The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Project Rebuttal – Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Issue 12 [@13:05] Robert Spencer: “Now the Hadiths are absolutely necessary to make any sense of the Quran because Allah addresses Muhammad in the Quran and they talk of incidence in Muhammad’s life but they don’t fill in the narrative details. So you have to go to the Hadith, the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad in order to understand what is being said in the Quran and why. The Hadith are many many volumes of the traditions of the the Prophet. Various Muslim scholars beginning in the 8th century which is SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME AFTER THE LIFE OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD WHO DIED IN 632 [A.D.], they started to collect these traditions and to try through various means to winnow out authentic ones from the inauthentic. From an Islamic stand point if something that Muhammad said or did is recorded in one of those books, then it has AUTHORITY SECOND ONLY TO THE QURAN. And in those books there is a great deal that illuminates what the Quran says and how it is applicable to Muslims in the present.” [emphasis added]
 
Rebuttal 12: This rebuttal also includes part of Issue 11. Robert Spencer touches upon various aspects of Hadith principles that needs a breakdown.
——————————
Issue 12a: According to Robert Spencer – “Now the Hadith are absolutely necessary to make any sense of the Quran…”
 
Rebuttal 12a: This is where the opponents of Islam get it totally wrong. HADITH ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO MAKE ANY SENSE OF THE QURAN. Factually, explanations from Hadith cover only part of the Quran. Quran stands on its own and does not need any human crutches of any sort to make its message clear. This is based upon some of the features of Quran:
 
1. Quran is not in an archaic or fossilized language. It was revealed and written in a language and dialect that is as current now as then at the time of its revelation:

12:2. Surely We have revealed it — an Arabic Quran — that you may understand.

2. Unlike Bible, Quran is not obscure in any of its issues (including but not limited to life after death):

10:37. And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of what is before it and a clear explanation of the Book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.

17:89. And certainly We have made clear for people in this Quran every kind of description…

18:54. And certainly We have made distinct in this Quran for mankind every kind of description…

3. Unlike previous Scriptures whose arrangement and explanations are human efforts, Quran’s arrangement and self-explanations are Divine:

75:17. Surely on Us rests the collecting of it and the reciting of it.
75:18. So when We recite it, follow its recitation.
75:19. Again on Us rests the explaining of it.

4. The Message in Quran is based upon inter-linked facts, arguments, laws and morals that expound themselves:

41:3. (It is) a Book, the verses of which are detailed and clear in exposition. It is beautifully inter linked, (and it is in a language that) makes the meanings eloquently clear. It is very useful for a people who have knowledge.[Nooruddin]

5. The Message is free from any doubt.

2:2. This Book, in which there is no doubt…

6. Quran is free from any inconsistencies.

4:82. Will they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

Question to Robert Spencer – Can yours or any of the Scriptures other than Quran match the above attributes in their entirety?
 
Hadiths which are sayings or actions attributed to Prophet Muhammad were human efforts to preserve his life, his actions and his sayings. All for a good reason:

33:21. Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.

Muhammad Ali explains the rationale for above verse in its footnote:

This verse states that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the best exemplar and the highest model of virtue for the faithful under all circumstances. He was a general, soldier, lawmaker, judge, husband and father. He punished tyrants for wrongs they had inflicted on innocent persons, forgave his persecuting enemies after overcoming them, and overlooked the faults of his followers. Hence he was an excellent exemplar and a perfect model in all walks of life, and he not only gave practical rules of guidance, but gave by his life a practical illustration of all those rules.

Hadith do have a role to explain Quran, provided they are not in conflict with the message of Quran. In the latter case, one can make a simple argument that either it is not the saying of the Prophet Muhammad or its collection is not fully contextualized to when and why it was uttered. This general rule applies not only to Hadith, but to any commentary of Quran by anyone whether in history or even in our own times. This standard to reject a Hadith is simply based upon the guidelines of Quran, according to which the actual sayings and actions of Muhammad are in congruence with the Message of the Quran:

6:50. I do not say to you, I have with me the treasures of Allah, nor do I know the unseen, nor do I say to you that I am an angel; I follow only what is revealed to me. Say: Are the blind and the seeing alike? Do you not then reflect?
 
7:203. And when you do not bring them a sign, they say: Why do you not demand it? Say: I follow only what is revealed to me from my Lord. These are clear proofs from your Lord and a
guidance and a mercy for a people who believe.
 
46:9. Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you. I follow only what is revealed to me, and I am but a plain warner.

Therefore, any perceived actions or utterances attributed to Prophet Muhammad, if contradictory to Quran, are to be rejected as an error of a human effort to preserve them as Hadith, either by the narrator, transmitter or recorder.
 
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz [all the above quoted verses, unless indicated otherwise]
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
——————————
Issue 12b: Robert Spencer – “…because Allah addresses Muhammad in the Quran and they talk of incidence in Muhammad’s life but they don’t fill in the narrative details. So you have to go to the Hadith, the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad in order to understand what is being said in the Quran and why…”
 
Rebuttal 12b: Here, Robert Spencer is caught in tradition of his own Scriptures which might make wonderful bedtime stories and fantastic lore that induce sleep, but Quran is none of that. Its intended audience are:

13:03. Verily, in all this there are messages indeed for people who think[Muhammad Asad, emphasis added]

The narratives and historical facts in Quran are only to the extent that they deliver a moral lesson with proofs from history, science, physical phenomenon etc. and emphasize moral laws that govern all such events and their outcomes of past, present and future. Sorry, you will not find Aesop’s fables in Quran. For that you will have to go to the lores of the yore. Purpose of Quran is summarized as:

