Trifkovic need the breakdown below:
As we dissect the allegations of Trifkovic, it becomes obvious that he will speak against Muslims globally without even flinching for a moment that they are as humans as their opponents in their regions and they have equal moral rights as anyone else. Historical and political facts pointed to below are not to demean any peoples of any religion or to deny them their rights in any region of the world, but only to bring out a Muslim perspective that Trifkovic does not bother even to mention and the documentary suppresses throughout.
Issue 52b: If we look at the extreme South-Eastern outreach of Islam,we see East Timor where Indonesian Muslims slaughtered a third of the population of its former Portuguese colony, who by the way are Roman Catholics.
Rebuttal 52b: The Indonesian Muslims DID NOT slaughter a third of the population of its former Portuguese colony. On the reverse, the ‘West’ picked and split amongst themselves the Indo/Poly/Micro/Mela-nesias in a manner no different than the all too familiar Easter Egg hunt. They divided without any qualms up 25,000 islands of Malay Archipelago and about 30,000 islands of Oceania.
East Timor [BBC] was exploited for centuries starting from 1600s when Portuguese invaded Timor, set up trading post and used island as source of sandalwood. In1749 Timor split following a battle between Portuguese and Dutch, Portuguese took the eastern half. Later in 1942 Japanese invade, fought battles with Australian troops and 40,000–70,000 East Timorese were killed. Japan controlled it until 1945 when it reverted back to Portugal after WWII. Between 28 November 1975 and 30 August 1999 it was occupied by Indonesia and resulted in approximately 18,600 killings. Indonesian occupation ended after UN sponsored referendum and supported by Indonesian parliament, East Timor became an independent country. Thereafter the local East-Timorese anti-independence militia killed approximately 1,400 Timorese and forcibly pushed 300,000 people into West Timor (Indonesia) as refugees. [Wikipedia]; In January 2002, Indonesia inaugurated human rights court to hold military accountable for atrocities in East Timor after the 1999 independence vote. In August 2005 Truth commission was set up by East Timor and Indonesia. [BBC]
Issue 52c: In Southern Philippines we see an extremely violent Islamic rebellion which has been simmering and has been more or less violent for years.
Rebuttal 52c: While making an implicit case for East Timor, Trifkovic makes sure to slip in the comment about East Timorese “who by the way are Roman Catholics” and brands their victimization at the hands of Indonesia. He deliberately avoids a similar statement when he knows that the instigators are Christians – “Southern Philippines we see an extremely violent Islamic rebellion.” The name Bangsangmoro, the Muslim part of southern Philippine, has originally evolved from the Spanish colonialist as early as 1570 when they saw the Muslims in the Philippines practiced Islam much in the same way their arch enemies – Moors of Spain and called the local Muslims as Moro. The use of Bangsamoro was a combination of Moro and Nation (Bangsa) [Wikipedia]. Besides falsely smearing, Trifkovic does not cite the cause of the “Islamic rebellion” which is:
On July 4, 1946, the United States of America restored political independence to the Filipino people, conveniently overlooking the statehood of the two Bangsamoro (Muslim) sultanates. The incorporation of the two sultanates in southern Philippines into the Philippine Republic was done without the benefit of democratic consultation on whether or not the majority of the Bangsamoro people would want to join the new republic as individual citizens or as sultanates. This was arbitrarily imposed upon them despite the repeated calls of some Bangsamoro leaders to oppose the incorporation of their homeland into the Philippine territory and sovereignty.
A case in point was the incident on March 18, 1935. One hundred twenty Bangsamoro datus of Lanao came up with the historical document popularly known as the “Dansalan Declaration”. This statement expressed to the U.S. colonial government their desire to be excluded from the proposed “independence” to be granted to the Filipinos in the North of the archipelago. This declaration is perhaps unmatched in its clarity:
“…we do not want to be included in the Philippines for once an independent Philippines is launched, there would be trouble between us and the Filipinos because from time immemorial these two peoples have not lived harmoniously together. Our public land must not be given to people other than the Moros…” (Philippine Muslim News (Manila),Vol.2, No.2, July 1968, pp.7-12).
Furthermore, the declaration warned to wit: “We foresee what conditions we and our children will be in”. These conditions, the declaration predicted, will have been characterized by unrest, suffering and misery. Desperate , or whatever their reasons were, the Bangsamoro leaders expressed preference for continued U.S. colonial rule in Mindanao if they could not be granted their separate independence simultaneously. (Philippine Muslim News, July 1968, p, 11).
