The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

latest, 3rd October 2017: Adam Who? But, Son Of Adam I.E. You And Me – At Least According To Quran


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


Archive for October, 2012

Issue 76

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

Issue 76 [@1:17:39]: Walid Shoebat – “The Hadith very clearly says, the Hadith which is Muhammad said ‘I have been ordered to fight until everyone says that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’. So, this is how Islam spread to North Africa. This is how Islam spread all the way to Indonesia. This is how Islam spread in the Middle East. Syria was not a Muslim country. Lebanon was not Muslim. Saudi Arabia even a mixed multitude. All throughout the Middle East that’s how Islam spread by the sword. This is why you do not see any synagogues is Saudi Arabia. You do not see any churches in Saudi Arabia. Christianity virtually is non-existent, even in my village in Bethlehem. Muslims are taken over. There is only 20% left of the Christian population. In Lebanon, the Christian Lebanese are moving by the droves. Hezbollah there is very active. Lebanon used to be a Christian nation. Now, all of a sudden it is being Islamized. So, Islam is moving.

Rebuttal 76: Islam did not spread in the world the way Shoebat alleges. He could not distinguish between the global experience of hand-in-glove of Christianity-Colonization-Church versus the spread of Muslim empire under the first four Caliphs and Umayyads. In the former, the Christian rule extended by concurrent enslavement, crusades, genocides, inquisitions and forced conversions whereas in the latter case the Muslim rule extended without any of the Christian atrocities. Muslim expansion out of Arabia was the inevitability of defensive wars that were imposed upon them by the super powers of time, namely the Persian and Byzantine empires initially and later by the Crusaders out of Europe. This issue is broken down and rebutted below.

Issue 76a: Shoebat states – “The Hadith very clearly says, the Hadith which is Muhammad said ‘I have been ordered to fight until everyone says that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’…”

Rebuttal 76a: Suddenly Shoebat has found the pan-ultimate reason as to why Islam spread in the world, but for all the wrong reasons. He paraphrases a hadith without giving its source. The hadiths closest to what he alleges are as follow:

Sahih al-Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

What Shoebat missed in his argument is the fundamental premise for any hadith. Hadiths are sayings of the Prophet in course of his daily living. When, why, how of what he said is hardly ever captured by the recollections that went into hadith books centuries later. Hence, to contextualize the moral principle in any given hadith, it has to be validated by the Quran. Therefore, to draw any Islamic doctrine from hadiths, all hadiths are to be read in light of Quran. The above referenced hadiths are no different.

One has to put this hadith in its full perspective. One of the requirements of the said hadith is that there has to be an enemy who is actively fighting the Muslim state as outlined in verse 2:193. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah.But if they cease, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

With this contextualization principle of hadiths in view, Prophet is on the record to have accepted the Peace Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, despite the fact that verse 2:193 was already part of the Quran revealed before then. Can we then say that the Prophet merely by the said hadith went against Quran by accepting a peace treaty with those who did not believe in – ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’? No, his hadith and by implication his thinking was exactly in congruence with Quran to fight the enemy as long as the latter is fighting. Subsequently, Quran was completed before the death of the Prophet. Ever since another verse 2:190 is also in existence and no hadith can independently over ride it. With these Quranic verses in view, the said hadith is fully contextualized to fight in self-defense only. Let’s not forget that state of persecution was imposed upon Muslims right from Prophet’s year of the Call. A state of war that the said hadith is referring to was imposed on the Prophet starting from his migration in 13th year of the Call and ended by the ninth year thereafter, almost a year before his death. It begets to read the relevant verses of Quran in toto for limitations that they place on any fighting, be it the Prophet himself or by the Muslims thereafter. Pay particular attention to the use of the words “those,” “them,” and “they” which are the explicit limiting boundary conditions for taking up arms in self-defense:

2:190. And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but do not be aggressive. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors.

[Footnote] This is one of the earliest revelations permitting Muslims to fight. It is remarkable that fighting in the way of Allah is here expressly limited to fighting in defence. Muslims were required to fight in the way of Allah, but they could fight only against those who waged war on them. Exactly the same limitation is placed on what was in all probability the first revelation permitting fighting: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made because they are oppressed” (22:39). Muslims were allowed to take up the sword only as a measure of self-defence. The enemies of Islam, being unable to suppress Islam by persecution, and seeing that Islam was now safe at Madinah and gaining strength, took up the sword to annihilate it. No course was left for the Muslims but either to be swept off the face of the earth or take up the sword in defence against an enemy which was immensely stronger. [Emphasis added]

2:191. And kill them wherever you find them,

[Footnote] The words kill them refer to those with whom fighting is enjoined in the previous verse, who waged war upon the Muslims. [Emphasis added]

and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter.

[Footnote] The word translated as “persecution” is fitna. Ibn Umar explained the word fitna when he said: “And there were very few Muslims (in the beginning), so a man used to be persecuted on account of his religion: they either murdered him or subjected him to tortures until Islam became predominant, then there was no fitna ” (Bukhari, 65.2:30). [Emphasis added]

And do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it; so if they fight you (in it), kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

2:192. But if they cease, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[Footnote] Note the clemency of the Islamic fighting injunctions. Muslims were to sheathe their swords if the enemy desisted from fighting. [Emphasis added]

2:193. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah.

[Footnote] When persecution ceases, and people are not forced to accept or renounce a religion, then there should be no more fighting. If they cease persecution, Muslims are at once to stop fighting against them, and hostilities are not to be continued against any except the aggressors. [Emphasis added]

But if they cease, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

2:194. The sacred month for the sacred month, and retaliation (is allowed) in sacred things.

[Footnote] This is similar to what is said in v. 191 regarding the Sacred Mosque. The pre-Islamic Arabs observed four months in the year as sacred, in which hostilities ceased and peace was established throughout the land. If the opponents violated the sacred months by attacking the Muslims first in those months, the Muslims were permitted to fight against them in the sacred months. And generally retaliation within the limits of the original act of aggression is permitted in the case of all sacred objects

Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and keep your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty.

2:195. And spend in the way of Allah and do not cast yourselves to destruction with your own hands and do good (to others). Surely Allah loves the doers of good.

If Christianity even remotely respected the boundaries set by the above verses, then we could appreciate its touted doctrine of the façade of love and peace, which the secular history bears witness that it never was and remains illusory as ever.

Issue 76b: Shoebat continues – “…So, this is how Islam spread to North Africa. This is how Islam spread all the way to Indonesia. This is how Islam spread in the Middle East. Syria was not a Muslim country. Lebanon was not Muslim. Saudi Arabia even a mixed multitude. All throughout the Middle East that’s how Islam spread by the sword. This is why you do not see any synagogues is Saudi Arabia. You do not see any churches in Saudi Arabia. Christianity virtually is non-existent, even in my village in Bethlehem. Muslims are taken over. There is only 20% left of the Christian population. In Lebanon, the Christian Lebanese are moving by the droves. Hezbollah there is very active. Lebanon used to be a Christian nation. Now, all of a sudden it is being Islamized. So, Islam is moving.”

Rebuttal 76b: The above is a totally bogus and misleading statement by Shoebat. In many issues before it has been explained with historical references that Muslim rule expanded into Middle East and Africa due to consequent victories from defensive wars inflicted by Persian and Byzantine empires on them.

Before Shoebat points finger at Islam, has Shoebat ever given it a thought as to where did Christianity itself come from into the Middle East and North Africa, while the whole Middle East was non-Christian before? As a case in point click this link and select 3rd and 4th radio buttons above the map on that page to see how Christianity spread in Middle East. Christianity spread was by a grand scale destruction of previous religions and their temples with a ‘love’ that dripped from the tip of its sword. While the Christianity displaced the previous pagans, it wrapped itself in the same pagan garb that it intended to displace (see Issue 64). In words of Shoebat – Syria was not a Christian country. Lebanon was not Christian. Rome even a mixed multitude. All throughout the Middle East that’s how Christianity spread by the sword. This is why you do not see any Mosques in Vatican.

Shoebat clearly side stepped the sub-Saharan Africa up to Cape of Good Hope in south. Why? Because, it is this very Africa which gives window into how Christianity spread not only in Africa but rest of the modern world where its pulpit provided the hogwash of salvation both for the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and the victims alike.

As far as Indonesia is concerned, the largest Muslim country, no Muslim soldier from outside ever set foot on its soil till this day. Seems Shoebat flunked history and geography in his high school. Can he even point Indonesia on the map which is thousands of miles by sea from Arabia? If there were forced conversions in Syria and Lebanon then how in the world can Shoebat justify the remaining present day 20% Christian population in the Lebanon, which is a sizeable number and they constitutionally hold the presidency of that country.

For reader’s awareness, following is reproduction of the first chapter of a book that self reflects on Christianity as a historical curse for all, within and without Europe. The whole book is a recommended read. Of note is that this book was written before the American Civil War, First and Second World Wars, Apartheid in Rhodesia-South Africa-Palestine, Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Holocaust, Vietnam, Iraq I&II, Afghanistan I&II etc., all thanks to Christianity or Christian nations for such presents to the recent world history. God knows how many more similar presents it still has in store for the world and are on the wish list of Spencers of this documentary.

COLONIZATION AND CHRISIANITY
A Popular History of the Treatment of the Natives by the Europeans in all Their Colonies
by William Howitt
published: 1838

Chapter 1

These are they, O Lord!
Who in thy plain and simple gospel see
All mysteries, but who find no peace enjoined,
No brotherhood, no wrath denounced on themselves
Who shed their brethern’s blood! Blind at noon-day
As owls; lynx-eyed in darkness.
Southey

CHRISTIANITY has now been in the world upwards of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS. For more than a thousand years the European nations have arrogated to themselves the title of CHRISTIAN! some of their monarchs, those of MOST SACRED and MOST CHRISTIAN KINGS! We have long laid to our souls the flattering unction that we are a civilized and a Christian people. We talk of all other nations in all other quarters of the world, as savages, barbarians, uncivilized. We talk of the ravages of the Huns, the irruptions of the Goths; of the terrible desolations of Timour, or Zenghis Khan. We talk of Alaric and Attila, the sweeping carnage of Mahomet, or the cool cruelties of more modern Tippoos and Alies. We shudder at the war-cries of naked Indians and the ghastly feasts of Cannibals; and bless our souls that We are redeemed from all these things, and made models of beneficence, and lights of God in the earth!

It is high time that we looked a little more rigidly into our pretences. It is high time that we examined, on the evidence of facts, whether we are quite so refined, quite so civilized, quite so Christian as we have assumed to be. It is high time that we look boldly into the real state of the question, and learn actually, whether the mighty distance between our goodness and the moral depravity of other people really exists. WHETHER, IN FACT, WE ARE CHRIS-TIAN AT ALL!

Have bloodshed and cruelty then ceased in Europe? After a thousand years of acquaintance with the most merciful and the most heavenly of religions, do the national characters of the Europeans reflect the beauty and holiness of that religion? Are we distinguished by our peace, as the followers of the Prince of Peace? Are we renowned for our eagerness to seek and save, as the followers of the universal Saviour? Are our annals redolent of the delightful love and fellowship which one would naturally think must, after a thousand years, distinguish those who pride themselves on being the peculiar and adopted children of Him who said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another?” These are very natural, but nevertheless, very awkward questions. If ever there was a quarter of the globe distinguished by its quarrels, its jealousies, its everlasting wars and bloodshed, it is Europe. Since these soi-disant Christian nations have risen into any degree of strength, what single evidence of Christianity have they, as nations, exhibited? Eternal warfare! — is that Christianity? Yet that is the history of Christian Europe. The most subtle or absurd pretences to seize upon each other’s possessions,—the contempt of all faith in treaties,—the basest policy, — the most scandalous profligacy of public morals,—the most abominable international laws!—are they Christianity? And yet they are the history of Europe. Nations of men selling themselves to do murder, that ruthless kings might ravish each other’s crowns—nations of men, standing with jealous eyes on the perpetual watch against each other, with arms in their hands, oaths in their mouths, and curses in their hearts ;—are those Christian ? Yet there is not a man acquainted with the history of Europe that will even attempt to deny that that is the history of Europe. For what are all our international boundaries; our lines of demarcation; our frontier fortresses and sentinels; our martello towers, and guard-ships; our walled and gated cities; our bastions and batteries; and our jealous. passports? These are all barefaced and glaring testimonies that our pretence of Christianity is a mere assumption; that after upwards of a thousand years of the boasted possession of Christianity, Europe has not yet learned to govern itself by its plainest precepts; and that her children have no claim to, or reliance in that spirit of “love which casteth out all fear.” It is very well to vaunt the title of Christian one to another —every nation knows in its own soul, it is a hollow pretence. While it boasts of the Christian name, it dare not for a moment throw itself upon a Christian faith in its neighbour. No! centuries of the most unremitted hatred,—blood poured over every plain of Europe, and sprinkled on its very mountain tops, cry out too dreadfully, that it is a dismal cheat. Wars, the most savage and unprovoked; oppressions, the most desperate; tyrannies, the most ruthless; massacres, the most horrible; death-fires, and tortures the most exquisite, perpetuated one on another for the faith, and in the very name of God; dungeons and inquisitions; the blood of the Vaudois, and the flaming homes of the Covenanters are all in their memories, and give the lie to their professions No! Poland rent in sunder; the iron heel of Austria on the prostrate neck of Italy; and invasions and aggressions without end, make Christian nations laugh with a hollow mockery in their hearts, in the very midst of their solemn professions of the Christian virtue and faith.