The aim of the Qur’ân is to spiritualize our souls. It makes numerous statements based on historical facts, but it is not a book of history. It draws attention to different stages of the creation of the universe (7:54; 14:33; 21:28-33; 71:15-18), origin of life from water (21:30; 24:45), and of the human being (71:14; 32:7; 39:7; 40:67), but it is not a treatise on the evolution of life. It makes several references to the laws governing the wonderful system that revives the dry earth through rain (7:57), and maintains the supply of sweet and salt water in rivers and oceans (25:54; 35:12), but it is not a manual of Meteorology, Hydraulics or Ecology. It says: ‘We create a human being from an extract of clay; then We reduce him to a drop of sperm (and place him) in a safe depository; Then We form the sperm into a clot; then We develop the clot into a lump of flesh; then We fashion bones out of this lump of flesh, then We clothe the bones with flesh, thereafter We evolve him into another being’ (23:12-14), yet it is not a work on Obstetrics. Several of its verses contain references to the achievements in material sciences, activities in the field of trade, space research and weaponries such as: He has let the two bodies of water flow freely; they will (one day) join together. (At present) a barrier stands between them. They cannot encroach one upon the other. Pearls and corals come out of both (these seas). And to Him belong the ships raised aloft in the sea like mountain peaks (55:19-24 – a hint on the construction of Suez and Panama Canals and the huge ships crossing them). It reads further: O body of JINN (- fiery natured) and (ordinary) the people! If you have the power and capacity to go beyond the confines of the heavens and the earth, then do go. But you will not be able to go unless you have the necessary and unusual power. Flames of fire, smoke and molten copper will be let loose upon you and you will not be able to defend yourselves (55:33), and yet the Qur’ân is not a book about material sciences, rockets, missiles or sputniks. It says that when Pharaoh Meneptah was drowning and as death overtook him, he was told: ‘So, on this day We will preserve you in your body (only) that you may be a sign (to learn a lesson from) for the coming generations’ (10:92). The Bible makes no mention of this, nor does any book of history, but still, the Qur’ân is not concerned with Egyptology or Archaeology. Its purpose is not to teach History, Nature, Philosophy, any other Science or Art but, as previously stated, to spiritualize our souls. It states, discusses or cites a thing only to the extent relevant to its aim and object and leaves out details as it returns to its central theme and its invitation. When the Qur’ân is studied in this light, no doubt is left that the whole Scripture is a closely reasoned argument and there is continuity of subject throughout the Book. [Introduction – The Holy Quran, Nooruddin, pg 48-a – 49-a]

References:
Holy Quran – Muhammad Asad
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
——————————
Issue 12c: Robert Spencer – “…The Hadith are many many volumes of the traditions of the the Prophet. Various Muslim scholars beginning in the 8th century which is SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME AFTER THE LIFE OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD WHO DIED IN 632 [A.D.], they started to collect these traditions and to try through various means to winnow out authentic ones from the inauthentic.”
 
Rebuttal 12c: As a rule, a person who holds double standards cannot be consistent in his arguments. For a keen observer, Robert Spencer gives himself away in above statement. He admits, though wrongly, that Hadiths were collected “SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME AFTER THE LIFE OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD WHO DIED IN 632 [A.D.],” so naturally then the Muslims had to struggle to “try through various means to winnow out authentic ones from the inauthentic.” What he is telling us is that in his opinion there is potential weakness of the Hadith collection effort, if nothing else, the time lapse of centuries. On superficiality, he has a possible argument here. Now keeping this in mind, and reflect back to Issues 1, 7 and 8 where Robert Spencer and others purely rely on accounts of Ibn-Ishaq to paint a violent and cut-throat picture of Muhammad and Islam in Islamic history. This exposes their double standard. On the one hand they criticize and ridicule the lapse of time between the Prophet’s death and the commencement of Hadith collection efforts. But on the other hand, when it suits their purpose, they rely wholly and solely on Ibn-Ishaq who belongs to the same time period. Not for a second do they pause as they promote Ibn-Ishaq as authentic while intentionally ignoring the fact that he is from the same time period that of Hadith collectors that Robert Spencer seems to ridicule. Robert Spencer completely disregards the stark contrast between the meticulous efforts of the authentic Hadith collectors and the street corner story telling fantastic tales spun by the Ibn-Ishaq mostly for paid audience. Once again for the record, Ibn-Ishaq belonged to a family of story-tellers by trade. Quran admonishes such double standards:

83:1. Woe be to those who make a default in any of their duties and give short measure.
83:2. When they receive measure from other people they receive in full (not allowing the least shortage and loss),
83:3. But when they give by measure to others or weigh to them they give them less (than what is due).
83:4. Do not such people realize that they will be raised (to life again),
83:5. To face (and hear the Judgment of) that Great Day? [Noourddin]

Even if not double standards, the only other explanation for their logical fallacy in their arguments is their intellectual incompetence, which instantly crumbles in face of a casual glance, let alone a scholarly debate.
 
Facts about Hadith collection are different from what Robert Spencer glossed over. Hadith collection started from time of Prophet Muhammad and continued through fifth century Hijrah. Meticulous standards were observed by Hadith collectors for authenticity of Hadiths, including chain of narrations. It is interesting to note the standards that were employed to reject a Hadith by these collectors:

– If it was opposed to the recognized historical facts.
– If the reporter was a Shiah and the tradition was of the nature of accusation against the Companions, or if the reporter was a Khariji and the report was of the nature of an accusation against a member of the Prophet’s family. If, however, such a report was corroborated by independent testimony, it was accepted.
– If it was of such a nature that to know it and act upon it was incumbent upon all, and it was reported by a single man.
– If the time and the circumstances of its narration contained evidence of its forgery.
– If it was against reason or against the plain teachings of Islam.
– If it mentioned of an incident which, had it happened, would have been known to and reported by large numbers, while as a matter of fact that incident was not reported by any one except the particular reporter.
– If its subject-matter or words were unsound or incorrect; for instance the words were not in accordance with Arabic idiom, or the subject-matter was unbecoming the Prophet’s dignity.
– If it contained threatening of heavy punishment for ordinary sins, or promises of mighty reward for slight good deeds.
– If it spoke of the reward of prophets and messengers to the doer of good.
– If the narrator confessed that he fabricated the report. [Religion of Islam, pg. 64-65]

Hadith collectors are on the record to not to accept a Hadith from anyone if such a person was of doubtful character – inline with injunction of Quran:

49:6. O you who believe, if an unrighteous person brings you news, look carefully into it, in case you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you did.[Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz]

The topic of Hadith is fully dealt by Muhammad Ali in his book “Religion of Islam” [pg 44-71] under following sub-headings:
– Sunnah and Hadith
– Transmission of Tradition in Prophet’s lifetime
– Writing of Tradition in Prophet’s lifetime
– Why Traditions are not general written
– Memory could be trusted for preservation of knowledge
– Collections of Traditions: First Stage
– Collections of Traditions: Second Stage
– Collections of Traditions: Third Stage
– Collections of Traditions: Fourth Stage
– Collections of Traditions: Fifth Stage
– Bukhari
– Method of counting different reports
– Reports in Biographies and Commentaries
– Story-tellers
– European criticism of Traditions
– Canons of criticism of Traditions as accepted by Muslims
– Quran as the greatest judge for judging Traditions
– How fat did the collectors apply these tests?
– Different classes of Traditions
 
References:
Religion of Islam – Muhammad Ali
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
———————–
Issue 12d: Robert Spencer continues – “…From an Islamic stand point if something that Muhammad said or did is recorded in one of those books, then it has AUTHORITY SECOND ONLY TO THE QURAN. And in those books there is a great deal that illuminates what the Quran says and how it is applicable to Muslims in the present.”
 