One Bangsamoro datu said in a meeting in Zamboanga that when it comes to union with Filipino people, although he is already old, he would still fight to oppose such a plan (Gowing, 1977,pp.151-152). These protests were however, ignored by the U.S. colonial government.
The U.S. colonial government was, in short, principally responsible for the Bangsamoro and the Muslim sultanates’ becoming part of the present day Republic of the Philippines.
The restoration of the Philippine independence did not improve the socio-economic conditions of the Bangsamoro. The Philippine government continued to pursue the same socio-economic colonial policies in Mindanao.
One can mention, for instance, the multinational corporations’ extensive control and monopoly of Mindanao economy, particularly in the export of pineapple, banana, rubber, sugar cane, and others (Tadem, 1980). The banana industry in Mindanao alone covered 27,000 hectares of land wholly controlled by foreign U.S. multinationals engaged in agribusiness. As of 1975, 20,000 hectares were in the hands of three U.S. corporations. Dole had 9,000 hectares; Del Monte owned 6,588; and Tadeco had 4,500. At present , Del Monte owns the world’s biggest pineapple plantation with a total of 36,000 acres of land in Mindanao (Ahmad,1980, p.21).
I addition to this , in the 1950s and 1960s, the Philippine government promoted migration to southern Philippines because of its fertile land and its tremendous abundance of other natural resources in the region. This policy was encouraged in order to solve the agrarian problem in Luzon and the Visayan areas. Specifically, under the famous Magsaysay administration, several resettlement programs like the National Authority for Reforestation and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), Land Settlement and Development Corporation (LASEDECO), Economic Development Corporation (EDCOR) and others gave way to massive migration from the northern Philippines to Mindanao. As a result of the steady influx of the new migrant settlers, the Filipino Christian migrant settlers finally outnumbered the original Bangsamoro and the Lumad indigenous inhabitants of southern Philippines. In the succeeding years, other Christian migrant settlers followed in massive and uncontrolled migration until they dominated the socio-economic and political life in Mindanao (Lomongo, 1988, pp.10-11).This eventually resulted to the increasing marginalization and underdevelopment of the Bansgsamoro and the Lumads. [Read further: Ethnic and Religious Conflict in Southern Philippines: A Discourse on Self-Determination, Political Autonomy and Conflict Resolution - pdf]
Just as a reminder to Trifkovic using his own words, the occupiers of the Bangsamoro land of Muslims, the Philippine population, “who by the way are Roman Catholics” as well [Wikipedia].
Issue 52d: In Indonesia itself we had religious conflict in Spice Islands where beleaguered Christian minorities are in danger of extinction.
Rebuttal 52d: Spice Islands mainly refers to Maluku Islands (formerly Moluccas) with its main Island of Ambon, that are part of Indonesia [BBC]. These are the same Islands that Columbus originally set sail for, when he instead landed in Americas. Once again the historical chaos in Maluku Islands is summarized in BBC report:
Control of the islands was fiercely contested between Dutch, Portuguese and English traders. As a result of this international interest, the Moluccas were left with a diverse mixture of religions – Muslim, Catholic and Protestant, all blended with powerful local customs.
The Dutch exerted a strong influence over the islands right up to Indonesia’s war of independence in the late 1940s. They recruited Ambonese Christians as soldiers to pacify the rest of Indonesia, and they offered them education.
In return, the Ambonese supported the Dutch against the mainly Java-based independence movement.
Now the chicken have come home to roost for the ‘Ambonese Christians soldiers’ who were used by the West, Dutch in this case to ‘to pacify the rest of Indonesia’ and suppress the ‘Java-based independence movement’. Because of this backlash now the pitiful rant of Trifkovic carries no moral ground when he exaggerates as usual by stating for the Ambonese ‘beleaguered Christian minorities are in danger of extinction’, which they are not. These fault lines between different racial and religious segments in Spice Islands were sowed, nurtured and spiced up by none but West to begin with by their divide and rule of local populations, the modus operandi of the West in their colonization and exploitation of the globe.
Issue 52e: We have very active Islamic movements both in Thailand and in China in Xinjiang.