But I may be told that this character applies rather to past Europe than to the present. What! are all these things at an end? For what then are all these standing armies? What all these marching armies? What these men-of-war on the ocean? What these atrocities going on from year to year in Spain? Has any age or nation seen such battles waged as we have witnessed in our time? How many WATERLOOS can the annals of the earth reckon? What Timour, or Zenghis Khan, can be compared to the Napoleon of modern Europe? the greatest scourge of nations that ever arose on this planet; the most tremendous meteor that ever burnt along its surface ! Have the multitude of those who deem themselves the philosophical and refitted, as well as the Christian of Europe, ceased to admire this modern Moloch, and to forget in his individual and retributory sufferings at St. Helena, the countless agonies and the measureless ruin that he inflicted on innocent and even distant nations While we retain a blind admiration of martial genius, wilfully shutting our senses and our minds to the crimes and the pangs that constitute its shadow, it is laughable to say that we have progressed beyond our fathers in Christian knowledge. At this moment all Europe stands armed to the teeth. The peace of every individual nation is preserved, not by the moral probity and the mutual faith which are the natural growth of Christian knowledge, but by the jealous watch of armed bands, and the coarse and undisguised force of brute strength. To this moment not the slightest advance is made towards a regular system of settling national disputes by the head in-stead of the hand. To this moment the stupid practice of settling individual disputes between those who pride themselves on their superior education and knowledge, by putting bullets instead of sound reasons into each other’s heads, is as common as ever. If we really are a civilized people, why do we not abandon barbarian practices? If we really are philosophical, why do we not shew it? It is a poor compliment to our learning, our moral and political philosophy, and above all, to our religion, that at this time of day if a dispute arise between us as nations or as men, we fall to blows, instead of to rational inquiry and adjustment. Is Christianity then so abstruse? No! “He that runneth may read, and the way-faring man, though a fool, cannot err therein.” Then why, in the name of common sense, have we not learned it, seeing that it so closely concerns our peace, our security, and our happiness? Surely a thousand years is time enough to teach that which is so plain, and of such immense importance! We call ourselves civilized, yet we are daily perpetrating the grossest outrages we boast of our knowledge, yet we do not know how to live one with another half so peaceably as wolves; we term ourselves Christians, yet the plainest injunction of Christ, “to love our neighbour as ourselves,” we have yet, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight years after his death, to adopt! But most monstrous of all has been the moral blindness or the savage recklessness of ourselves as Englishmen.

Secure from actual warfare, we have loved
To swell the war-whoop, passionate for war!
Alas! for ages ignorant of all
Its ghastlier workings (famine or blue plague,
Battle, or siege, or flight through wintry snows,)
We, this whole people, have been clamorous
For war and bloodshed; animating sports.
The which we pay for as a thing to talk of,
Spectators and not combatants!
Abroad Stuffed out with big preamble, holy names.
And adjurations of the God in heaven,
We send our mandates for the certain death
Of thousands and ten thousands ! Boys and girls,
And women, that would groan to see a child
Pull of an insect’s leg, all read of war,
The best amusement for our morning’s meal!
The poor wretch who has learnt his only prayers
From curses, who knows scarce words enough
To ask a blessing from his heavenly Father,
Becomes a fluent phraseman, absolute,
Technical in victories, and deceit,
And all our dainty terms for fratricide;
Terms which we trundle smoothly o’er our tongues
Like mere abstractions, empty sounds, to which
We join no feeling, and attach no form!
As if the soldier died without a wound
As if the fibres of this god-like frame
Were gored without a pang; as if the wretch
Who fell in battle, doing bloody deeds,
Passed off to heaven, translated and not killed;
As though he had no wife to pine for him,
No God to judge him! Therefore evil days
Are coming on us, O my countrymen!
And what, if all-avenging Providence,
Strong and retributive, should make us know
The meaning of our words, force us to feel
The desolation and the agony of our fierce doings?
Coleridge.

This is the aspect of the Christian world in its most polished and enlightened quarter: —there surely is some need of serious inquiry; there must surely be some monstrous practical delusion here, that wants honestly encountering, and boldly dispersing.

But if such is the internal condition of Christian Europe, what is the phasis that it presents to the rest of the world? With the exception of our own tribes, now numerously scattered over almost every region of the earth, all are in our estimation barbarians. We pride ourselves on our superior knowledge, our superior refinement, our higher virtues, our nobler character. We talk of the heathen, the savage, and the cruel, and the wily tribes, that fill the rest of the earth; but how is it that these tribes know us? Chiefly by the very features that we attribute exclusively to them. They know us chiefly by our crimes and our cruelty. It is we who are, and must appear to them the savages. What, indeed, are civilization and Christianity? The refinement and ennoblement of our nature, the habitual feeling and the habitual practice of an enlightened justice, of delicacy and decorum, of generosity and affection to our fellow men. There is not one of these qualities that we have not violated forever, and on almost all occasions, towards every single tribe with which we have come in contact. We have professed, indeed, to teach Christianity to them; but we had it not to teach, and we have carried them instead, all the curses and the horrors of a demon race. If the reign of Satan, in fact, were come,—if he were let loose with all his legions, to plague the earth for a thousand years, what would be the characteristics of his prevalence? Terrors and crimes; one wide pestilence of vice and obscenity; one fearful torrent of cruelty and wrath, deceit and oppression, vengeance and malignity; the passions of the strong would be inflamed—the weak would cry and implore in vain!

And is not that the very reign of spurious Christianity which has lasted now for these thousand years, and that during the last three hundred, has spread with discovery round the whole earth, and made the name of Christian synonymous with fiend? It is shocking that the divine and beneficent religion of Christ should thus have been libelled by base pretenders, and made to stink in the nostrils of all people to whom it ought, and would, have come as the opening of heaven; but it is a fact no less awful than true, that the European nations, while professing Christianity, have made it odious to the heathen. They have branded it by their actions as something breathed up, full of curses and cruelties, from the infernal regions. On them lies the guilt, the stupendous guilt of having checked the gospel in its career, and brought it to a full stop in its triumphant progress through the nations. They have done this, and then wondered at their deed! They have visited every coast in the shape of rapacious and unprincipled monsters, and then cursed the inhabitants as besotted with superstition, because they did not look on them as angels! People have wondered at the slow progress, and in many countries, the almost hopeless labours of the missionaries;—why should they wonder? The missionaries had Christianity to teach—and their countrymen had been there before them, and called themselves Christians! That was enough: what recommendations could a religion have, to men who had seen its professors for generations in the sole characters of thieves, murderers, and oppressors? The missionaries told them that in Christianity lay their salvation;—they shook their heads, they had already found it their destruction! They told them they were come to comfort and enlighten them;—they had already been comforted by the seizure of their lands, the violation of their ancient rights, the kidnapping of their persons; and they had been enlightened by the midnight flames of their own dwellings! Is there any mystery in the difficulties of the missionaries? Is there any in the apathy of simple nations towards Christianity?

The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people that they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth. Is it fit that this horrible blending of the names of Christianity and outrage should continue? Yet it does continue, and must continue, till the genuine spirit of Christianity in this kingdom shall arouse itself, and determine that these villanies shall cease, or they who perpetrate them shall be stripped of the honoured name of—Christian! If foul deeds are to be done, let them be done in their own foul name; and let robbery of lands, seizure of cattle, violence committed on the liberties or the lives of men, be branded as the deeds of devils and not of Christians. The spirit of Christianity, in the shape of missions, and in the teaching and beneficent acts of the missionaries, is now sensibly, in many countries, undoing the evil which wolves in the sheep’s clothing of the Christian name had before done And of late another glorious symptom of the growth of this divine spirit has shown itself, in the strong feeling exhibited in this country towards the natives of our colonies. To fan that genuine flame of love, is the object of this work. To comprehend the full extent of atrocities done in the Christian name, we must look the whole wide evil sternly in the face. We must not suffer our-selves to aim merely at the redress of this or that grievance; but, gathering all the scattered rays of aboriginal oppression into one burning focus, and thus enabling ourselves to feel its entire force, we shall be less than Englishmen and Christians if we do not stamp the whole system of colonial usage towards the natives, with that general and indignant odium which must demolish it at once and for ever.
 


 
What William Howitt is contending in his book above can be visualized in the documentary “Andrew Marr’s History of the World – Age of Plunder” which summarizes the history in Europe, Central and South America. Columbus set the theme for Christianity in the “New World” which was ‘religion, conquest and slavery’ after he landed in Bahamas on October 12, 1492. Over the next four decades the Spain’s Conquistadors completed that vision in Central America of a ‘new world out there to take and take it they did by asset stripping the Aztecs and everybody else they found’. While ripping the Americas, the Catholic Church under Pope Leo X was ripping Europe itself which was gripped by constant fear of violence, famine and disease and the only hope of better life was in the afterlife and the keys to heaven were only in the hands of the Church. That was when the Church was selling Salvation as certified ‘passports to heaven’ to poor masses in exchange for hard cash that went into erection of Saint Petersburg Basilica, the Jewel in the Crown of Christianity that we find in the postcards of Vatican. The largest Church in the world made with the dupe, loot and plunder of ordinary masses which is imbibed into its bricks, mortar, tiles and murals, under the roof of which atonement is dispensed daily to seekers from all over the world till this day. This led to rise of Protestants by Martin Luther on October 31st, 1517 and subsequently in 1524 was started a 125 years of civil war in Europe between Protestants and the Catholics resulting in 11 million deaths and mass displacements not seen since the collapse of Roman Empire to the horrors of 20th century. Catholic Spain funded her religious wars in Europe with gold from Americas. By 1532 Spain entered the land of Incas, the modern day equivalent of Peru and Chile on West Coast of South America. They inflicted mayhem on the unarmed courtiers by killing over 4000 and held their emperor hostage, ransomed him for 13 thousand pounds of gold and 26 thousand pounds of silver. Subsequently they killed the emperor by strangulating him. All this was done under the watchful eyes of the Bible wielding Catholic priest Friar Valverde. Subsequently the Incas were not only decimated but almost wiped off the face of the earth.

This small snap shot of time and geography proves the contention that Christianity as a religion was a curse not only for Europe but where ever this paganism spread its tentacles in the world with its mantra and motto ‘religion, conquest and slavery’. No amount of lip service and sermons on the mount of ‘love’ and ‘salvation’ can clean it of the stains of such ‘holiness’. Thank you Spencers to draw the attention of the world to such Christianity that you belong to.

References:

English Translation of Sahih al-Bukhari – by Muhsin Khan
Fazlul Bari – Urdu Translation of Sahih al-Bukhari – Muhammad Ali, Book 2, hadith # 25, footnote 1 on p. 158.
Peace Treaty of Hudaybiyyah – Wikipedia
The Rise of Christianity – Historical Atlas of Mediterranean
Politics of Lebanon – Wikipedia
COLONIZATION AND CHRISIANITYby William Howitt – Google Books
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Andrew Marr’s History of the World – Age of Plunder – YouTube
Saint Petersburg Basilica – Wikipedia

Eid-ul-Adha Message from Head of Lahore Ahmadiyya, Dr. A.K. Saeed

Thursday, October 25th, 2012

Link to pdf file of the message

Text of the message

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

“And be not like those who became divided and disagreed after clear arguments had come to them. And for them is a grievous chastisement.” The Holy Qur’an, 3:104

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaato Hu.