Issue 11: Serge Trifkovic – “…the SECOND IMPORTANT body for Islamic jurisprudence and for Islamic polity is the tradition of the Prophet, the Hadith.”
 
Rebuttal 12d: Above are implied factual statements i.e. QURAN IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE IN ISLAM FOR ITS DOCTRINE AND AUTHORITY, which need no rebuttal.
———————–

Issue 11 [@12:35] Serge Trifkovic [original name – Srđa Trifković], reappears on the video for the second time again alleging without quoting any references: “Author, Sword of the Prophet: So, the Quran is simply set of direct commandments or else narratives, descriptions, something very distorted descriptions of Judaism and Christianity. Because of the normative nature of those commandments the SECOND IMPORTANT body for Islamic jurisprudence and for Islamic polity is the tradition of the Prophet, the Hadith.”

Rebuttal 11: Even though this rebuttal is fully dealt in Issue 12 later, but briefly suffice to say that he either has not read Quran or if read, then read it with one eye closed and mind shut while trying to dig his Scriptures from it and he found what his mind was trying to read and totally ignoring what Quran stood for. His skimming the Quran instead of what is meant to be read, understood and contemplated in its study is summarized by his own statement that – “the Quran is simply set of direct commandments or else narratives, descriptions, something very distorted descriptions of Judaism and Christianity.”

Serge Trifkovic chose to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Quran actually removed the impurities of the Torah and Evangel that had seeped in over the centuries. For the cheering crowds, it also removes the dross around the previous biblical prophets of various ill founded allegations in the old Scriptures, including, but not limited to, their incestuous relationships [Wikipedia]. It was the distortions of the old Scriptures that Quran came to abrogate. Quran mentions all this without any apology:

98:1. Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture and (from among) those who associate gods with God, would not be rid of their bigotry and rejection of Faith until there should come to them the manifest proof –

98:2. A great Messenger (- Muhammad) from Allâh reciting (to them) written leaves of the Book, free from all impurities,

98:3. Consisting of eternal laws and commandments.

Deliberate moral blindness has multi-factorial roots in racism, hate, dogmas, bigotry, xenophobia etc. The natural law of cause and effect about deliberate moral blindness is addressed in Quran:

6:110. We shall confound their hearts and their eyes, since they did not believe in it (-God’s signs) in the first instance, and We shall leave them alone wandering blindly in their transgression.

36:10. And it is all the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe (for they have deliberately shut their eyes and ears to the truth).

Some background information on Mr. Serge Trifkovic, the critic of Islam. Mr. Serge Trifkovic served as a native correspondent during the 1990s Balkan war for BBC and U.S. News and World Report. He denies the July 1995 Bosnian Genocide of Srebrenica. He was an advisor to Serbian war criminals later condemned by the Hague and is a known Xenophobe.[Wikipedia]. Maybe it is the same moral law, expounded in the verses above, which makes him blind to the atrocities against Muslims under his own nose, despite having a PhD in European history and a fellowship from Stanford and representing the modern news media.

What Serge Trifkovic failed to see in Quran was summarized in Issue 9b and partially reproduced below:

Besides, validating the previous scriptures, Quran distinctly stands apart from them in declaring – God Himself the source of the Book; its God as “Lord of the Mankind” and not of a particular race, region or religion; vivifies God by bringing to light His Attributes; removed the human-ness of god and instills godliness of humans; God for the benefit of man and not the ritualistic visa versa; God as the first observer of His own laws; God of action and not of slumber; Hearing, Seeing and speaking God etc.
Quran expounds itself with proofs based upon logic, reason, history, physical phenomenon, science, sociology etc. for all its claims of monotheism, human nature, equality and fraternity of man, sinless of soul, physical and moral states of man and the universe he lives in, nature subservient to man, purpose of man, virtue and sins, paths of salvation, emphasis on action rather than homilies, state of life after death, concept of hell and heaven, laundering of previous prophet from all smears, bringing morality-spirituality-physicality and science into an mutually complementary logic, divine guarding of its everlasting purity and free from adulteration and contradiction, open challenge to bring even a chapter matching that of Quran, divine origin of all monotheistic faiths, completion of religion etc.

Besides what he ignored in Quran is what Khwaja Kamaluddin saw it all, which is reflected in chapter headings of his book – Introduction to the Study of the Quran:

Chapter 1: Revelation a Necessity:

Civilisation in Vedic Days
The Quran a Necessity
Existence of God

Chapter 2: Quran: A Book from God:

Miraculous Beauties of the Quran
Quran: A Miracle — Style
Prophecies in the Quran — The Quran will Retain its Purity — Islam shall Succeed
Total Defeat of the Makkans
The Final Fall of the Enemy
The Defeat of the Persians by the Romans
The Recovery of Pharaoh’s Drowned Body
The Exalted Position of its Scribes
Scientific Predictions
Freedom from Variations
Some Beauties Exclusive to the Quran — A New Conception of Religion
Comprehensiveness of the Holy Quran
Universal Book
All Religions from God
Broad-mindedness of the Quran
Arabic, the Language of Religion
Revealed Nature of the Quranic Language
Philosophy in Quranic Words
The Finality of the Divine Message

Chapter 3: Reason and Religious Beliefs:

Logic
Logic for every Doctrine
Resurrection
Life after Death
Why a Particular Revelation for Guidance
Angels

Chapter 4: Our Evolutionary Journey:

The Origin of Man
Nafs Ammara [— The Commanding Spirit]
Nafs Mulhamah [— The Differentiating Spirit]
Nafs Lawwama [— The Chiding Spirit]
The Law of Combination and the Sexual Instincts of Man
Nafs Mutmainnah — The Spirit at Rest
The Return of the Soul
Day of Resurrection
Hell and Heaven

Chapter 5: Riddles of Life — Kismet:

The Law of Measure
True Knowledge of Things — Chastisement
Guidance and Misguidance

As to what he tries to find in Quran is no different from what Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall tried to invent in his ‘Sources of Islam’ and was squashed by Muhammad Ali in his land mark book The Divine Origin of the Holy Quran.