Rebuttal 52e: If Trifkovic had soft corner for Catholic East Timorese, then it begets him and his readers to apply the same moral standards to Moros in Phillipines and Patani in Thailand, whose natives are majority Muslims. Unlike Spice Islands and East Timor who saw Christianity only after recent colonization, Patani and Xinjiang are Muslims regions for over thousand years:
Thailand has faced secessionist movements since it annexed the independent sultanate of Patani [Note: Thailand's annexed sultanate is spelled "Patani"; the country's southern province is spelled "Pattani"] in 1902, making the area the southernmost tip of the country. A policy of forced assimilation enraged the ethnically Malay Muslims, who represent the majority in the region. Many of the region’s Muslims adopted Thai names and the national language. But local traditions were secretly cultivated, and between the 1940s and the 1980s separatists staged a series of opposition uprisings. The insurgency is largely confined to the three provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat and five districts of Songkhla province—Chana, Thepa, Na Thawi, Saba Yoi, and Sadao. An August 2008 report by the International Crisis Group says the religious, racial, and linguistic differences between the minority Malay Muslims and the Buddhist majority in Thailand have led to a deep sense of alienation (PDF). Malay Muslims also harbor resentment against the country’s security forces for past and continuing human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances, the report says. Poor socio-economic conditions add to regional discontentment with the Thai government… [Excerpt - 'The Muslim Insurgency in Southern Thailand'– a report by Council on Foreign Relations]
The Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), a territory in western China, accounts for one-sixth of China’s land and is home to about 20 million people from thirteen major ethnic groups. The largest of these groups is the Uighurs [PRON: WEE-gurs], a predominantly Muslim community with ties to Central Asia. Some Uighurs call China’s presence in Xinjiang a form of imperialism, and they stepped up calls for independence—sometimes violently—in the 1990s through separatist groups like the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). The Chinese government has reacted by promoting the migration of China’s ethnic majority, the Han, to Xinjiang. Beijing has also strengthened economic ties with the area and tried to cut off potential sources of separatist support from neighboring states that are linguistically and ethnically linked with the Uighurs. Since the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1912, Xinjiang has enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy. Turkic rebels in Xinjiang declared independence in October 1933 and created the Islamic Republic of East Turkestan (also known as the Republic of Uighuristan or the First East Turkistan Republic). The following year, the Republic of China reabsorbed the region. In 1944, factions within Xinjiang again declared independence, this time under the auspices of the Soviet Union, and created the Second East Turkistan Republic. But in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party took over the territory and declared it a Chinese province. In October 1955, Xinjiang became classified as an “autonomous region” of the People’s Republic of China… [Excerpt - 'Uighurs and China's Xinjiang Region'– a report by Council on Foreign Relations]
Issue 52f: In the Indian sub-continent the history is tragic indeed where Hindu Holocaust took place in medieval times, a little known episode in the history of Islam in the Western world, but the one that left deep traumatic mark on the people of the region and the conflict is still left latent in the province of Kashmir.
Rebuttal 52f: Once again, Trikovic is inventing history by alleging ‘Hindu Holocaust’. Simple question for him as to which, when, where and by whom was this ‘Hindu Holocaust’? There is no sliver of evidence of such an event in history at the hands of Muslims in India.
If we turn the pages of history and dig for any signs of Holocaust in India then it is none but at the hands of Aryans. Actually, case of India is even worse than Jewish Holocaust at the hands of the same European Aryans. Unlike the European Holocaust which lasted a decade at the most, the ‘Indian Holocaust’ at the hands of Europeans was a life of servitude for natives of India for thousand of years. India lost its potential in history under this very servitude that Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, China, Americas and Babylon have to their credit. These civilizations imported slaves but in India they created slaves from among themselves. Indian history is bracketed by its Western invasion and occupations. Aryans who invaded India about 1000 B.C. created the stratification of the society into caste system to their advantage in the following order, superior to inferior i.e.
- ‘Book’ handlers – priests, teachers, judges – The Brahmins;
- government maintainers – the rulers, soldiers and bureaucracy – The Kashatryas;
- commerce and ‘surplus’ handlers – currency traders, businessmen, craftsmen, land owners – The Vaishya;
- work handlers – the labor class – The Shudras;
- pollution handlers – the ‘untouchable’ professions of janitors, undertakers, scavengers – The Untouchables by higher classes, even to the extent that they were to be Unseeable in daylight by the Brahmins. These were so low that they had no caste and were factually ‘outcast’ from the society altogether.