On this happy occasion of Eid ul Adha, I would want us to remember that all Islamic prayers and devotional acts remind us that the true path to Allah is in the unity of human beings. This unity is exemplified by all followers praying towards the Ka‘bah and bowing and prostrating at the same time. They fast in the same month following the same code of fasting. Together they also perform the pilgrimage to Makkah and go around the Ka‘bah dressed in the same apparel, chanting the same prayers. All colours, creeds and nationalities move in the same direction – all three million or so every year. No gender discrimination, no sectarian hatred, no nationality bias; just the true spirit of Islam fully focused on One Allah and one Ummah.

All Muslims believe in the same Oneness of God, Allah, and the same final prophet, Muhammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and the same revealed Book of Allah, the Holy Qur’an. We all believe in the absolute finality of prophethood and follow the same tenets of Islam. We all have faith that the commandments of Allah revealed in the Qur’an and shown in practice by the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, have to be followed.

Now Muslims, having fulfilled their lifetime dream of performing the most coveted of worships, i.e. Hajj, are returning home. However, it will be tragic if they forget the spirit of Hajj – the spirit of unity, the spirit of love and the spirit of hatred for none – and return to the same disunity, hatred, bigotry and defamation and, in some cases, back to terrorism and taking lives of innocent men and women, not even sparing children. In doing so they forget the injunctions of Islam as stated in the verse I have cited above.

Sisters and Brothers,

Let us all pray that this Eid will be different. That this time after performing the pilgrimage we will be celebrating Eid with the firm resolve to remain united, “And be not like those who became divided and disagreed after clear arguments had come to them”.

I pray that Muslims all over the world live in harmony, not only with other Muslims but with people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds.
Aameen.

Professor Dr. Abdul Karim Saeed
Ameer and President
Worldwide Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement

Issue 75

Sunday, October 21st, 2012

Issue 75 [@1:17:15]: Slide projected with voice – The Life of Muhammad, p 368 – We saluted him [-the Prophet] as he stood praying, and he came out to us, and we told him that we had killed God’s enemy. He spat upon our comrade’s wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack on God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.

Rebuttal 75: The above is a phony chronicle. Before we entertain the said tale attributed to Prophet Muhammad for any intelligent discussion, we have to compare it with the Quranic standards of personal hygiene that are to be maintained in a daily living:

74:5. And uncleanness do shun.

2:222. …He [– Allah] loves those who purify themselves.

Prophet’s life is reflection of edicts in Quran. Following hadiths are just a sampler about oral hygiene alone:

“Were it not that I would place too heavy a burden on my community, I would have commanded them to use the tooth-brush at every ablution.” (Bukhari 30:27.)

He used to brush his teeth daily, at every service, in the morning and at retiring, with a rotating motion from the gum to the grinding surface and vice versa, so as to endure the removal of any sticky coating. (Ahmad bin Hambal, vol v.)

“The tooth-brush purifies the mouth and is a means of seeking the pleasure of the Lord.” (Bukhari 30:27)

Never did the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, wake up after sleeping at night or in the day, but he used the tooth-brush before he performed ablution.” 14(AD-Msh. 3:3)

I asked `A’ishah, What was the first thing the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, did when he entered his house? She said, Tooth-brushing. (M-Msh. 3:3)

With the above emphasis on personal cleanliness and oral hygiene in particular, the excerpted quote from Sirat (by Ibn Ishaq) in the documentary is totally absurd where it states about the Prophet – “He spat upon our comrade’s wounds.” The very unhygienic bend in the quote is sufficient to brand the whole narrative from where it is fetched as a fable, because the Prophet’s life style was anything but unclean or unhygienic. This can be further judged by hadiths about his purification practices and habits (Manual of Hadith – by Muhammad Ali).

Ibn Ishaq was born about 75 years after the death of Prophet and belonged to the family of Iraqi storytellers. Though born in Medina, was educated in Egypt, finally expelled from Medina for relating a false hadith from a woman he did not meet. His works were oral dictations to his pupils, most of which have been lost. The current version is the remnant that survived only through some of the pupillary chain and finally edited by Ibn Hisham, about 200 years after the death of the Prophet.

Storytelling was a profession that passed from father to son, in the same fashion as other trades e.g. iron smiths, shoe makers etc. Such storytellers are known to build upon the drama to suit the fancy of every newer generation of their times, by constantly inventing the facts and details for the mere fact that more the drama more the money they got paid. Listening to storytelling was a common evening past time in the tea houses. The whole market places were named after storytellers e.g. Qissa Khawani Bazaar in Peshawar, Pakistan. In order to understand Ibn Ishaq, one has to see this video clip at 40:20-40:55 and 47:35-48:54 to get a feeling of what storytelling means in his case and why he wrote what he wrote. A storyteller judges the mood of the audience and modifies his script in light of the response that he gets.

In the tradition of storytellers, Ibn Ishaq usually has no sources or weak sources to his narratives. The only difference between Ibn Ishaq and his ancestors is that he broke away from their verbal style to a written style. The lack of authenticity and poor quality of his work can be accessed by peer review by others in his own times that are recognized as literary figures in Islamic history [ref: link]:

Unfortunately, Ibn Ishaq excited the enmity of Malik b. Anas, for whose work he showed his contempt, and it was not long before his own writings and his orthodoxy were called in question.” (Alfred, Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah – Oxford University Press, 2004 – Introduction, Page XIII).

“Adh-Dhahabi also listed some of the major scholars of Islam who refuted Ibn Is’haq’s reliability in Hadith narrations. Imam Muslim, for instance, called Ibn Is’haq a liar and Yahya Ibn Saeed al-Ansari, as well as al-Amash refuted one of Ibn Is’haq’s narrations by saying that he lied.” Imam Ahmad also said that Ibn Ishaq did not care from whom he collected Hadiths. Imam Ibn Numair said that Ibn Ishaq reported false Hadiths from unknown narrators.” (Shaykh Jalal Abu Al Rub – The Prophet of Mercy – Chapter 2 – Page 10).

“Allah has provided evidence (i.e. Isnad) establishing the authenticity or lack thereof of the narrations that are necessary in matters of the religion. It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsir (commentaries on the Qur’an) is similar to narrations reporting Maghazi (or Seerah) and battles, promoting Imam Ahmad to state that three matters do not have Isnad: Tafsir, Mala’him (i.e. great battles), and Maghazi. This is because most of their narrations are of the Maraseel (plural for Mursal) type, such as narrations reported by Urwah Ibn az-Zubair, ash-Sha’bi, az-Zuhri, Musa Ibn Uqbah and Ibn Ishaq. (Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah – Majmu’ Al Fataawa – Volume 13 – Page 345).

“Imam Malik was not the only contemporary of Ibn Ishaq’s to have problems with him. Despite writing the earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad, Scholars such as al-Nisa’I and Yahya b. Kattan did not view Ibn Ishaq as a reliable or authoritative source of Hadith.” (Jones, J.M.B. Ibn Ishak. Vol. IV, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by Ch. Pellat, and J. SchachtV.L.M.B. Lewis. London: Luzac & Co., 1971: pages 810-811).

“Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal discounted the reliability of Ibn Ishaq if he alone narrates a Hadeeth. Also, Imams Yahya Ibn Ma`een (in another narration from him), an-Nasaii and ad-Daraqutni stated that Ibn Ishaq was weak in Hadeeth. The great Imam of Sunnah, Imam A`hmad Ibn Hanbal, also added that Ibn Is`haq’s narrations are not accepted if they are about the Sunan.”

Suffice is to say about false narrations attributed to the Prophet in Prophet’s own words:

“…Whoso ascribeth doctrines or precepts to me, and they are not mine, the same shall go to hell.” (Bukhari 8:73:217)

The excerpt quoted in the current issue has been taken from Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq – (Translation: The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume) from its section THE KILLING OF KA’B B. AL-ASHRAF [pages 364-369]. Before we go further, the reader is encouraged to review Issue 58 that addresses the same topic from its socio-political angles.

We quote the full section below which only highlights the short comings of Ibn Ishaq. His narratives are long on tales and short on history. The passage not only shows the dearth and weakness of his sources, but also the long winded drama that he creates by the dialogues. Not surprisingly while describing the events he even gets into the heads of the different characters and lays bare to the reader as to what was that person actually thinking. Anyone who takes such narratives as history is not far from essentially believing in Santa Claus. His sources for various sections are highlighted in bold font below:

After the Quraysh defeat at Badr the apostle had sent Zayd b. Haritha to the lower quarter and ‘Abdullah b. Rawaha to the upper quarter to tell the Muslims of Medina of God’s victory and of the polytheists who had been killed. `Abdullah b. al-Mughith b. Abu Burda al-Zafari and ‘Abdullah b. Abu Bakr b. Muhammad b. ‘Amr b. kfazm and ‘Asim b. Umar b. Qatada and Salib b. Abfi Umama b. Sahl each gave me a part of the following story: Ka’b b. al-Ashraf who was one of the Tayy’ of the subsection B. Nabhan whose mother was from the B. al-Nadir, when he heard the news said, ‘Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? (i.e. Zayd and ‘Abdullah b. Rawaha). These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people ’twere better to be dead than alive.’ {fn: Lit. the inside of the earth is better than the outside.}

When the enemy of God became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib b. Abu Wada’a b. Dubayra al-Sahmi who was married to ‘Atika d. Abu’l-‘Is b. Umayya b. ‘Abdu Shams b. ‘Abdu Manaf. She took him in and entertained him hospitably. He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr. He said:

Badr’s mill ground out the blood of its people.
At events like Badr you should weep and cry.
The best of the people were slain round their cisterns,
Don’t think it strange that the princes were left lying.
How many noble handsome men,
The refuge of the homeless were slain,
Liberal when the stars gave no rain,
Who bore others’ burdens, ruling and taking their due fourth.
Some people whose anger pleases me say ‘Ka’b b. al-Ashraf is utterly dejected’.
They arc right. O that the earth when they were killed
Had split asunder and engulfed its people,
That he who spread the report had been thrust through
Or lived cowering blind and deaf.
I was told that all the Banu’l-Mughira were humiliated
And brought low by the death of
And the two sons of Rabra with him,
And Munabbih and the others did not attain (such honour) as those who were slain! {fn: Or ‘Tubba’ did not’ (so A. Dh.). Waq. has hal for ma and al-tubba’u for watubba’u.}
I was told that al-Harith ibn Hisham
Is doing well and gathering troops
To visit Yathrib with armies,
For only the noble, handsome man protects the loftiest {fn: The reading must be ula, because yahmi governs an accusative.} reputation (573).

Hassan b. Thabit answered him thus:

Does Ka’b weep for him again and again
And live in humiliation hearing nothing?’ {fn: The question is ironical: let him weep if he wants to. The text of this poem is dubious.}
In the vale of Badr I saw some of them, the slain,
Eyes pouring with tears for them.
Weep [Atika], for you have made a mean slave weep
Like a pup following a little bitch.
God has given satisfaction to our leader
And put to shame and prostrated those who fought him.
Those whose hearts were torn with fear
Escaped and fled away (574).

A Muslim woman of B. Murayd, a clan of Bali who were allied attachments of B. Umayya b. Zayd, called al-Ja’adira answered Kalb (575):

This slave shows great concern Weeping over the slain untiringly.
May the eye that weeps over the slain at Badr weep on
And may Lu’ayy b. Ghalib weep double as much!
Would that those weltering in their blood
Could be seen by those who live between Mecca’s mountains!
They would know for certain and would see
How they were dragged along by hair and beard. {fn: Or, reading mahazzahum, ‘the sword cuts above their beards and eyebrows’.}

Ka`b b. al-Ashraf answered her:

Drive off that fool of yours that you may be safe
From talk that has no sense!
Do you taunt me because I shed tears
For people who loved me sincerely?
As long as I live I shall weep and remember
The merits of people whose glory is in Mecca’s houses.
By my life Murayd used to be far from hostile
But now they are become as jackals.
They ought to have their noses cut off
For insulting the two clans of Lu’ayy b. Ghalib.
I give my share in Murayd to Ja’dar
In truth, by God’s house, between Mecca’s mountains.

Then Ka’b returned to Medina and composed amatory verses about Ummul-Fadl d. al-Harith, saying:

Are you off without stopping in the valley
And leaving Ummu’l-Fadl in Mecca?
Out would come what she bought from the pedlar of bottles,
Henna and hair dye.
What lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow is in motion {fn: Presumably her buttocks are meant: they would be between her ankle and her elbow as she reclined. Large and heavy buttocks were marks of female beauty among the old Arabs.}
When she tries to stand and does not.
Like Umm Hakim when she was with us
The link between us firm and not to be cut.
She is one of B. ‘Amir who bewitches the heart,
And if she wished she could cure my sickness.
The glory of women and of a people is their father,
A people held in honour true to their oath.
Never did I see the sun rise at night till I saw her
Display herself to us in the darkness of the night!