References:
Serge Trifkovic – Wikipedia
Incest in the Bible – Wikipedia
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
Introduction to the Study of Holy Quran – by Khwaja Kamaluddin.
The Divine Origin of the Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali.

Issue 10 [@11:55]: Slide show of quote from Quran: The Noble Quran, Translated with parenthetical note by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan – Surah 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikoon [voice – other disbelievers] will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Rebuttal 10: Quotation of this single verse as a standalone is a classical example of out-of-context use of verses of Quran with the intention to inculcate fear and hate in the minds of Jews and Christians against Muslims, while insinuating that Hindus, Buddhists etc. are without a Book. The whole chapter of this verse is only eight verses long, yet the producers of the movie chose to quote one sentence, which proves their venomous and sly tactics. These cheap shots are a leaf out of the Nazi propaganda book – Julius Streicher, editor of the infamous Nazi broadsheet Der Stürmer in Weimar-era Germany. To arouse anti-semitic sentiments among the weekly’s working class Christian readership, Streicher regularly published truncated quotations from Talmudic texts that, in their shortened form, appear to advocate greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder [Wikipedia].

A Muslim will read 98:6 or any other verse differently by taking into account its full context, else the message of the Book might be lost in a dogma which negates the very purpose of the Message of the Quran. In general, a verse can be contextualized by other verses in its close proximity or far removed in location and time of revelation i.e.

41:3. (It is) a Book, the verses of which are detailed and clear in exposition. It is beautifully inter linked, (and it is in a language that) makes the meanings eloquently clear. It is very useful for a people who have knowledge.

Hence, the key word is that the verses are inter linked throughout the Quran. Furthermore, there are no contradictions within Quran:

4:82. Why do they not ponder over the Qur’ân? Had it been from anyone other than Allâh, they would surely have found a good deal of inconsistency therein.

Hence, the next key word is lack of inconsistency in Quran.

The full context of a verse can be realized by its inter-linkage with other verses and consistency between the verses. In an abstract, the structure of Quran is linear, yet in a lattice. As a side note, if a reader, for whatever reason, including lack of knowledge, is not able to understand the meaning of a verse or reconcile verses across the Quran, it does not mean that one verse to is be ignored in favor of another. There is no picking or choosing, either take it all or reject it all. That’s why there is no abrogation in Quran, not even of an iota. Period.

Besides Muhammad, Allah is also a target of ridicule by the movie. Lets take a pause and address it. As to who this “Allah” is, Quran states:

98:1. …the Lord of mankind,
98:2. `The Sovereign, the Controller of all affairs of mankind,
98:3. `The God of mankind,

Am I reading it correctly above (or elsewhere) where there is no mention of God of Muslims, or is it so that Allah is God for all mankind and not of Muslims alone? In these declarations non-Muslims are empowered at par with Muslims, and Muslims do not have the home court advantage in their share of God. Next time when Robert Spencer or others hear the word “Allah,” rest assured it is their God as well, though they might never get it. Besides removing any trappings of religion or race around the term “God,” Quran states:

112:1. Say, `(The fact is) He is Allâh, the One and Alone in His Being.
112:2. `Allâh is that Supreme Being Who is the Independent and Besought of all and Unique in all His attributes.
112:3. `He begets none and is begotten by no one.
112:4. `And there is none His equal.’

The verses above reflect the pristine monotheist aspect of God. Can any follower of any monotheistic creed have a problem with above verses? Can anyone think of more eloquent statement of monotheism? Assuredly not.

With the above rules of inter-linkage and consistency of verses with the concept of God in Islam, lets revisit the chapter from which the above verse under discussion is quoted and see if the message is the same (-sinister) as the movie is trying to portray or different and righteous?

In this case study we will use translation of Quran by Nooruddin whose use of inline parenthetical explanation makes it easy for the reader, else there are many other translations to chose from, with that of Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz as foremost for its detailed explanations in the footnotes. The chapter Bayyinah i.e. Manifest Proof is laid out below:

98:1. Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture and (from among) those who associate gods with God, would not be rid of their bigotry and rejection of Faith until there should come to them the manifest proof –

It is a historical fact that at the time of revelation of the verse in Issue 10 at hand, the world was going through its darkest age despite Jews and Christians possessing the “Book” and the polytheists possessing their “sensibilities.” People of the Book are morally answerable to history for their ineptitude. Why blame them when they themselves were part and parcel of a global culture that was morally and socially decrepit, which Quran summarizes:

30:41. Disorder and corruption has prevailed on land and sea owing to the evil (deeds) which people have wrought…[see also Ulfat Aziz Samad in Rebuttal 9e]

Their faith was of no use to them nor anyone else as it had become ineffective due to its malaise. They had no capacity left in them, neither their scriptures had the strength to reform the world. Essentially they were a living bigotry and rejection of Faith by them that was brought by greats like Moses and Jesus. Their religion had hollowed into a shell devoid of its soul. Their religion was anything but Faith. Whether the people of Book realized it or not, the only way to get rid of their bigotry and rejection of Faith was the provision of some kind of a manifest proof.

God by definition is not an unjust entity. He could not have sat idle despite the empty homilies of the people of the Book. He had to intervene. So He did by sending in the manifest proof of a Prophet and the Message i.e.

98:2. A great Messenger (- Muhammad) from Allâh reciting (to them) written leaves of the Book, free from all impurities,

The people of the Book cannot extricate themselves from their historical tempering of the original message delivered to them. Besides the message, the prophets who serve as models for future generations had been transformed into mythological characters whose “sunnah” or example could not fit human needs for its reformation. Factually, the Jews and Christians then and now are awaiting for the Messiah, but due to their racial inclinations they could not accept a non-Israeli manifest proof – A great Messenger (- Muhammad) from Allâh reciting (to them) written leaves of the Book, free from all impurities – the same impurities that they had introduced into their Books and the sunnah of their prophets. As to what those written leaves of the Book had in them? Read next:

98:3. Consisting of eternal laws and commandments.