Of course, the Aryans allotted higher castes to their white skin and the local Dravidians were relegated to lower castes. They kept a stranglehold on the society for preservation of their ‘racial purity’. The higher castes were the de facto perpetual masters of the native Indians who were forced into lower classes and who bore the brunt of servitude of being intrepidly enslaved, depraved and exploited, even till now. Factually, the word ‘Hindu’ literally means slave or a thief. Even though the origin of the word is wrongly attributed to Persians, but one has to take pause and think as to why is it mentioned in Vishnu Purana, the latest version of which was probably written in 320 C.E., much before Islam:
Aaasindo sindhu paryantham yasyabharatha bhoomikah
Mathrubhuh pithrubhoochaiva sah vai hindurithismrithaah
It can be quite safely concluded that the Aryans depraved the locals of India to the extent that the land of great prophets, Rama and Krishna, to any visitor or invader was no more than Hindustan – The Land of Slaves. No wonder we find the following curses towards the Aryans in Indian holy scriptures:
“O brave Indra! kill both the enemies Dasa and Arya, as the wood is chopped with the sharp axe.” (Mandal 6, Sukt 33, Mantra 3).
“O You who are praised by many! may the Arya or Dasa who dares us to war be thoroughly crushed by us, may we kill these enemies in war with Your help.” (Mandal 10, Sukt 38, Mantra 3).
“O Lord of the brave! may we kill these enemies, Aryas and Dasa.” (Mandal 6, Sukt 6, Mantra 6). [Names of World Religions by Abdul Haq Vidyarthi]
The Aryans even infused a sense of self-serving immorality among the natives. They stamped into religious doctrines and duped the masses that any hope out of the never ending genealogical servitude was migration into a higher form of life, but only after death. Finally, came the Portuguese and British who turned India into a colony till as recently as only 65 years ago. India lucked out because of its skin color, else it too was ready to be enslaved and deported to some other continent by the same European Aryans. It was this rigid classification of the society by the Aryans that sapped the soul of a society that it could not stand up to external threats. Ironically, the ‘foreigners’ to a certain extent in the ‘medieval times’ onwards were the only hope for the lower end of the caste system, the mega majority of India, to break free from physical and spiritual bondage of Aryan dogma by converting to whatever was offered, be it the Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism and even Bahaism in recent times.
If Muslims were the cause of ‘Holocaust’ in India, then why do the Hindus flock in droves to the numerous shrines of Muslim saints in India [see the list at bottom of this link]. A question to Trifkovic – how many victims of Nazi Holocaust pay homages and seek blessings from the mausoleums of the perpetrators? Do textbooks in Indian schools teach the ‘Holocaust’ that Trifkovic wants to teach? Why? Because there is no such thing as ‘Holocaust’ in India.
Jalaluddin Khilji (1290 AD – 1296 AD) was the first ruler to put forward the view that the state should be based on the willing support of the governed and that since the majority of Indians were Hindus, the state cannot be truly Islamic [India: Past and Present, by Prakash Chander, p. 22-23].
Despite the efforts of Muslim rulers in India, nonetheless, during the six centuries of Islamic domination (c. 1150-1750), the caste system evolved considerably. For example, Brahmins began to rely on farming for their income, since the Muslim kings did not give rich gifts to Hindu temples. This practice was considered justified so long as Shudras did the actual physical labor. [http://asianhistory.about.com/od/india/p/indiancastesystem.htm]
One wonders as to what was Trifkovic smoking when he invents the term ‘Hindu Holocaust’ in medieval history that even Hindus themselves cannot point to, while he has his ‘eyes wide shut’ to what is happening in Palestine today, yes today. How low can this documentary stoop to misinform its audience. When Bollywood makes the movies with all-praise for Mughal Emperors [Jodha Akbar, Mughal-e-Azam], one does not find a ‘foreigner’ king as its main character, but an Indian king who happens to be a Muslim.
Since Trifkovic mentioned Kashmir which is source of contention between India and Pakistan right from their inception in August 1947, it begets to look at the relevant legalese first.