So far, Ibn Ishaq can be given leeway in what he states because as a tradition, Arabs had good memories for poetry entailing themes of honor, rage, insinuated love and sensuality. Most readers in general will agree that they themselves remember the poems and lullabies from their childhood more than the stories they might have read. The above poetry only proves that Ka’b bin Ashraf was instigating Makkans against Muslims by using the most effective propaganda tool of the times, the poetry.

Now, let’s pay attention to the following section which forms the basis of Issue 58 before. Ibn Ishaq quotes only one source for a string of events that involved multiple participants. If the events are true as reported, then there must have been many more corroborative sources, but does not. Notice the dramatic details in the dialogues and their corresponding expressions, all emanating from a single source, written 200 hundred years after the event. How could such a single source know all such details? How is it even possible to write history in such a manner? Should we call it a recall or fanciful concoction?

Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle said—according to what ‘Abdullah b. al-Mughith b. Abu Burda told me—’Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf ?’ Muhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal, said, ‘I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.’ He said, `Do so if you can.’So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an under-taking and he did not know whether he could fulfil it. The apostle said, ‘All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try.’ He said, ‘O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.’ He answered, ‘Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.’ Thereupon he and Silkan b. Salama b. Waqsh who was Abil Na’ila one of the B. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal, foster-brother of Ka’b, and ‘Abbad b. Bishr b. Waqsh, and al-Harith b. Aus b. Muadh of the B. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal and Abu ‘Abs b. Jabr of the B. Haritha conspired together and sent Silkan to the enemy of God, Ka’b b. Ashraf, before they came to him. He talked to him some time and they recited poetry one to the other, for Silkan was fond of poetry. Then he said, ‘O Ibn Ashraf, I have come to you about a matter which I want to tell you of and wish you to keep secret.’ ‘Very well,’ he replied. He went on, ‘The coming of this man is a great trial to us. It has provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they are all in league against us. The roads have become impassable so that our families are in want and privation, and we and our families are in great distress.’ Ka’b answered, `By God, I kept telling you, O Ibn Salama, that the things I warned you of would happen.’ Silkan said to him, ‘I want you to sell us food and we will give you a pledge of security and you deal generously in the matter.’ He replied, Will you give me your sons as a pledge?’ He said, ‘You want to insult us. I have friends who share my opinion and I want to bring them to you so that you may sell to them and act generously, and we will give you enough weapons for a good pledge.’ Silkan’s object was that he should not take alarm at the sight of weapons when they brought them. Ka’b answered, ‘Weapons are a good pledge.’ Thereupon Silkan returned to his companions, told them what had happened, and ordered them to take their arms. Then they went away and assembled with him and met the apostle (576).

While paying attention to the ‘history’ captured by Ibn Ishaq that is a ‘definite’ and ‘authentic’ source for this documentary, also please note the ridiculousness of details as if being captured by an iPhone of the onlooker and that Ibn Ishaq is even privy to bedroom talk and interaction of the Jewish couple:

Thaur b. Zayd from ‘Ikrima from Ibn ‘Abbas told me the apostle walked with them as far as Baqi u’l-Glharqad. Then he sent them off, saying, `Go in God’s name ; O God help them.’ So saying, he returned to his house. Now it was a moonlight night and they journeyed on until they came to his castle, and Abu Na’ila called out to him. He had only recently married, and he jumped up in the bed sheet, and his wife took hold of the end of it and said, ‘You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour.’ He replied, ‘It is Abu Naila. Had he found me sleeping he would not have woken me.’ She answered, ‘By God, I can feel evil in his voice.’ Ka’b answered, ‘Even if the call were for a stab a brave man must answer it.’ So he went down and talked to them for some time, while they conversed with him. Then Abu Na’ila said, ‘Would you like to walk with us to Shi’b al-Ajuz, so that we can talk for the rest of the night? ‘If you like,’ he answered, so they went off walking together; and after a time Abu Na’ila ran his hand through his hair. Then he smelt his hand, and said, ‘I have never smelt a scent finer than this.’ They walked on farther and he did the same so that Ka’b suspected no evil. Then after a space he did it for the third time, and cried, ‘Smite the enemy of God!’ So they smote him, and, their swords clashed over him with no effect. Muhammad b. Maslama said, ‘I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of God had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground. Al-Harith had been hurt, being wounded either in his head or in his foot, one of our swords having struck him. We went away, passing by the B. Umayya b. Zayd and then the B. Qurayza and then Bu’ath until we went up the Harra of al-Urayd. {fn: Harra is a district of black volcanic stone and Urayd is one of the valleys of Medina.} Our friend al-Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle at the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us, and we told him that we had killed God’s enemy. He spat upon our comrade’s wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.‘ {fn: A photograph of the ruins of Ka’b’s castle is given in The Islamic Review, Sept. 1953, p. 12. There Dr. M. Hamidullah writes: ‘Towards the south [of Medina] in the eastern lava plain near Wadi Mudhanib, there is a small hillock. On this the walls of the palace of Ka’b Ibn al-Ashraf still stand, about a yard or a yard and a quarter in height, built of stone. Inside the palace there is a well…. In front of the palace, on the base of the hillock, there are rims of a big cistern of water, built of lime and divided into several sections, each connected with the other by means of clay pipes.’} [see this pdf link]

Though Ibn Ishaq mentions names of his sources below, but one has to ask as to who are they to begin with?

Ka`b b. Malik said:

Of them Ka’b was left prostrate there
(After his fall al-Nadir were brought low).
Sword in hand we cut him down
By Muhammad’s order when he sent secretly by night
Ka’b’s brother to go to Ka’b.
He beguiled him and brought him down with guile
Mahmud was trustworthy, bold (577).

Hassan b. Thabit, mentioning the killing of Ka’b and of Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq, said:

What a fine band you met, O Ibnu’l-Huqayq,
And you too, Ibnu’l-Ashraf,
Travelling by night with their light swords
Bold as lions in their jungle lair
Until they came to you in your quarter
And made you taste death with their deadly swords,
Seeking victory for the religion of their prophet
Counting their lives and wealth as nothing (578).

Even a superficial read of the narrative above about Ka’b bin Ashraf proves that it is nothing but a dramatic tale that tries to mesmerize and captivate the coin flinging audience to the storyteller where the storyteller is creating imagery by poetry, dialogue, expressions, emotions and details of which is just impossible to have been captured in history hundreds of years after the event. The narrative by Ibn Ishaq is clearly synthetic and product of a storytelling tradition. It is shameful that the documentary calls such an ink on paper as history.

Sorry Spencers of the documentary, your claims against Islam and the Prophet are as bogus as your sources of history.

References:

{fn: footnotes in the original book are incorporated into the body of the text above, bound by curly braces}

Manual of Hadith – by Muhammad Ali
Ibn Ishaq – Wikipedia
Ibn Hisham – Wikipedia
Qissa Khawani Bazaar – Wikipedia
In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great [BBC] – Son of God (2/4) – YouTube
Sirat Rasul Allah – The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume – Internet Archive
The Islamic Review, Sept. 1953 – WokingMuslim.org
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Pakistan National Assembly Proceedings of 1974 against Ahmadis

Thursday, October 18th, 2012

Submitted by Rashid Jahangiri.


Change in Qadiani beliefs inside National Assembly in 1974

Qadiani Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad CHANGED HIS BELIEFS inside the secret proceedings of Pakistan National Assembly.

While reading testimony of marhoom Abdul Manan Omar sahib in the recently published Pakistan National Assembly proceedings I came across interesting information that was provided by Pakistan’s Attorney General Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar to Abdul Manan Omar sahib.

On page 1699 and 1700 Yahya Bakhtiar informs Abdul Manan Omar that Qadianis Khalifa 3 Mirza Nasir Ahmad HAS AMENDED, I REPEAT, AMENDED THEIR DEFINITION OF KAFIR. By the word ‘Kafir’ they mean ‘sinner’ JUST LIKE BELIEF OF LAHORI-AHMADIS.

In reply Abdul Manan sahib said, “since it was secret proceedings, so we will appreciate if you could give us more information. We will be thankful”.

In reply Yahya Bakhitar says, “it will not be secret forever. It will become public in some time”.

Further in reply Abdul Manan Omar sahib said, “if Qadianis make couple of more AMMENDMENTS in their beliefs, they will become your and our Muslim brothers”.

THIS PROVES QADIANI KHALIFA 3 LIKE HIS FATHER QADIANI KHAILFA 2, PRESENTED DIFFERENT BELIEFS IN COURT THAN THE ONE THEY MAKE THEIR FOLLOWERS TO ADOPT. QK2 adopted the same strategy in Munir Commission Inquiry court in 1953.

Publication of 1974 reports will have long term benefits for Muslim Ummah. Two immediate will be:

1-Muslims will come to know what a great injustice was done to Lahori-Ahmadis by secular politician Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, just to appease Mullah-Mafia in Pakistan.

2-Qadianis will come to know that their Qadiani Khalifas have been DECEIVING them since 1974. They will know QK 3 and 4 CHANGED THEIR BELIEFS INSIDE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND TRIED TO ADOPT LAHORI-AHMADIS BELIEFS, to save their skin. Exactly the way QK2 did in 1953 in Munir Inquiry Commission. Qadianis will come to realize their QK3 was lying when he said, “if report publishes half of Pakistan will become Ahmadi (Qadiani)”; and QK4 was lying when he said, “not half, all of Pakistan will become Ahmadi (Qadiani)”.

Publication of this report WILL ONLY BENEFIT Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement representation of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib’s beliefs and claims.

ALLAH-O-AKBAR.

Issue 74

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

Issue 74 [@1:16:39]: Serge Trifkovic – “It is not possible for a non-Muslim living in a Muslim society to invoke his civil rights, human rights, that would be independent or separate from the Shariah concept. He is expected to submit to Shariah willingly. And, if he accepts his dhimmitude, the position of a dhimmi, he will be a protected person. A protected person is someone who is in fact a willing sub-ordinate to the Muslim overlords.”

Rebuttal 74: This a purely bogus allegation by Trifkovic which he essentially draws from the book “Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide” by Bat Ye’or. The book is rebutted in a book review – American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 21 #3 (Summer), p. 149 by Imad A. Ahmad, Ph.D [pdf]. While refuting dhimmitude altogether, the reviewer in last paragraph writes:

At least the author documents her sources. Thus, anyone seeking to use her allegations as a starting point for a serious study of this subject may go to original sources to determine what actually happened and explore with sound research and a more scholarly attitude whether the persecution was inspired by or in violation of Islamic principles and the spirit of minority protection. Beyond that, this book has little to offer serious scholars of Islam or of world civilizations. It has much to offer propagandists who seek rhetorical ammunition to increase rather than decrease the hatred and strife in the world.

The current statement by Trifkovic and similar allegations by Spencer and others before beget a fundamental question as to whether Quran allows of what they allege? Not too surprisingly the best human document ever drafted and globally accepted is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by United Nations that is factually a subset of Shariah in Quran as explained in Issue 71 before. If there is an implementation of dhimmi the way this documentary alleges, then assuredly there is no such dhimmi in Quran. Even if Spencer and his likes scrap the bottom of Muslim history to support their wild theories of Islamophobia, those fragments of history need to be judged by the standard outlined by Dr. Ahmad above – whether the persecution was inspired by or in violation of Islamic principles and the spirit of minority protection? If by any fair read, those scraps of evidences are proven true, then they would be in contravention of Quranic edicts of human rights and what Prophet Muhammad stood for and will need foremost criticism by Muslims themselves first.

Before we go on to rebut Trifkovic, we pose a simple statement to him in his own words – “Is it possible for any citizen living in a Western society to invoke his civil rights, human rights, that would be independent or separate from the Constitutional concept? Is he not expected to submit to Constitution willingly? And, if he accepts his citizenship, the position of a citizen, will he not be a protected person? Isn’t such a protected person someone who is in fact a willing sub-ordinate to the Government?” His own answer will rebut his own statement in the Issue above.