This movie so far has proven one point. These vociferous Islam haters have not been able to challenge and disprove even a single of the eternal laws and commandments of Quran, for the mere fact that these eternal laws and commandments are eternal hence were also found in previous Books with the difference that they are now in Quran free from all impurities that were introduced into them by human hands. Yes, some of them paid heed to their own Scriptures which had prophecies of Muhammad and his Message and were thus able to refresh their Faith.

For the People of the Book, read next:

98:4. Those to whom the Scripture was given became divided only after the manifest proof had come to them.

They were divided into old and new school with advent of Muhammad and Quran i.e. new Islam or the old Islam – Judaism and Christianity. Ever wondered about those who adopted eternal laws and commandments free from all impurities by becoming Muslims? What did they do different from what they were doing before?

98:5. (They have done it) though (in Islam) they were enjoined nothing more than to serve Allâh, bearing true faith in Him, (and) being upright, and to observe Prayer and to keep on presenting the Zakât. That is the true and firm conduct of faith.

Essentially the Jewish and Christian converters to Islam did not do much different than before except refinement of their monotheism, righteousness, praying (and appreciating) to God of mankind and participating in charity.

But, as far as those who did not transition to the purified eternal laws and commandments:

98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture and (from among) those who associate gods with God shall be consigned to the Fire of Gehenna. Therein they shall abide. It is they who are the worst of all creatures.

At the time of revelation of these verses, the people of Scripture were only Jews and Christians, and thereafter includes Muslims as well.

For those who miss out the bus of monotheism, righteousness, praying to God of mankind and being charitable, are the inevitably worst of all the creatures because, devoid of guidance, expecting that there is no accountability and teetering on incitement of animal-self, one easily stumbles to ones base desires of sin (- greed, injustice, hate, discrimination, racism, exploitation, lying, stealing, transgressing, unchaste behavior etc. etc.) – essentially someone who deliberately falls on one’s own knife. Such a person is nothing short of a selfish bigot or mildly put worst of all the creatures. Quran draws attention to this self harm:

4:111. And whoever commits a sin deliberately, commits it only against himself. Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

As a consequence of one’s sins (- greed, injustice, hate, discrimination, racism, exploitation, lying, stealing, transgressing, unchaste behavior etc. etc.) one suffers from self inflicted torment when such worst of all the creatures are consigned to Fire of Gehenna (-Gehinnom). As to what that Fire of Gehinnom is:

104:5. And what should make you know what the crushing torment is?
104:6. (It is) the Fire set ablaze by Allâh,
104:7. And which rises over (the feelings of) the hearts (- the origin of a man’s hell).
104:8. It (- Fire) will be closed in on them (so as not to let them escape from it and also increase for them the torture of heat).

Then, it would be unjust for worst of all the creatures to invent a God to blame. Whereas God absolves Himself:

4:40. Verily, Allâh does not do injustice not (even) so much as the weight of an atom; and if there be a single good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

But, lets not lose hope, there is a fire-escape built into the system i.e.

98:7. Verily, those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, it is they who are the noblest of all creatures.

To be the noblest of all creatures is no more than to do deeds of righteousness, which are the basic human values appreciated all over the globe. The fruition of righteousness evolves into more Faith and more righteousness, a never ending cycle that manifests into persons of the likes of Mother Teresas and Edhis of our times, whom none can reward to the fullest but God:

98:8. Their reward is with their Lord – Gardens of Eternity [-Faith] served with running streams [-righteous deeds] (to keep them green and flourishing), they shall abide therein, for ever and ever. Allâh is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased with Him (in their state of highest bliss). Such is (the reward) for a person who stands in awe of his Lord.

Bottom Line – To whom are these verses addressed? They are addressed to all those with or without the Scriptures. Remember, He is the God of Mankind, His Laws of cause and consequence, of reward and requital, apply equally to everyone, Muslims included. Why make the message any complicated than what it is:

4:39. Why, what (harm) could come to them if they believed in Allâh [-and the Laws that emanate from Him] and in the Last Day and spent from that which Allâh had provided them? Indeed, Allâh knows them full well.

References:
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
Fallacy of quoting out of context – Wikipedia
Gehenna – Wikipedia

Read further:
Anwaar-ul-Quran (pg 166-78)– Dr. Basharat Ahmad
Holy Quran (pg 788-89) – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz

Issue 9 [@10:35] Robert Spencer – “The Quran occupies a place that has no parallels in the Western civilization. Quran is considered by Muslims in traditional Islamic theology to be dictated word for word by God Himself, Allah himself through the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. As a result every word of it is the words of God Himself. Every word of the Quran unless it is canceled by another section of the Quran itself is valid for all time and cannot be questioned, cannot be reformed, cannot be changed with in Islamic context. This means that moderate Muslims, peaceful Muslims if they are sincere have to reject entirely Quranic literalism. But to do so puts them outside the sphere of anything that has been considered orthodox Islam throughout history because to do so is to reject the very basic premise of Islam that this is a book that is dictated by God and is the perfect copy of a perfect book, the Umal-Kitab, the mother of the book, that has existed for ever with Allah in heaven”

Rebuttal 9: In this segment Robert Spencer touches upon various issues hence his statement needs a breakdown:
——————————
Issue 9a: Robert Spencer asserts: “The Quran occupies a place that has no parallels in the Western civilization.”

Rebuttal 9a: This is a factual statement but in need of a minor correction i.e. now Islam too is part of Western civilization.

Still, there is implied self admission by him that there is no revealed book in the West, be it the Old or New testament, which despite many revisions to improve them, none enjoy a belief and reverence that Quran enjoys with the Muslims (of both East and the West).

Does his statement make West in less need of spirituality, morality and Divine guidance? No. Their only shortcoming is that while they have not yet discovered Quran, they over period of time were intellectually forced to discard their Scriptures for want of a something more pure, pristine and complete. This is the experience of the “West” with its Divine Scriptures, and it cannot imagine others having a different experience with their Scriptures.

Then, where is the solution? Interestingly, the answer is in their own Scriptures. West is not illiterate, it can read its own Scripture, where prophecy of advent of a Divinely appointed and his message is foretold by Jesus himself and before him Moses too mentioned it – compare the passages of New King James Version [non-italics] with corresponding verses of Quran [in italics] below:

16:12. I [-Jesus] still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
16:13. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, …

16:102. Say, `The Spirit of Holiness has brought this (Qur’ân) down from your Lord to suit the requirement of truth and wisdom, (Allâh has revealed it) so that He may strengthen those who believe in their faith and so that (this may serve as) a guidance and good tidings for Muslims.