The Indian Independence Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo 6 c. 30) was as an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan. The Act received the royal assent on 18 July 1947, and the two new countries came into being on 15 and 14 August respectively. [Wikipedia] Thus under this act, “the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States”, so the states were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent.
Within the above framework, lets look at the situation of Kashmir next:
Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of the princely states, had a predominantly Muslim population, while having a Hindu ruler (Maharaja Hari Singh.) On partition Pakistan expected Kashmir to be annexed to it.
The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession to India on 25 October 1947 that was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947. [Wikpedia]
At present 99% of Azad Kashmir, 99% of Gilgit Baltistan, 95% of Kashmir Valley, 46% of Ladakh and 30% of Jammu is Muslim. [BBC]
On the reverse, we have the example of princely state of Junagadh whose ruler acceded to Pakistan. Following is the time-line of what happened then:
15 Aug 1947 Accedes to Pakistan.
15 Sep 1947 Accession to Pakistan accepted.
9 Nov 1947 Occupied by India.
10 Nov 1947 Rescinds accession to Pakistan, accedes to India
24 Feb 1948 Referendum approves accession to India.
25 Feb 1948 Accession to India in effect. [Wikipedia]
With the suzerainty of British ending at the time of partition, subsequently India cannot have it both ways. Basis on which India annexed Junagadh i.e. a state with a Muslim ruler and Hindu majority, then on the same very basis it cannot annex Kashmir because Kashmir is/was Muslim majority with a Hindu ruler, or vice versa, irrespective of whether the ruler chose Pakistan or India to join.
Issue 52g: In Africa there is constant war in Sudan which is finally gained some prominence in the Western decision making circles, but has been going on for twenty years and it is impossible to estimate the number of lives it claimed but it certainly goes into many hundreds and thousands.
Rebuttal 52g: Sudan is one more left over example of a colonial legacy and its consequent perpetual turmoil. Sudan was under joint British-Egyptian rule during1899-1955. In 1956 Sudan became independent. In 1958 General Abboud led military coup against the civilian government elected earlier in the year. Since 1962, Civil war began in the south, led by the Anya Nya movement, named after a poisonous herb. Finally in July 2011 with independence of South Sudan, the north-south divide is not only a division along religious lines but also ethnic one i.e. Sudan (in north) is mostly Arab and Muslim, whereas South Sudan is non-Arab and Christian. This divide also cuts through economic interests of oil fields, which will be once again playing fields, if not killing fields, for the West and possibly for China in the East. We pray for mutual peace and harmony of Sudans. The Aljazeera documentary of January 5, 2011, titled “ Sudan: History of a Broken Land ” presents a good historical insight into the persistent chaos in Sudan:
It was under British colonial rule that the seeds of the North-South divide were sown in the Sudan. “It is the British to blame” says Abdul Al-Mubarak of the University of Khartoum, because they wanted the south to be a separate entity. The time bomb for ethnic and religious conflict in Sudan was created in 1922 when the British colonial administration restricted the movement of Northerners beyond the 10th parallel of latitude and Southerners beyond the 8th. This was the role of British colonialism in the partition of Sudan. Frantz Fanon, the anti-colonial activist and writer could not be further from the truth in decrying colonialism as “separatist.”
British colonialism successfully created all the conditions necessary for conflict in Sudan. It exploited the religious divide between the North and the South, transforming the South into a paradise for Christian missionaries while the North remained predominantly Muslim. “They should have allowed a natural intercourse to take place,” says the former President, Sadiq Al Madi, “but they didn’t.”
Economic and political neglect of the South, which was a major feature of British colonialism throughout Africa – as seen for example in British Southern Cameroons, was another recipe for conflict in Sudan. The marginalization of the South led to the creation of the “anyanya” rebellion by Joseph Lagu, a struggle that was later taken up by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) formed in 1983. [A Brief History of Sudan's Conflicts
Issue 52h: There is constant instability in Nigeria between resurgent central-northern states which are increasingly pressurizing the government in Lagos into accepting Sharia Law as the law of the land in those provinces.
Rebuttal 52h: Nigeria is one more example of colonial legacy of the West. Strife in Nigeria is mirror image of Sudan, but more complex. North is mostly Muslim and poor whereas South is Christian and richer from oil.