The statement above by Trifkovic is broken down into following sub-issues:

Issue 74a: Trifkovic alleges – “It is not possible for a non-Muslim living in a Muslim society to invoke his civil rights, human rights, that would be independent or separate from the Shariah concept…”

Rebuttal 74a: Historically, the term dhimmi aka ‘responsibility’ was used for the religious minority subjects of Muslim states who were under extra protection for their rights. Like any other citizen, they were obligated to pay taxes, which in turn relieved them of the mandatory military service. The rights of dhimmis were no less than the majority Muslims. Rather, it should be emphasized that Muslims had no extra or superior rights as a citizen than a dhimmi. This equality is stated in black and white in the following governmental reforms and decrees of the Ottomans. It is obvious that the implicit dhimmi in history was equal and at par with Muslims and that such a dhimmi could invoke extra accommodation from the government just by being a dhimmi for his language, religion, traditions etc.

Hatt-i Sharif of 1839:

The Hatt-i Sharif of the Gülhane (Imperial Edict of the Rose House) or Tanzimât Fermânı (Imperial Edict of Reorganization) was an 1839 proclamation by Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I that launched the Tanzimât period of reforms and reorganization.

The proclamation was issued at the behest of reformist Grand Vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha. It promised reforms such as the abolition of tax farming, reform of conscription, and guarantee of rights to all Ottoman citizens regardless of religion or ethnic group.

Some of the most important clauses are as follows:

* In the future, the case of every accused party will be tried publicly, in conformity with our divine law. Until a regular sentence has been pronounced, no one can put another to death, secretly or publicly, by poison or any other form of punishment.
* No one will be permitted to assail the honour of any one, whosoever he may be.
* Every person will enjoy the possession of his property of every nature, and dispose of it with the most perfect liberty, without any one being able to impede him. Thus, for example, the innocent heirs of a criminal will not be deprived of their legal rights, and the property of the criminal will not be confiscated.
* These imperial concessions extend to all our subjects, whatever religion or sect they may belong to; and they will enjoy them without any exception.
* Perfect security is, therefore, granted by us to the inhabitants of the empire, with regard to their life, their honor, and their fortune, as the sacred text of our law [– Shariah] demands.
* With reference to the other points, as they must be regulated the concurrence of enlightened opinions, our Council of Justice (augmented by as many new members as may deemed necessary), to whom will be adjoined, on certain days which we shall appoint our Ministers and the notables of the empire, will meet for the purpose of establishing the fundamental laws on those points relating to the security of life and property, and the imposition of the taxes. Every one in these assemblies will state his ideas freely, and “give his advice freely.”
* The laws relating to the regulations of the military service will be discussed by the Military Council, holding its meetings at the Place of the Seraskier. As soon as a law is decided upon, it will be presented to us, and in order that it may be eternally valid and applicable will confirm it by our sanction, written above it with our imperial hand.
* As these present institutions are solely intended for the regeneration of religion, government, the nation, and the Empire, we to do nothing which may be opposed to them. [Wikipedia]

Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856:

Islâhat Fermânı (Islâhat Hatt-ı Hümâyûnu) (The Imperial Islâhat Firmân, The Imperial Reform Edict, or The Rescript of Reform) was a February 18, 1856 edict of the Ottoman government and part of the Tanzimat reforms. The decree from Sultan Abdülmecid I promised equality in education, government appointments, and administration of justice to all regardless of creed.

Some rules were cheered by the Non-Muslims:

* Non-Muslims could become civil servants,
* The possibility to transfer their inheritance cases to Patriarchates,
* The publishing of murder and commerce laws in the languages of the minorities,
* The establishment of higher court (judiciary) and the representation of all congregations with two representatives from each.
* The extending of powers of Patriarchates in administering justice,
* The extending of the right to property to foreigners.

Some rules were not cheered by the Non-Muslims:

* The obligation to do one’s military service
* The reexamination of religious privileges to make them equal (some millets lost privileges relative to others)
* The abolition of arbitrary fees exacted by priests all along from their congregations
* The establishment of salaries (fixed income) to spiritual leaders (priest, patriarch etc.)
* The obligation of spiritual leaders to take the oath of devotion

Issue 74b: Trifkovic – “…He is expected to submit to Shariah willingly. And, if he accepts his dhimmitude, the position of a dhimmi, he will be a protected person. A protected person is someone who is in fact a willing sub-ordinate to the Muslim overlords.”

Rebuttal 74b: A non-Muslim like any other citizen is expected to submit to the laws of the land. There is no dhimmitude or any shade thereof in any interpretation of Quran, which is the source of Shariah.

Trifkovic has repeatedly used the words ‘warlord’ (Issue 20) and ‘overlords’ in his smears, which only expose his racist and xenophobic mind. He will never use these words for his peers, the Serbian genocidal criminals and convicts of Hague that he served. Trifkovic is no student of history, but a racist in the garb of a pseudo-intellectual who just by throwing ink on paper considers himself to be an author. So did Hitler, when he published Mein Kampf in1925, writing: Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.Neither was Hitler an intellectual then, nor is Trifkovic now, when they act, write and speak against Jews and Muslims receptively.

Before we accept the term dhimmitude for discussion, we have to ask if it is even a valid term, which it is not but a mere propaganda. The following is an excerpt from FactCheck.org about the said term:

As for “dhimmitude,” it’s a politically charged academic concept, not a tenet of Muslim faith. The term was coined by scholar Bat Ye’or to describe the condition of the “dhimmis,” protected non-Muslims living in Muslim empires starting in the 7th century. Dhimmi populations, Ye’or says, were allowed by their lands’ Muslim conquerors to keep property and practice their faith, as long as they paid a poll tax. It is Ye’or’s assertion that the condition of dhimmitude still persists in countries under shari’a law, and that, furthermore, it is spreading worldwide. In particular, she says, Europeans are accepting a state of dhimmitude and moving toward becoming “Eurabia.” This position is controversial, and Ye’or is not secretive about her political commitments. For instance, she is a vocal supporter of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who was once banned from the United Kingdom because of his inflammatory anti-Islam views. For the e-mail to present “dhimmitude” as an established Muslim value rather than a scholarly concept from an author with open political commitments is misleading. [“Dhimmitude” and the Muslim Exemption – FactCheck.org]

While trying to invent history and then invent terms to fit their fabricated history, Bet Ye’or, Spencer and Trifkovic seem to have very short and selective memories. Like a color blind, they are deliberately blind to European history and its canonical persecution of Jews for almost two thousand years, from the throne, the church, the administrative structure, officers of the state and ordinary citizen alike, all in the name of the God, the Christ. Before they dwell on their invention of dhimmitude, they need to turn a few pages of history to find the exclusively European term that was matter of public policy and an affirmed state and religious institution, the doctrine of perpetua servitus iudaeorum – perpetual servitude of the Jews that lasted till 1800s:

In the 1234 Decretals, he [-Pope Greogory IX] invested the doctrine of perpetua servitus iudaeorumperpetual servitude of the Jews – with the force of canonical law. According to this, Jews would have to remain in a condition of political servitude and abject humiliation until Judgment Day. The doctrine then found its way into the doctrine of servitus camerae imperialis, or servitude immediately subject to the Emperor’s authority, promulgated by Frederick II. The second-class status of Jews thereby established would last until well into the 19th century. [Wikipedia]

Here, for the first time [in 1236], Frederick II declared the Jews “serfs of our chamber” (servi camerae nostri), thus adopting the concept of perpetual Jewish serfdom (perpetua servitus iudaeorum) from the Church, a doctrine enunciated by Pope Innocent III in 1205 and formally incorporated into canonical law in 1234 by Gregory IX. In the second half of the thirteenth century the leading scholastic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, formulated this notion of vassalage in the following words: “Since the Jews have fallen into eternal serfdom for their sins, sovereigns have the right to strip them of their possessions, leaving them only with the barest necessities for life.” In the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Innocent passed a number of resolutions whose aim was to isolate and humiliate the Jews. Among these was the obligation of distinctive dress. In practice, this meant wearing a yellow ring or a similar badge on the chest, or the pointed “Jew’s hat.” [German-Jewish History in Modern Times, p. 28]

The dynamics of this anti-Jewish hate in the Christianity was not only based upon their calling them ‘God-killers’ (see Issue 73), but also due to the pagan bend of Christianity. In Christianity, it was against piety to deal with money, hence the ‘dirty’ but rich work of money lending was relegated to Jewish masses. These money lenders would then become a source of capital for both the crown and the church for their vested interests. Leveraging their privileged relationship with the power centers the moneylenders would in turn loan shark with impunity at exuberant usury to the common citizens.

The term judaize became synonymous with “dealing with money,” first mentioned in this sense in writings by Bernard of Clairvaux [German-Jewish History in Modern Times, p. 32]

Thus, the Church and the State, besides sucking the money out of the masses directly by exuberant taxes, also milked it indirectly via the conduit of exuberant usury of the Jewish money-lenders. At any given period in European history, by natural flow of events, a tipping point of duress for masses will reach, apparently by the loan sharking where the common public would rise against the moneylenders. Opportunistically, then the crown and the church will side with the masses leading to extortion, killing and expulsion of the lenders en-mass. All this frame-up will be played under the garb of a religious duty against ‘God-killers.’ Once the Jews were gotten rid of, so did the monetary obligations of the Church and the State, which would end up as win-win situation for the Christians and total loss for the Jews.

There is an excellent rebuttal to Robert Spencer at loonwatch.com under the title “The Church’s Doctrine of ‘Perpetual Servitude’ was Worse than “Dhimmitude” that focuses on Spencer’s allegation that “The idea that Jews fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false.” The rebuttal refutes the alleged “Pact of Umar” and draws from the book “ Under Crescent and Cross” by Mark R. Cohen.

While trying to invent dhimmitude from thin air, the systematic Jewish persecution of nearly two thousand years at the hands of Europe and its Christianity, into perpetua servitus iudaeorum perpetual servitude of the Jews is obviously invisible in the scotomatous ‘scholarship’ of Bet Ye’or et al.

22:46. Why do they not travel in the land so that they should have hearts that help them to understand and ears which can help them hear? As a matter of fact (when going astray) it is not the (physical) eyes that are blind but blind are the hearts which lie in the bosoms.[Nooruddin]

This Perpetual Servitude of Jews can be glanced at in highlights on a time-line as outlined by the website ReligiousTolerance.org and reproduced below. Note: the information is significantly drawn from – A Short Review of Troubled History – by Fritz Voll and can be read separately:

Anti-Judaism: 70 TO 1200 CE

Persecution of Jews by Roman Pagans:

* 70: The Roman Army destroyed Jerusalem, killed over 1 million Jews, took about 100,000 into slavery and captivity, and scattered many from Palestine to other locations in the Roman Empire.
* Circa 115 -117: Jews in Cyprus, Cyrene, Egypt and parts of Mesopotamia revolted Roman Empire in what is known as the Kitos War. This caused the death of several hundreds of thousands of Romans and Jews. The Roman The Roman Legions eventually crushed the rebellions. [1]
* 132: Bar Kochba led a hopeless three-year revolt against the Roman Empire. Many Jews had accepted him as the Messiah. About a half-million Jews were killed; thousands were sold into slavery or taken into captivity. The rest were exiled from Palestine and scattered throughout the known world, adding to what is now called the “Diaspora.” Judaism was no longer recognized as a legal religion. [2]
* 135: Serious Roman persecution of the Jews began. They were forbidden, upon pain of death, from practicing circumcision, reading the Torah, eating unleavened bread at Passover, etc. A temple dedicated to the Roman pagan god Jupiter was erected on temple mountain in Jerusalem. A temple of Venus was built on Golgotha, just outside the city.
* 200: Roman Emperor Severus forbade religious conversions to Judaism.

Persecution of Jews by Christians:

Initial persecution of Jews was along religious lines. Persecution would cease if the person converted to Christianity.

* 306: The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews. [3,4]
* 315: Constantine published the Edict of Milan which extended religious tolerance to Christians. Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.
* 325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people…We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews…our worship follows a…more convenient course…we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews…How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded.
* 337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.
* 339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.
* 343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: “It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.” [5]
* 367 – 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.
* 379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.
* 380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as “an act pleasing to God.
* 415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.
* 415: St. Augustine wrote “The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.
* 418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: “If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.
* 489 – 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.
* 528: Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court. [3]
* 535: The “Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians.” [3]
* 538: The 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that “From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians.” [5] Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism. [4]
* 561: The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.