Note: He implies Muhammad and/or Angel Gabriel and/or Quran.

16:13. …He will guide you into all truth;…

2:2. This is the only perfect Book, wanting in naught, containing nothing doubtful, harmful or destructive, there is no false charge in it…

2:185. …the Qur’ân … revealed as a guidance for the whole of mankind with its clear evidences (providing comprehensive) guidance and the Discrimination (between right and wrong)…

3:4. … And He has revealed (the Qur’ân as) the Criterion of judgment (between truth and falsehood)…

10:57. O mankind! there has come to you an exhortation (to do away with your weaknesses) from your Lord and a cure for whatever (disease) is in your hearts, and (a Book full of) excellent guidance and a mercy, (and full of blessings) to the believers (in the ultimate form of the Qur’ân).

14:1. …(This is) a great Book which We have revealed to you that you may bring mankind, by the leave of their Lord, out of different kinds of darkness into light, to the path of the All-Mighty, the Praiseworthy,

17:105. We revealed it (- the Qur’ân) to suit all the requirement of truth and wisdom and it has come down (to you) with truth and wisdom…

43:2. This perfect Book that makes (the truth) perspicuously clear bears witness (to the above truth).

43.3. Verily, We have made it a Qur’ân, such (a Scripture) as brings (the nations) together, and (a Scripture) eloquently expressive so that you may make use of your understanding.

76:29. Verily, this Qur’ân is a Reminder. So let him who wishes, take a way to his Lord.

16:13. …for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak;…

10:15. When Our clear verses are recited to them, those who fear not the meeting with Us, nor do they cherish any hope (for the same,) say, `Bring a Qur’ân other than this one or (at least) make some changes in it.’ Say (to them), `It is not for me to introduce changes in it of my own accord. I follow nothing but what is revealed to me. Truly if I disobey my Lord I fear the punishment of a great (dreadful) Day.’

42:52. (Prophet!) just so (as We sent revelations to other Prophets), We revealed to you the Word by Our command. (Before this revelation) you did not know what the Divine Book was nor (which of) the faith (it teaches), but We made it (- Our revelation to you) a light, whereby We guide such of our servants as We will. And truly you are guiding (mankind) on to the straight and right path,

35:23. You are only a Warner. 35:24. Verily, We have sent you with the lasting truth (as) a Bearer of glad-tidings and (as) a Warner (to them), for there has been no people but have (been warned by) a Warner (from God). 35:25. And if they cry you lies, (remember) their predecessors (also) cried lies (to their Messengers of God) though their Messengers had brought to them clear proofs, the Scriptures and the illuminating Book.

16:13. … and He will tell you things to come.

14:32. He has made the ships subservient to you to run their course in the sea by His command, and He has made the rivers [dams and irrigation projects] subservient to you.
14:33.And He has made subservient to you the sun [solar energy] and the moon [lunar landings and soon to be mined], pursuing their courses; and He has made subservient to you the night [night is no longer the dead and dark, it is part of a vibrant economy] and the day.
14:34. And He gives you of all that you ask of Him. And if you count Allah’s favours, you will not be able to number them. Surely man is very unjust, very ungrateful. [ – Muhammad Ali-Zahid Aziz]

81:1. When the sun be folded up and so darkened, [by air pollution and global warming? by sun becoming a red giant?]
81:2. And when the stars are obscured, [by light pollution at night? by expanding universe?]
81:3. And when the mountains are made to pass away, [by modern highways?]
81:4. And when the excellent she-camels will be discarded, [in favor of modern transport?]
81:5. And when the wild beast will be herded together, [in zoos? in safaris?]
81:6. And when the rivers will be drained away, [by irrigation projects? by global warming and loss of ice caps?]
81:7. And when (various) people will be united together, [by racial mixing? by globalization of economies? under United Nations Organization?]
81:8. And when the girl-child who is buried alive will be questioned about; [a pre-Islamic pagan Arab custom to preserve family dignity]
81:9. For what offence was she killed? [by establishment of women rights?]
81:10. And when books and papers will be spread abroad, [by dissemination of knowledge by modern electronic and print media?]
81:11. And when the heights will be discovered, [by/in science and technology? by modern mountaineering? by air and space travel? by space probes?]
81:12. And when the Hell-Fire will be set ablaze, [by “shock and awe” of destructive military power? by nuclear arms?]
81:13. And when the Paradise will be brought near, [by human development? by freedom of societies from occupations?]
81:14. Every soul will know then what (store of deeds) it has brought forward.[by internet data mining and public records of individuals and organizations? by accountability in modern democracies?]

16:14. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

3:3. He has revealed to you gradually this perfect Book (- the Qur’ân) which meets all your requirements, fulfilling that (prophecies in the Scriptures) which preceded it and which still remain. He revealed the Torah and the Evangel,
3:4. Before this, as a guidance of the people…

5:46. And We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in the footsteps of these (Prophets), fulfilling that which was (revealed) before him, of the Torah, and We gave him the Evangel which contained guidance and light, fulfilling that which was (revealed) before it, of the Torah, and was a (means of) guidance and an exhortation for those who guard against evil.

5:68. Say, `O People of the Scripture! you stand no where unless you observe the Torah and the Evangel and that (- Qur’ân) which has (now) been revealed to you from your Lord….

Note 1: In Quran there is no Old or New Testament. It only refers to the original Torah and Evangel.

Note 2: Quran has many verses where it glorifies Jesus personally in a real sense by removing from him all historical dross of pagan godliness, nonsensical virgin birth, nonsensical miracles, his alleged debased death on the cross and his final migration to lofty plateaus (Kashmir). Since it becomes a separate discussion, reader is encouraged to review “Jesus in Heaven on Earth” by Khwaja Nazir Ahmad.

Despite Muhammad fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Scriptures, there are likes of Robert Spencer who will reject their own Scriptures to deny the inevitability of Muhammad’s Message:

46:7. When Our clear Messages are recited to them, these disbelievers say with regard to the Truth when it comes to them, `This is an obvious sorcery.’

46:8. Do they say, `He himself has forged this (Qur’ân)?’ Say, `If I have forged it, you have no power to help me in anyway against Allâh, He knows what nonsensical talk you are indulging in. Sufficient is He for a witness between me and you. And He is the Great Protector, the Ever Merciful.’