In Pre-colonialism, the country called Nigeria did not exist. In its place was a hugely diverse scattering of tribes and communities, some of whom had territory which overlaps the borders of present day Nigeria. These varied groups with different languages, cultures and political practices were all brought together under British rule to form an entirely artificial nation. The arbitrary drawing of borders which was so common to Africa in colonial times paid little attention to the natural ethnic lines of the tribes. Whilst the Western world regarded them all as Nigerians, they considered themselves as primarily members of whichever tribe from which they originated.
In addition to this, Britain also imposed on Nigeria a Westminster style government system which was entirely different to the way the different tribes had previously governed themselves. This included the introduction of political parties. Whilst under British rule, the various parties, which were usually primarily made up of members of specific tribes, shared a common goal: autonomy from Britain. This became their sole national interest and for a while the tribes were united under a common cause. Once independence was gained, however, it became clear that Nigeria was not a natural nation. The system in place was not equipped to deal with so many different sized ethnic groups. The natural order of the region; division along tribal lines, and the Western style system soon came into conflict.
The capitalist economic system also caused difficulties. Capitalism inevitably creates high levels of competition, and with individuals’ natural loyalty being attached to the tribes, division became further drawn along ethnic lines.
The domination by the sizeable North and dissatisfaction of the predominantly Ibo Eastern regions eventually culminated in the Biafran War [1967-70]. Here again, Western interference served to complicate matters further, as Western powers with vested economic interests in the region picked sides. This prolonged the violence.
Throughout Nigeria’s short history, misinterpretation of the political, cultural and social nature of the region by the West has served to set Nigerians against each other. This comes all too naturally to them as they lack a national identity to hold them together. In addition, Western domination has prevented autonomous development in the area. Instead, they have been given models of governance which are unsuited to their way of life. A nation cannot be created by the simple drawing of lines on a map. It must be to some extent a natural product of the unity of its population. It is to be hoped that one day Nigerians will have enough in common with one another to become a real nation. [Causes for Conflict in Nigeria: The Damage Caused by British Colonialism and Western Interference]
Issue 52i: And of course there is Mauritania where Muslims constantly battle non-Muslim Southerners.
Rebuttal 52i: Mauritania is a former French Colony, which gained independence in 1960. The conflict that Trifkovic refers to is as follows:
In April 1989, the dispute over grazing rights led Mauritanian Moorish border guards to fire at and kill two Senegalese peasants. As a result, people on the Senegalese southern bank rioted. In Senegal, where many shopkeepers were Mauritanian, shops were looted and most Mauritanians were expelled to Mauritania. In Mauritania, lynch mobs and police brutality ended in the forced exile of about 70,000 southerners to Senegal, despite most of them having no links to the country. About 250,000 people fled their homes as both sides engaged in cross-border raids. Hundreds of people died in both countries. The Organisation of African Unity tried to negotiate a settlement to reopen the border, but it was ultimately an initiative of Senegalese President Abdou Diouf which led to a treaty being signed on July 18, 1991.
Mauritanian refugees would slowly trickle back into the country during the following years, but some 20,000–30,000 remain in the border areas of northern Senegal today, and this is were the armed black nationalist Mauritanian movement FLAM is based.
In June 2007, the Mauritanian government under President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to help it repatriate black Mauritanians who had been forced out in the war and were living in refugee camps in Mali and Senegal. According to UNHRC estimates, there were 20,000 refugees in Senegal and 6,000 in Mali as of July 2007. [Wikipedia]
Issue 52j: Then there is of course the Caucuses, Chechnya.
Rebuttal 52j: Chechnya is a land of, from and by Muslims. It suffered civil war which has close parallels to Britain and Irish Republic, both of which are Christians. It seems that Chechens borrowed their script from IRA. The state of normalcy in Chechnya can be glanced at in this youtube video where the artifact i.e. cup of Prophet Muhammad is returned to Chechnya.
Issue 52k: In Europe itself, we have the conflict in former Yugoslavia between Bosnian Muslims and Serbs and Croats respectively. And the conflict between Albanians and Serb Albanians in Macedonia and quite possibly before too long Albanians and Greeks.