* 612: Jews were not allowed to own land, to be farmers or enter certain trades.
* 613: Very serious persecution began in Spain. Jews were given the options of either leaving Spain or converting to Christianity. Jewish children over 6 years of age were taken from their parents and given a Christian education
* 692: Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council stated: “Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off.” [5]
* 694: The 17th Church Council of Toledo, Spain defined Jews as the serfs of the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome, and other Church Fathers that God punished the Jews with perpetual slavery because of their alleged responsibility for the execution of Jesus. [5]
* 722: Leo III outlawed Judaism. Jews were baptized against their will.
* 855: Jews were exiled from Italy.
* 1050: The Synod of Narbonne prohibited Christians from living in the homes of Jews.
* 1078: “Pope Gregory VII decreed that Jews could not hold office or be superiors to Christians.” [6]
* 1078: The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes.
* 1096: The First Crusade was launched in this year. Although the prime goal of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, Jews were a second target. As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large numbers of Jews were challenged: “Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!” 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade. This behavior continued for 8 additional crusades until the 9th in 1272.
* 1099: The Crusaders forced all of the Jews of Jerusalem into a central synagogue and set it on fire. Those who tried to escape were forced back into the burning building.
* 1121: Jews were exiled from Flanders (now part of present-day Belgium)
* 1130: Some Jews in London allegedly killed a sick man. The Jewish people in the city were required to pay 1 million marks as compensation.
* 1146: The Second Crusade began. A French Monk, Rudolf, called for the destruction of the Jews.
* 1179: Canon 24 of the Third Lateran Council stated: “Jews should be slaves to Christians and at the same time treated kindly due of humanitarian considerations.” Canon 26 stated that “the testimony of Christians against Jews is to be preferred in all causes where they use their own witnesses against Christians.” [7]
* 1180: The French King of France, Philip Augustus, arbitrarily seized all Jewish property and expelled the Jews from the country. There was no legal justification for this action. They were allowed to sell all movable possessions, but their land and houses were stolen by the king.
* 1189: Jews were persecuted in England. The Crown claimed all Jewish possessions. Most of their houses were burned.

References:
For References 1 – 7 see link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm

Anti-Judaism: 1201 to 1800 CE

* 1205: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that “the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord…As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ’s death set free…
* 1215: The Fourth Lateran Council approved canon laws requiring that “Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress.” They also had to wear a badge in the form of a ring. This was to enable them to be easily distinguished from Christians. This practice later spread to other countries.
* 1227: The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge. This requirement was reinstalled during the 1930’s by Hitler, who changed the oval badge to a Star of David.
* 1229: The Spanish inquisition starts. Later, in 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorizes the use of torture by the Inquisitors.
* 1236: Pope Gregory ordered that church leaders in England, France, Portugal and Spain confiscate Jewish books on the first Saturday of Lent. [1]
* 1259: A “synod of the archdiocese in Mainz ordered Jews to wear yellow badges.” [1]
* 1261: Duke Henry III of Brabant, Belgium, stated in his will that “Jews…must be expelled from Brabant and totally annihilated so that not a single one remains, except those who are willing to trade, like all other tradesmen, without money-lending and usury.” [2]
* 1267: The Synod of Vienna ordered Jews to wear horned hats. Thomas Aquinas said that Jews should live in perpetual servitude.
* 1290: Jews are exiled from England. About 16,000 left the country.
* 1298: Jews were persecuted in Austria, Bavaria and Franconia. 140 Jewish communities were destroyed; more than 100,000 Jews were killed over a 6 month period.
* 1306: 100,000 Jews are exiled from France. They left with only the clothes on their backs, and food for only one day.
* 1320: 40,000 French shepherds went to Palestine on the Shepherd Crusade. On the way, 140 Jewish communities were destroyed.
* 1321: In Guienne, France, Jews were accused of having incited criminals to poison wells. 5,000 Jews were burned alive, at the stake.
* 1338: The councilors of Freiburg banned the performance of anti-Jewish scenes from the town’s passion play because of the lethal bloody reactions against Jews which followed the performances.[9]
* 1347 +: The Black Death originated in the Far East. China, Mongolia, India, central Asia, and southern Russia have all been suggested as the source. [10] Mongol invaders brought it to Caffa in the Crimea (modern-day Fedodosiya). Defenders from the city later spread the disease throughout many Mediterranean ports. [11] Rats initially carried the Black Death; their fleas spread the disease from the rats to humans. As the plague worsened, the germs spread from human to human. In five years, the death toll had reached 25 million. In England, two centuries passed before its population levels recovered from the plague. People searched for someone to blame. They noted that a smaller percentage of Jews than Christians caught the disease. This was undoubtedly due to the Jewish sanitary and dietary laws, which had been preserved from Old Testament times. Rumors circulated that Satan was protecting the Jews and that they were paying back the Devil by poisoning wells used by Christians. The solution was to torture, murder and burn the Jews. “In Bavaria…12,000 Jews…perished; in the small town of Erfurt…3,000; Rue Brul�e…2,000 Jews; near Tours, an immense trench was dug, filled with blazing wood and in a single day 160 Jews were burned.” [5] In Strausberg 2,000 Jews were burned. In Maintz 6,000 were killed…; in Worms 400…” [3]
* 1354: 12,000 Jews were executed in Toledo.
* 1374: An epidemic of possession broke out in the lower Rhine region of what is now Germany. People were seen “dancing, jumping and [engaging in] wild raving.” This was triggered by enthusiastic revels on St. John’s Day – an Christianized version of an ancient Pagan seasonal day of celebration which was still observed by the populace. The epidemic spread throughout the Rhine and in much of the Netherlands and Germany. Crowds of 500 or more dancers would be overcome together. Exorcisms were tried, but failed. Pilgrimages to the shrine of St. Vitus were tried, but this only seemed to exacerbate the problem. Finally, the rumor spread that God was angry because Christians had been excessively tolerant towards the Jews. God had cursed Europe as He did Saul when he showed mercy towards God’s enemies in the Old Testament. Jews “were plundered, tortured and murdered by tens of thousands.” The epidemic finally burned itself out two centuries later, in the late 16th century. [4]
* 1391 : Jewish persecutions begin in Seville and in 70 other Jewish communities throughout Spain.
* 1394 : Jews were exiled, for the second time, from France.
* 1431 +: The Council of Baselforbade Jews to go to universities, prohibited them from acting as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians, and required that they attend church sermons.” [5]
* 1434: “Jewish men in Augsburg had to sew yellow buttons to their clothes. Across Europe, Jews were forced to wear a long undergarment, an overcoat with a yellow patch, bells and tall pointed yellow hats with a large button on them.” [1]
* 1453 : The Franciscan monk, Capistrano, persuaded the King of Poland to terminate all Jewish civil rights.
* 1478: Spanish Jews had been heavily persecuted from the 14th century. Many had converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was set up by the Church in order to detect insincere conversions. Laws were passed that prohibited the descendants of Jews or Muslims from attending university, joining religious orders, holding public office, or entering any of a long list of professions.
* 1492 : Jews were given the choice of being baptized as Christians or be banished from Spain. 300,000 left Spain penniless. Many migrated to Turkey, where they found tolerance among the Muslims. Others converted to Christianity but often continued to practice Judaism in secret.
* 1497: Jews were banished from Portugal. 20 thousand left the country rather than be baptized as Christians.
* 1516: The Governor of the Republic of Venice decided that Jews would be permitted to live only in one area of the city. It was located in the South Girolamo parish and was called the “Ghetto Novo.” This was the first ghetto in Europe. Hitler made use of the concept in the 1930’s.
* 1523: Martin Luther distributed his essay “That Jesus Was Born a Jew. ” He hoped that large numbers of Jews would convert to Christianity. They didn’t, and he began to write and preach hatred against them. Luther has been condemned in recent years for being extremely antisemitic. The charge has some merit; however he was probably typical of most Christians during his era.
* 1539: A passion play was forbidden in Rome because it prompted violent attacks against the city’s Jewish residents. [9]
* 1540: Jews were exiled from Naples.
* 1543: In his 20’s, Martin Luther, had expected Jews to convert to Christianity in large numbers. Distressed by their reluctance, he developed a hatred for Jews, as expressed in his letters to Rev. Spalatin in 1514, when he was 31 years of age. He wrote:

“I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted….For they are thus given over by the wrath of God to reprobation, that they may become incorrigible, as Ecclesiastes says, for everyone who is incorrigible is rendered worse rather than better by correction.” [6]

In 1543, he wrote “On the Jews and their lies, On Shem Hamphoras” :

“…eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!…What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?

* First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire,…
* Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed… They ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like Gypsies.
* Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught.
* Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more…
* Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews…
* Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and valuables of silver and gold ought to be taken from them and put aside for safe keeping…
* Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses as in enjoined upon Adam’s children…

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden – the Jews.” [7]

* 1550: Jews were exiled from Genoa and Venice.
* 1555-JUL-12: A Roman Catholic Papal bull, “Cum nimis absurdum,” required Jews to wear badges, and live in ghettos. They were not allowed to own property outside the ghetto. Living conditions were dreadful: over 3,000 people were forced to live in about 8 acres of land. Women had to wear a yellow veil or scarf; men had to wear a piece of yellow cloth on their hat. [8]
* 1582: Jews were expelled from Holland.
* 1648-9: Chmielnicki Bogdan led an uprising against Polish rule in the Ukraine. The secondary goal of Bogdan and his followers was to exterminate all Jews in the country. The massacre began with the slaughter of about 6,000 Jews in Nemirov. Other major mass murders occurred in Tulchin, Polonnoye, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, etc. Jewish records estimate that a total of 100,000 Jews were murdered and 300 communities destroyed.

Persecution of Jewish Physicians by the Church:

Medicine in Europe during the Middle Ages found itself restricted by the Christian Church. The church taught that it was irreligious to seek a natural cure from a physician when one could obtain supernatural help from a priest. Some church leaders criticized medical schools because they taught that diseases and disorders came from natural means and not from the evil efforts of Satan.

With medicine in such ill repute among Christians, much of the leadership by the 10th century was provided by Jews and Muslim scholars. Jews were largely responsible for founding the medical Schools at Salerno and Montpellier in the 10th century.

Pope Eugene IV, Nicholas V and Calixtus III forbade Christians from using the services of a Jewish physician. The Trullanean Council in the 8th century; B�ziers Council & Alby Council in the 13th century; Avignon council & Salamanca Council in the 14th century, the Synod of Bamberg in the 15th century; the Council of Avignon in the 16th century, etc. also ordered Christians to not seek healing from Jewish physicians and surgeons. This continued even into the 17th century when the city of Hall in W�rtemberg (in what is now Germany) granted some privileges to a Jewish physician “on account of his admirable experience and skill.” The clergy of Hall complained that “it were better to die with Christ than to be cured by a Jew doctor aided by the devil.”

References:
For References 1 – 11 see link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm

Anti-Semitism: Racially-based persecution of Jews: 1800 to 1946

The conversion from religiously-based to racially-based persecution:

Prior to 1800 CE: Persecution was directed at followers of Judaism because of their religious beliefs; it has been referred to as anti-Judaism. CE, Jews could escape oppression by converting to Christianity, and being baptized. The Christian church taught in past centuries that all Jews (past, present and future) were responsible for Jesus’ death. The Church also believed that some Jews must be allowed to live, because the biblical book of Revelation indicated that they had a role to play in the “end times.” They concluded that it was acceptable to make Jews’ lives quite miserable.

Since about 1800: “…Nationalism became a dominant value in the Western and Arab worlds…antisemitism increasingly focused on the Jews’ peoplehood and nationhood.” [15] Persecution became a form of racism, and has generally been called “anti-Semitism” — a word “created by an antisemite, Wilhelm Marr [in 1879]. Marr’s intention was to replace the German word Judenhass (Jew-hatred) with a term that would make Jew-haters sound less vulgar and even somewhat scientific.” [15] The word, (variously spelled antisemite, anti-Semite and anti-semite). It is not a particularly good choice, because the root word “Semitic” refers to a group of languages, not to a single language or to a race, people or nation. However, it is in near-universal usage.