46:9. Say, `I am no novel (Apostle) among the Messengers nor do I know what will be done to me (on your behalf) or to you. I simply follow what is revealed to me and I am nought but a plain Warner.’

46:10. Say, `Have you considered (that) if this (Qur’ân) is from Allâh and you do not believe in it (there will be no way of escape for you); (more so because) a witness (in the person of Moses) from among the Children of Israel has borne witness to (the advent of) his like. So, whereas he has believed (in those prophecies) but you turn away in disdain, (how should you fare then? Bear in mind) Allâh guides no unjust people (to success).

46:11. And those who disbelieve say of those who believe, `If these (- the Qur’ânic doctrines) were any good they would not have taken precedence over us in believing in it.’ Since they themselves have received no guidance from it they say (out of malice), `It is an old lie.’

46:12. Whereas the Scripture of Moses (which was) a guide and a mercy preceded it, this (Qur’ân) is a Book which fulfills (the prophecies contained in the previous Scriptures) making its meanings and significance eloquently clear. (It has been revealed) so that it may warn those who do wrong and give glad tidings to the doers of righteous deeds.

Robert Spencer, the Quran directly addresses you:

13:43. And those who disbelieve say, `You [Muhammad] are not a sent one (of God)’. Say, `Allâh suffices as a Witness between me and you, and (so are) those who possess knowledge of the Divine Book.’

This verse clearly implies that Robert Spencer may reject Quran but being a Christian, if he is that someone who possess knowledge of the Divine Book, i.e. his own Scriptures, he cannot deny the implications of passages below, which have been full filled in the person of Muhammad and his Message:

16:12. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
16:14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
16:15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. [New King James Version]

References:

New King James Version – BibleGateway.com
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
Jesus in Heaven on Earth – Khwaja Nazir Ahmad.
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin [all the above quoted verses, unless indicated otherwise]
——————————
Issue 9b: Robert Spencer further states: “Quran is considered by Muslims in traditional Islamic theology to be dictated word for word by God Himself, Allah himself through the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. As a result every word of it is the words of God Himself.”

Rebuttal 9b: Besides, validating the previous scriptures, Quran distinctly stands apart from them in declaring – God Himself the source of the Book; its God as “Lord of the Mankind” and not of a particular race, region or religion; vivifies God by bringing to light His Attributes; removed the human-ness of god and instills godliness of humans; God for the benefit of man and not the ritualistic visa versa; God as the first observer of His own laws; God of action and not of slumber; Hearing, Seeing and speaking God etc.

Quran expounds itself with proofs based upon logic, reason, history, physical phenomenon, science, sociology etc. for all its claims of monotheism, human nature, equality and fraternity of man, sinless of soul, physical and moral states of man and the universe he lives in, nature subservient to man, purpose of man, virtue and sins, paths of salvation, emphasis on action rather than homilies, state of life after death, concept of hell and heaven, laundering of previous prophet from all smears, bringing morality-spirituality-physicality and science into an mutually complementary logic, divine guarding of its everlasting purity and free from adulteration and contradiction, open challenge to bring even a chapter matching that of Quran, divine origin of all monotheistic faiths, completion of religion etc.

These are some of the unique attributes which none of the previous Scriptures can claim for themselves. It is these features that make Quran the Last and Lasting Scripture. Reader is encouraged to peruse these books fully referenced from Quran in context of these claims i.e. “The Light of the Quran & Tabloid on Criterion for Religions” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, “The Divine Origin of the Holy Quran” by Muhammad Ali and “Introduction to the Study of Holy Quran” by Khwaja Kamaluddin.

If the Old and New Testaments, Vedas (5 volumes), Zend-Avesta etc. can claim to be Divine Books, then Quran has even more merits to such a claim and for its followers to believe in the words of Robert Spencer “every word of it is the words of God Himself.”

References:

The Light of the Quran & Tabloid on Criterion for Religions – Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
The Divine Origin of the Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali.
Introduction to the Study of Holy Quran – by Khwaja Kamaluddin.
——————————

Issue 9c: He further asserts that Muslim understanding of Quran is: “Every word of the Quran unless it is canceled by another section of the Quran itself is valid for all time and cannot be questioned, cannot be reformed, cannot be changed with in Islamic context.”

Rebuttal 9c: Robert Spencer tries to keep his ridiculous assertions in the hope of unhinging the basis of Islam and this time brings out the gun powder of extra-Quranic concept Nasikh or abrogation of verses of Quran. What he fails to understand is the sheer nonsense of this term for which there is no room within the body of the Quran. Since the scholars of the movie under discussion frequently revert to this term – abrogation, a deeper analysis and refutation is given below.

This term of abrogation is fully dealt and destroyed in detail by Muhammad Ali in his landmark book “Religion of Islam” [pg 28-35]. But for brevity, an excerpt from “Jesus in Heaven on Earth” by Khwaja Nazir Ahmad is presented below:

There are two verses in the Holy Quran which are generally deemed by Christian critics to be the basis of this theory. The first of these two verses is:

“And when We change one communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say you are only a forger” (The Holy Quran, 16: 101).

Now the theory of abrogation has been applied only to such verses as lay down the Islamic Law, which were revealed exclusively at Madina. But the chapter containing this verse was revealed at Makka. It stands to reason, therefore, that the Law which had yet to be introduced could not be abrogated by a previous revelation; nor could a verse earlier in time refer to any such future abrogation.

If we consider the context, it becomes apparent that this verse is dealing with the Holy Quran in its entirety and with the allegation of the opponents of the Holy Prophet: that he had forged the Holy Quran himself. The Book refutes it by asserting that because the communications received by earlier Prophets were, in fact, abrogated and another (the Holy Quran) was substituted in their place, non-believers alleged it to be a forgery. The next four verses make the position abundantly clear. The Holy Prophet is made to say:

“The Holy Spirit has revealed it from your Lord with the truth, that it may establish those who believe, and as a guidance and good news for those who submit” (Ibid., 16: 102).
“Only they forge the lie who do not believe in Allah’s communications, and these are the liars” (The Holy Quran, 16: 105).

The opponents of Islam did not style the Holy Prophet as a forger because certain verses had been abrogated, but because they alleged that someone else was teaching him (Ibid., 16: 103) and, in spite of this, he was representing it to be from God – a work of his own creation was being put forward as a Divine revelation. The Holy Quran controverts these allegations and points out that it is they who are liars, because God has abrogated the older communications, the Mosaic Law.