Rebuttal 52k: Who could be better placed to answer this Bosnian question than Trifkovic himself. But, the truth only emerges when the perpetrators of the conflict and the criminals against the humanity [1, 2] have to stand in the dock of the International Criminal Court. That’s where the people whom Trifkovic served ended up. Trifkovic was defense witness for Milomir Staki and Ljubisa Beara, who were sentenced to life [Wikipedia]. Even more, Trifkovic was not only an advisor to genocidal Radovan Karadzic, one of the ‘Butchers of Bosnia‘, but he himself was in Bosnia when genocide of Muslims was actually happening:
In July of 1995, Trifkovic traveled to the Bosnian Serb capital of Pale in his capacity as an advisor to Radovan Karadzic and a public relations consultant for the Republika Srpska. With him were group of Serbian-American supporters of the RS. To arrive in Pale, the group had to travel by land from Belgrade, across the international border with Bosnia. Trifkovic arrived in Pale on July 11. On July 12 he met with leaders of RS, including Karadzic, and the following day he met with Karadzic for a one-on-one. On July 14th, he traveled back to Belgrade. At the time of Trifkovic’s sessions in Pale, Karadzic was busy not only planning public relations but also directing RS actions in Srebrenica. On July 11, Serb forces let by RS General Ratko Mladic overrun the U.N.-declared Safe Area of Srebrenica, disarmed the Dutch contingent of the United Nations Protection Force, and, in front of the Dutch soldiers, divided the captive Bosnian Muslims into two groups. The women and children were taken to buses, abused and robbed, and transported to the Safe Area of Tuzla. From July 12-17, between 7000 and 8000 adult males between the ages of 14 and 65 were taken to various detention centers, tortured, shot, and buried in mass graves throughout eastern Bosnia. On his way back to Belgrade, Trifkovic traveled through areas where the RS army was conducting these operations. [Srdje Trifkovic as Spokesman and Public Relations Advisor for the Republic Srpska – p 7 – pdf]
While mentioning Bosnia, Albania and Macedonia, Trifkovic singularly does not mention Kosovo unrest where about 10,000 Kosovar Albanians (Muslims) were killed by Serbs in 1999 in an ethnic cleansing. They employed every atrocity against the Muslims namely – forcible displacement of 1.5 million Kosovar Albanian civilians; looting of homes and businesses; widespread burning of homes and 500 villages; use of human shields to escort Serbian convoys; summary executions in over 500 sites; systematic rape of women; exhumation of mass graves to destroy evidence; identity cleansing. [Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting – Executive Summary]
Issue 52l: So, if we eliminate these conflicts, if we eliminate from the equation Chechnya, the Balkans, Sudan, the world is pretty peaceful place. If we eliminate from the terrorist equation, terrorist acts carried out by Muslim over the past five years, we come to realize that war on terror is unnecessary because terror is not a very big problem.
Rebuttal 52l: If Trifkovic wants to ‘ eliminate from the equation Chechnya, the Balkans, Sudan’ so that ‘the world is pretty peaceful place’ then he as to add to the list – Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan which are under occupation of deployed non-Muslim military forces.
Trifkovic wants to “eliminate these conflicts” with none other but force of hatred and the movie in its Islamophobia does not solve these conflicts either by reason and dialogue, rather seeks to inject into the audience the venom of doubts, dismay, hate and anger. One has to wonder that in his anti-Muslim rant, Trifkovic has counted every street fight in Muslim lands, but fails to mention the en-mass invasions and occupations of Muslim lands by the ‘West’ i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine. Why? Maybe West has something to do with it?
The answer to these conflicts is in equitable ‘solution’ rather than hateful ‘elimination’ as advocated by Trifkovic:
Violence breeds violence and more violence. So, somehow someone needs to start changing the course of events by breaking the chain of violence. This ‘someone’ is more likely to be those who possess more knowledge, more wisdom and more ability to take independent decisions.
In a war that has the most ridiculous imbalance of force between the belligerents, it’s more logical that those who have the upper hand militarily and logistically should be the ones to take the decision to stop or change the course of events.
In more practical terms: occupation of small and weak nations should end, supporting despotic regimes should stop, and international law should take its course with regard to pending problems between peoples and nations. Peoples’ dignity and their religious and cultural beliefs should be respected. Once this approach is taken the problem of terrorism will automatically disappear…and it will become very clear that we have not been going through a war between good and evil or between Islam and the West, but rather a war of absurd confusion and pure lack of understanding between nations and cultures. [Al-Jazeera.net]
Someone called Adam has sent the following comment:
Ahmadiyya fatwa muzzles wedding bells
What are your thoughts on this?