Antisemitism: Persecution of Jews along racial lines:

Subsequent attacks against Jews tended to be racially motivated. They were perpetrated primarily by the state. The Jewish people were viewed as a separate people or race.
* 1806: A French Jesuit Priest, Abbe Barruel, had written a treatise blaming the Masonic Order for the French Revolution. He later issued a letter alleging that Jews, not the Masons were the guilty party. This triggered a belief in an international Jewish conspiracy in Germany, Poland and some other European countries later in the 19th century.
* 1819: During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, many European Jews lobbied their governments for emancipation. They sought citizenship as well as the same rights and treatment as were enjoyed by non-Jews. This appears to have provoked sporadic anti-semites to engage in anti-Jewish violence. The rioters cried “Hep! Hep!.” The origin(s) of this cry are not clear. Jews and their property were attacked first in Wuerzburg, Germany during 1819-AUG. The rioting spread across Germany and eventually reached as far as Denmark and Poland. [17]
* 1840: A rumor spread in Syria that some Jews were responsible for the ritual killing of a Roman Catholic monk and his servant. As a result of horrendous treatment, some local Jews confessed to a crime that they did not commit. This “Damascus Affair” spurred early Zionist writers like Hess to promote the Zionist cause. [17]
* 1846 – 1878: Pope Pius IX restored all of the previous restrictions against the Jews within the Vatican state. All Jews under Papal control were confined to Rome’s ghetto – the last one in Europe until the Nazi era restored the church’s practice. On 2000-SEP-3, Pope John Paul II beatified Pius IX; this is the last step before sainthood. He explained: “Beatifying a son of the church does not celebrate particular historic choices that he has made, but rather points him out for imitation and for veneration for his virtue.
* 1858: Edgardo Mortara was kidnapped, at the age of six, from his Jewish family by Roman Catholic officials after they found out that a maid had secretly baptized him. He was not returned to his family but was raised a Catholic. He eventually became a priest.
* 1873: The term “antisemitism” is first used in a pamphlet by Wilhelm Marr called “Jewry’s Victory over Teutonism.
* 1881: Alexander II of Russia was assassinated by radicals. The Jews were blamed. About 200 individual pogroms against the Jews followed. (“Pogrom” is a Russian word meaning “devastation” or “riot.” In Russia, a pogrom was typically a mob riot against Jewish individuals, shops, homes or businesses. They were often supported and even organized by the government.) Thousands of Jews became homeless and impoverished. The few who were charged with offenses generally received very light sentences. [1]
* 1893: “…anti-Semitic parties won sixteen seats in the German Reichstag.” [2]
* 1894: Captain Alfred Dreyfus, an officer on the French general staff, was convicted of treason. The evidence against him consisted of a piece of paper from his wastebasket with another person’s handwriting, and papers forged by antisemitic officers. He received a life sentence on Devil’s Island, off the coast of South America. The French government was aware that a Major Esterhazy was actually guilty. [3] The church, government and army united to suppress the truth. Writer Emile Zola and politician Jean Jaur, fought for justice and human rights. After 10 years, the French government fell and Drefus was declared totally innocent. The Dreyfus Affair was world-wide news for years. It motivated Journalist Theodor Herzl to write a book in 1896: “The Jewish State: A Modern Solution to the Jewish Question.” The book led to the founding of the Zionist movement which fought for a Jewish Homeland. A half century later, the state of Israel was born.
* 1903: At Easter, government agents organized an anti-Jewish pogrom in Kishinev, Moldova, Russia. The local newspaper published a series of inflammatory articles. A Christian child was discovered murdered and a young Christian woman at the Jewish Hospital committed suicide. Jews were blamed for the deaths. Violence ensured. The 5,000 soldiers in the town did nothing. When the smoke cleared, 49 Jews had been killed, 500 were injured; 700 homes looted and destroyed, 600 businesses and shops looted, 2,000 families left homeless. Later, it was discovered that the child had been murdered by its relatives and the suicide was unrelated to the Jews. [4]
* 1905: The Okhrana, the Russian secret police in the reign of Czar Nicholas II, converted an earlier antisemitic novel into a document called the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” [16] It was published privately in 1897. A Russian Orthodox priest, Sergius Nilus, published them publicly in 1905. It was promoted as the record of “secret rabbinical conferences whose aim was to subjugate and exterminate the Christians.” [5] The Protocols were used by the Okhrana in a propaganda campaign that was associated with massacres of the Jews. These were the Czarist Pogroms of 1905.
* 1915: 600,000 Jews were forcibly moved from the western borders of Russia towards the interior. About 100,000 died of exposure or starvation.
* 1917: “In the civil war following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the reactionary White Armies made extensive use of the Protocols to incite widespread slaughters of Jews.” [5] Two hundred thousand Jews were murdered in the Ukraine alone.
* 1920: The Protocols reach England and the United States. They are exposed as a forgery, but are widely circulated. Henry Ford sponsored a study of international activities of Jews. This led to a series of antisemitic articles in the Dearborn Independent, which were published in a book, “The International Jew.” The Protocols were sold on Wal-Mart’s online bookstore until they were removed on 2004-SEP-21.
* 1920: The defeat of Germany in World War I and the continuing economic difficulties were blamed in that country on the “Jewish influence.” One antisemitic poster has been preserved from that era. [6] It shows a German, presumably Christian woman, a male Jew with distorted facial features, a coffin and the word “Deutschland” (Germany).

* 1920’s, 1930’s: Hitler had published in Mein Kampf in 1925, writing: “Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. The Protocols are used by the Nazis to whip up public hatred of the Jews in the 1930’s. Widespread pogroms occur in Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, Rumania, and the USSR. Radio programs by many conservative American clergy, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, frequently attacked Jews. Reverend Fr. Charles E Coughlin was one of the best known. “In the 1930’s, radio audiences heard him rail against the threat of Jews to America’s economy and defend Hitler’s treatment of Jews as justified in the fight against communism.” (12) Other conservative Christian leaders, such as Frank Norris and John Straton supported the Jews. [7]

Discrimination against Jews in North America is widespread. Many universities set limits on the maximum number of Jewish students that they would accept. Harvard accepted all students on the basis of merit until after World War I when the percentage of Jewish students approached 15%. At that time they installed an informal quota system. In 1941, Princeton had fewer than 2% Jews in their student body. Jews were routinely barred from country clubs, prestigious neighborhoods, etc. [8]
* 1933: Hitler took power in Germany. On APR-1, Julius Streicher organized a one-day boycott of all Jewish owned businesses in the country. This was the start of continuous oppression by the Nazis culminating in the Holocaust (a.k.a. Shoah). Jews “were barred from civil service, legal professions and universities, were not allowed to teach in schools and could not be editors of newspapers.” [2] Two years later, Jews were no longer considered citizens.
* 1934: Various laws were enacted in Germany to force Jews out of schools and professions.
* 1935: The Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws restricting citizenship to those of “German or related blood.” Jews became stateless.
* 1936: Cardinal Hloud of Poland urged Catholics to boycott Jewish businesses.
* 1938: On NOV-9, the Nazi government in Germany sent storm troopers, the SS and the Hitler Youth on a pogrom that killed 91 Jews, injured hundreds, burned 177 synagogues and looted 7,500 Jewish stores. Broken glass could be seen everywhere; the glass gave this event its name of Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass. [9]
* 1938: Hitler brought back century-old church law, ordering all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David as identification. A few hundred thousand Jews are allowed to leave Germany after they give all of their assets to the government.
* 1939: The Holocaust, the Shoah — the systematic extermination of Jews in Germany — began. The process only ended in 1945 with the conclusion of World War II and the liberation of the death camps. Approximately 6 million Jews (1.5 million of them children), 400 thousand Roma (Gypsies) and others were slaughtered. Some were killed by death squads; others were slowly killed in trucks with carbon monoxide; others were gassed in large groups in Auschwitz, Dacau, Sobibor, Treblinka and other extermination camps. Officially, the holocaust was described by the Nazis as subjecting Jews “to special treatment” or as a “solution of the Jewish question.” Gold taken from the teeth of the victims was recycled; hair was used in the manufacture of mattresses. In the Buchenwald extermination camp, lampshades were made out of human skin; however, this appears to be an isolated incident. A rumor spread that Jewish corpses were routinely converted into soap. However, the story appears to be false. [10]
* 1940: The Vichy government of France collaborated with Nazi Germany by freezing about 80,000 Jewish bank accounts. During the next four years, they deported about 76,000 Jews to Nazi death camps; only about 2,500 survived. It was only in 1995 that a French president, Jacques Chirac, “was able to admit that the state bore a heavy share of responsibility in the mass round-ups and deportations of Jews, as well as in the property and asset seizures that were carried out with the active help of the Vichy regime.” [11]
* 1941: The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC estimates that 13,000 Jews died on 1941-JUN-19 during a pogrom in Bucharest, Romania. It was ordered by the pro-Nazi Romanian regime of Marshal Ion Antonescu. The current government has admitted that this atrocity happened, but most Romanians continue to deny that the Jews were killed on orders from their own government. [12]
* 1941: Polish citizens in Jedwabne in northeastern Poland killed hundreds of Jews, by either beating them to death or burning them alive in a barn. According to the Associated Press: “The role played by Polish citizens was suppressed for nearly six decades until publication of a book by a Polish emigre historian, Jan Tomasz Gross. After release of the book in 2000, the Polish government launched an investigation. ‘The role of the Poles was decisive in conducting the criminal act,’ [prosecutor Radoslaw] Ignatiew, said. The book, ‘Neighbours,’ sparked national soul-searching among Poles, many of whom could not believe that anybody but the Nazis would have committed the atrocity.” [13]
* 1942: The Nazi leaders of Germany, at the Wannsee conference, decided on”the final solution of the Jewish question” which was the attempt to exterminate every Jew in Europe. From JUL-28 to 31, almost 18,000 Russian inhabitants of the Minsk ghetto in what is now Belarus were exterminated. This was in addition to 5,000 to 15,000 who had been massacred in earlier pogroms in that city. This was just one of many such pogroms during World War II. [14]
* 1945: The Shoah (Holocaust) ended as the Allied Forces over-ran the Nazi death camps.
* 1946: Even though World War II ended the year before, antisemitic pogroms continued, particularly in Poland, with the deaths of many Jews.

References:
For references 1 – 17 cited above see link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers2.htm

It becomes obvious by the discussion so far that Bet Ye’or, Spencer, Trifkovic and others of the documentary in their vain search for an equivalent of perpetua servitus iudaeorum – perpetual servitude of the Jews, they found none in Quranic doctrine. Be it known to Spencers of our time that Islam will not atone and offers itself to be pinned to the cross for the sins of Christianity for their relentless persecution of not only the Jews and Muslims (in Inquisition), but of women (witch burnings), of non-Christians (Crusades), of slaves (– black skin), of subjects (– global colonies), of apartheid (on majority in South Africa and Palestine). Essentially, the West that Spencers want to redefine has mountainous piles of skeletons beyond words in its psyche and historical closet that it inflicted on everything that came its way that was non-White, non-Male, non-Christian, and lately non-Western. Such are the Lambs of the Lord! Welcome to the Kingdom! Hallelujah!

Of course, the Spencers are left with no choice but to invent ‘dhimmitude‘. Now they lick and cherish this bone in a canine greed and hope that others will too. These pseudo-intellectual inventions will never be able to see the daylight of scholarship, but such hollow bones are sufficiently juicy enough to make their own ilk drool on such delusional morsels.

5:63. Why do not the teachers of divine knowledge and those learned in the Law prohibit them from their blasphemic talk and deeds and their being too much given to eating things forbidden? Evil indeed is their machination.

5:64. And the Jews said, `Allâh’s hand is fettered (from assisting the helpless Muslims).’ Fettered are their own hands (from assisting the enemies of Islam), and they are deprived of blessings of Allâh for what they said. Nay, (the truth of the matter is that) both His hands are wide open (and free). He spends as He pleases. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will most surely increase many of them in inordinate rebellion and in disbelief. And We have kindled enmity and hatred among them [– the Jews and Christians] till the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindle a fire for war, Allâh puts it out, but they strive to create disorder in the land, whereas Allâh does not like the creators of disorder.

References:

Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources]

American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 21 #3 (Summer), p. 149 by Imad A. Ahmad, Ph.D [pdf] – Book Review
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations Organization
Hatt-i Sharif of 1839 – Wikipedia
Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856 – Wikipedia
Dhimmitude” and the Muslim Exemption – FactCheck.org
Decretals – Wikipedia
Pope Greogory IX – Wikipedia
Canonical Law – Wikipedia
1234 Decretals – Pope Gregory IX and Judaism – Wikipedia
Thomas Aquinas – Wikipedia
Jew’s Hat – Wikipedia
German-Jewish History in Modern Times (Vol. 1)– Edited by Michael A. Meyers, Google Books
The Church’s Doctrine of ‘Perpetual Servitude’ was Worse than “Dhimmitude” – LoonWatch.com
An overview of the persecution of Jews for the past 2,000 years – ReligiousTolerance.com
A Short Review of Troubled History – Fritz Voll
The Holy Quran – Noourddin

Issue 73

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

Issue 73 [@1:16:21]: Slide projected with a voice – The Noble Quran, 5:51 – O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya, then surely he is one of them.”

Rebuttal 73: The above slide is a case in point of what is “Fallacy of quoting out of context” as is obvious throughout the documentary. Such “out-of-context” is similarly used by creationists against evolutionists by putting forth half-quotes of Darwin’s own writings to trumpet to the world that Darwin himself believed in creationism. Following is direct excerpt from Wikipedia about the quote-mining:

Absurd in the highest degree

Since the mid-1990s, scientists and their supporters have used the term quote mining to describe versions of this practice as used by certain creationists in the creation-evolution controversy. An example found in debates over evolution is an out-of-context quotation of Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase “absurd in the highest degree”, is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself believed that natural selection could not fully account for the complexity of life. However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.

The quote in context is:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. — Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

The makers of documentary are using the above verse in a similar out-of-context manner to seed doubts in the audience about “obsequious” Muslims. This is absolutely shameful and deceitful by this documentary, yet they attribute taqiyya to Islam (see Issue 53 through 63). Following is a direct re-quote from “Consumer Guide to God – A Muslim Perspective – In Light of Quran” p. 240-242, which brings out the full context of the said verse:

Some deliberate, some non-contextual Quotes by some

Issue 1: Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as friends – for which verse 5:51 is quoted.

5:51. O you who believe! do not take these Jews and the Christians for allies. They are allies of one to another (when against you), and whoso from amongst you takes them for allies, is indeed one of them. Verily, Allâh does not guide the unjust people to attain their goal.

The emphasis is on “those” opposing communities including Jews and Christians of Medina and its vicinity at the time when Muslims of Makkah had migrated to Medina to escape thirteen years of relentless persecution. “these” initially signed alliance treaties but were factually united against the city government of Muslims that was established in Medina. “These” are on record for aiding and abetting attacks on Medina by Makkans. Qur’ân contextualizes “these” in the verses adjoining the above verse:

5:50. Do they seek to enforce the law of (the days of) ignorance? [i.e., when might was right, there were no human rights, women were mere property, slavery was rampant before Islam]

5:52. Now you shall see those [weak at heart Muslims] in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) vying one with another towards them (– the Jews and Christians [who were powerful and influential in Medina] to take them for allies). They [i.e. early Muslims of Medina] say, `We are afraid lest a misfortune should befall us [because of not siding with the powerful].

5:58. And when you call (the people) to Prayer, they [Jew and Christian communities of Medina] take it lightly [i.e., make mockery] and consider it [Islam] worthless [like a sport, i.e.. not to be taken seriously and a religion not worth adopting]. They do so because they are a people who do not understand.

5:59. Say, `O People of the Scripture! do you find fault with us [Muslims] only because we believe in Allâh and in that which has been revealed to us, and in that which was revealed before (us [on you, i.e., Torah, Bible, etc.])? Whereas most of you are disobedient (to God)’. [and flaunt His standards of fairness even in their own religions]

5:60. Say, `Shall I inform you of those who shall receive from Allâh a recompense worse than that of those (who try to find fault with Us)? They are those whom Allâh has deprived of His blessings and upon whom He brought His displeasure and indignation and of whom He has made (as) apes and swine [in their behavior who copy and imitate each other without thinking and have no moral boundaries] and who serve the transgressor (– the devil) . It is these who are indeed worse-placed and farther astray from the right path.’

5:61. And when they [Jews and Christians of Medina] come to you they say, `We believe,’ while, in fact, they enter without faith and go out without it. And Allâh knows best all they conceal [i.e., they would strategically convert and revert in the then time of state of war with Makkans and were a source of dissent and treason]

Qur’ân further analyzes such behavior of the people of the Book toward Muslims:

5:66. If they had only observed the Torah and the Evangel and that which has been revealed to them (now) from their Lord, [because no Divine Book will endorse such behaviors as above] they would surely have eaten (of good things) from above them [i.e., spiritual gains] and from under their feet [i.e., material gains], (thus would have enjoyed the boons of the heaven and the earth). [Qur’ân does not measure all members of the opposing tribes with the same yardstick and acknowledges that] Though there is amongst them a community who is moderate (and of balanced mind), yet a large number of them are such that evil are their deeds [which are on record in the secular neo-Islamic history].

Qur’ân further encourages the people of the Book to follow their own Scriptures for a virtuous behavior and its outcome:

5:68. Say, `O People of the Scripture! you stand nowhere unless you observe the Torah and the Evangel and that (– Qur’ân) which has (now) been revealed to you from your Lord’. And certainly that which has been revealed [i.e., Qur’ân] to you [all] from your Lord will increase many of them in ordinate rebellion and disbelief; so do not grieve for the disbelieving people.

5:69. Verily, those who have believed and those who judaised and the Sabians and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allâh and the Last Day and does righteous deeds, they shall have no cause of fear nor shall they ever grieve.

Qur’ân then gives historical references to the above mentioned behaviors which are replete in history by the same people:

5:70. Surely, We took a covenant from the Children of Israel and We sent Messengers to them. Every time there came to them a Messenger with that (Message) which did not suit their fanciful desires, (they defied him so that) some they treated as liars and others they sought to kill.

5:71. And they thought there would be no punishment (for them) so they willfully became blind and deaf; (then they sought Allâh’s pardon) then Allâh turned to them (with mercy with the advent of Jesus), yet again many of them became blind and deaf. And Allâh is Watchful of what they do.

Qur’ân is quite clear about friends and foe of Muslims:

60:8. Allâh does not forbid you to be kind and good and to deal justly with those who have not fought you because of your faith and have not turned you out of your homes. In fact Allâh loves those who are equitable.

60:9. Allâh only forbids you to make friends with those who have fought you because of your faith and who have turned you out of your homes, and have abetted your expulsion. Indeed, those who make friends with them are really the unjust.

Despite such treacherous behaviors by opponents, Qur’ân does not claim righteousness for Muslims alone:

3:113. They (– the people of the Scripture) are not all alike. Among these people of the Scripture there are some upright people. They rehearse the Message of Allâh in the hours of the night and they prostrate themselves (in His worship).

3:114. They believe in Allâh and the Last Day and enjoin good and forbid evil, and they vie one with another in (doing) good deeds. And it is these who are of the truly righteous.

Psychology of out-of-context use of Scriptures

In the documentary one wonders as to what makes the likes of Spencer to come up with such blatant out-of-context usage of Quranic verses, only to mislead and create hate. It is a natural question as to what the origins of such a rancorous psychology are and how it evolved. What precedence are the documentary makers following for such a bigoted ideology of theirs? The answer is in the New Testament and Christian history:

Matthew 27:24-25 (NIV): When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

Essentially, Jews lacking the authority to kill Jesus for blasphemy took him to the Pontius Pilatus, the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea (from AD 26–36). Instead, they accused him of sedition against Rome by opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar and calling himself a king. Fomenting tax resistance was a capital offense. There are various accounts of events thereafter, but finally Pilate agrees to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, after the Jewish leaders explained to him that Jesus presented a threat to Roman occupation through his claim to the throne of King David as King of Israel in the royal line of David. The crowd in Pilate’s courtyard, according to the Synoptics, had been coached by the Pharisees and Sadducees to shout against Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew adds that before condemning Jesus to death, Pilate washes his hands with water in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; you will see.” [see the extended narrative from bible Matthew 27: 1-65]

Matthew 27:24-25 then became a touching stone for Christians to persecute Jews ever since as “God Killers” (Jewish Deicide) by using the self-curse of the Jewish crowd – “His blood is on us and on our children!” Killeth they indeed, the “children” i.e. coming generations of the Jews and history is replete of Christians holding the Jews to their words. In doing so, they were not too far from their Scriptures. Interestingly, the God in Bible allows killing of children for sins of their parents, but only for a few generations:

Exodus 34:5-7 (NIV): Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

However, the likes of Spencer kept persecuting Jews for thousands of years on a purely out-of-context usage of their own Scripture, only to satisfy their hate. A hate that outwardly ended with Holocaust, though anti-Semitism still simmers under the surface in the Christian minds. They are blinded by their rancor and will keep doing so despite their Lord’s appeal:

Luke 23:34 (NIV): Jesus said, “Father, forgive them [-the soldiers], for they do not know what they are doing.” And they [-the Roman soldiers] divided up his clothes [-as booty] by casting lots.

The foundation stone of this hate was first noted by Origen Adamantius (circa 185-254 CE) when he wrote Commentary on Matthew for Matt. 27:25, “Therefore the blood of Jesus came not only upon those who lived formerly but also upon all subsequent generations of Jews to the consummation,” and then observes, “These words contain the average Christian views on the Jews.” [footnote “Anti-Judaism and the Gospels,” p. 33 as attributed to Ludemann (The Unholy, 98-99)]

Not for a moment in thousands of years the Church ever realized that it was the Roman prefect who gave the judgment, the Roman officers who carried out the orders to put Jesus on the cross, the Roman soldiers who stole clothes of Jesus and not the Jewish rent-a-crowd who cheered and jeered for a crowd pleasing show of “free speech.” How could Church blame the Romans, because when the time came it was in Rome that the Church found its new Holy abode. The home that belonged to none but Roman Emperor Constantine, who in the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) wrote Christianity in image of his pagan ancestry, substituted Sunday (of his Sun God) for worship instead of Sabbath (Saturday), and passed the famous decree blaming the Jews for ever to be labeled as “God Killers.” It is a separate discussion as to whether a God can be killed and that too by mortals:

“…we have nothing in common with that nation of father-killers who slew their Lord…” [Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter]

Now, following in their ancestral footsteps and traditions of their Church, Spencers of the documentary want to insinuate the West against Quran and by proxy the Muslims, in the same manner as they did quite successfully and forcefully for the Jews without any fear of accountability. For that they have quoted various verses of the Quran totally out-of-context throughout the documentary. Shame be on such “Jew killers.” Spencers of the documentary have made their first kill, the inspiration behind Norwegian slaughter in footsteps of Crusaders who killed their own more than the others because venom does not discriminate. They just cannot help to recognize and overcome the evils of hate, ignorance and arrogance that is now interwoven into their religious and spiritual tradition for two thousand years and is indelibly stained into the fabric of their psyche. It will be asking too much of these bigots to do otherwise.

In spite of the above unsalvageable state of mind of these prophets of doom identified for their inspiration in Breivik’s manifesto – Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Serge Trifkovic, Geert Wilders, Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller etc., at least there is hope and solution for their parish. That elixir of hate prevention we find in Quran:

49:6. O you who believe [i.e. a citizen or the government, prosecutor or the judge], if an unrighteous person brings you news, look carefully into it, in case you harm a people in ignorance [by your decisions and actions], then be sorry for what you did.

5:2: …And do not let hatred of a people — because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque [i.e. any place of worship] — incite you to transgress [and become a source of hate]. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression, and keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is Severe in retribution.

49:11-12. O you who believe, do not let a people laugh at (another) people [i.e. mock, ridicule or DISCRIMINATE on basis of RACE, COLOUR, SEX, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION, NATIONAL OR SOCIAL ORIGIN, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR OTHER STATUS], perhaps they may be better than they; nor let women (laugh) at women, perhaps they may be better than they. Neither find fault with one another, nor call one another by (offensive) nick-names. Evil is a bad name after faith; and whoever does not repent, these it is that are the wrongdoers. O you who believe, avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is sin; and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You abhor it! And keep your duty to Allah, surely Allah is returning (to mercy) again and again, Merciful.

References:

Note: [text enclosed in square brackets above is not part of the original quoted sources. Some of the comments are excerpted quotes from the footnotes of “English Translation of the Holy Quran with Explanatory Notes” – Muhammad Ali, ed. Zahid Aziz]

Fallacy of quoting out of context – Wikipedia
New International Version – Bible Gateway
Pontius Pilatus–Wikipedia
Jewish Deicide – Wikipedia
Origen Adamantius– Wikipedia
Anti-Judaism and the Gospels– edited by William R. Farmer (Google Books)
First Council of Nicaea– Wikipedia
Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter– Fourth Century Christianity
2011 Norway attacks – Wikipedia
Consumer Guide to God – M. Ikram Jahangiri [Note: all verses quoted in the article are from Holy Quran – Nooruddin]
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

The amazingly clever honey bee

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

The subject of the amazing capabilities of the honey bee has been discussed by Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi in his writings and speeches while explaining verses 16:68-69 of the Holy Quran:

“And your Lord revealed to the bee: Make hives in the mountains and in the trees and in what they build, then eat of all the fruits and walk in the ways of your Lord submissively. From their bellies comes forth a beverage of many colours, in which there is healing for man. Surely in this there is a sign for a people who reflect.”

From time to time, news appears from the world of science and technology about these remarkable abilities. There is one such recent news item: “Bee brains help to make robots smarter”. Please see this link.