The second verse which is alleged to support this theory makes the matter still more clear. It reads:

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Ibid., 2 : 106).

Here again, we must read the verse in the light of the context (the previous two sections: specially verses 90-91) and in particular the preceding verse:

“Those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book do not like, nor do the polytheists, that any good should be sent down (revealed) to you from your Lord, and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy and Allah is the Lord of Mighty Grace” (Ibid., 2 : 105).

The Holy Quran is dealing here with the contention of the Jews that they could not accept the Holy Prophet or the Holy Quran because it had not been revealed to an Israelite and that they could not accept a new code which would replace their Law. In verse 105 they are told that Allah chooses whom He pleases-an Israelite or a nonIsraelite; and in the verse in question they are informed that Allah has abrogated the Mosaic Law and replaced it with a better communication. The succeeding verse (Ibid., 2 : 107) then, by way of illustration, explains that in accordance with the laws of Nature the old order must give way to the new: thereby implying that the Mosaic Law which was given to a particular people for a particular object and for a particular time has been abrogated and replaced by a new and universal law. The old law, having been partly lost and forgotten, was being replaced by “one better than it or like it” and whatever portion of it remained was now abrogated. To construe the verse as abrogating the Quranic law is to do violence to its plain language. The words “or cause to be forgotten” cannot possibly refer to the Holy Quran at all because, as I have already mentioned, every verse as soon as it was revealed was reduced to writing and, therefore, could not be forgotten. Further, why should a verse be abrogated if one like it had to be revealed again? Besides, the Holy Quran itself asserts that it shall not be forgotten (Ibid., 87 : 6). On the other hand, it is a notorious fact that a good deal of the Torah and the Gospels had been completely lost and forgotten. These were replaced by better verses or verses like them; and such portions as were in existence were abrogated and replaced by the Holy Quran.

It is worth noting that the only person who could really say that a particular verse of the Holy Quran had been abrogated was the Holy Prophet himself. He never said that any verse or any portion of the Holy Quran had become abrogated. On the other hand he, along with his Companions, continued to recite in prayers the whole of the Holy Quran as it exists today. It is clear, therefore, that he did not consider any verse of the Holy Quran as ever having been abrogated.

The theory of abrogation of certain verses of the Holy Quran is so exploded that I will not carry the matter any further. (For a further study of the subject, the reader is referred to Maulvi Muhammad Ali’s Religion of Islam, 28-35.

References:
Religion of Islam – Muhammad Ali
Jesus in Heaven on Earth – Khwaja Nazir
——————————
Issue 9d: The statement of Robert Spencer continues with an inherent ridicule towards Muslims for whom: “Quran itself is valid for all time and cannot be questioned, cannot be reformed, cannot be changed with in Islamic context.”

Rebuttal 9d: Though unknowingly, Robert Spencer is absolutely correct while making this statement about Quran.

His thinking is product of his creed. His statements 9a, 9b and 9c coupled with above statement clearly reeks astonishment of Robert Spencer. He is baffled by as to why Muslims cannot change or challenge their Divine Book? His ridicule is based upon the experience of his “Western Civilization” that was either Christian or Jewish in the past (with emerging atheism now). They had no choice but over the period of centuries had to inevitably modify, abrogate or revise their Scriptures for the simple reason that neither their God took responsibility of preserving them, nor their intelligence can bear the burden to accept them prima facie.

He implicitly admits that his own Scriptures in present day are obsolete for dearth of logic and proofs, while abounding with contradictions. Actually they were obsolete almost two millenniums ago. What he is getting from them is not reconcilable with his intelligence. This expression is hidden in his own words i.e. his Scriptures “are not valid for all time, can be questioned, can be reformed and can be changed.” But, not so for Quran, for numerous reasons, which could be summarized as:

In the Arabic of Hedjaz in which Quran is revealed, the “Quranic words are too rich in their significations…we need not give them new meanings, nor reinterpret them to satisfy new demands of life. Their connotations are wide enough to denote every new concept…They may become amplified, but on the material already existing. [ Introduction to Study of The Holy Quran, by Khwaja Kamaluudin, pg 20-21]

Need for reform or revision for any book arises only if that book is time bound, has fundamental errors, new information comes to light, or has contradictions in it. That may be true of the old Scriptures, but not for Quran:

2:23. And if you have any doubt as to (the truthfulness of the Qur’ân) which We have revealed to Our servant from time to time, produce a single Sûrah (- Qur’ânic chapter) like any of (the chapters of) this, summoning (to your assistance) all your helpers (that you have) beside Allâh, if you are truthful (in your doubts),

4:82. Why do they not ponder over the Qur’ân? Had it been from anyone other than Allâh, they would surely have found a good deal of inconsistency therein.

41:53. We shall soon show these (disbelievers for their guidance) Our signs even in the remotest regions (of the earth) and in their own persons until it becomes quite manifest to them that this (Qur’ân) is the lasting truth infact. Is it not enough (for them) that your Lord indeed keeps watch over everything?

As to why Quran cannot be changed is for the mere fact that God, not man is its author. The following verses should suffice:

15:9. Verily, it was We, We Ourself Who have revealed this Reminder (- the Qur’ân); and it is We Who are, most certainly, its Guardian.

41:42. Falsehood cannot approach it (- the Qur’ân) neither from the front nor from behind. (It is) a revelation that proceeds portion by portion from One All-Wise, the Most Praiseworthy (God).

As regards to whether Quran can be questioned? Answer depends upon what is meant by the speaker. If the speaker means doubts, then Quran answers it:

10:37. This Qur’ân is not such as could have been devised (by anyone), besides Allâh. On the contrary (Allâh has revealed it as) a confirmation of all the previous Scriptures and is a clear and detailed explanation of the divine Law. It is wanting in nought, containing nothing doubtful, disturbing, harmful or destructive and there is no false charge in it. (It proceeds) from the Lord of the worlds.

But if the speaker means that can Quran be logically questioned? For that Quran is in agreement and actually encourages questioning:

13:03. Verily, in all this there are messages indeed for people who think[Muhammad Asad, emphasis added]

16:44. … We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may explain to mankind (the commandments) that have been sent down to them so that they may ponder and reflect (over it).[you implies Muhammad, but is not limited to him alone]

Note: It does not end there. On the reverse, Quran ridicules the non-use of one’s reason:

And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the people — they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. They are as cattle; rather, they are more astray. These are the heedless ones.[Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz]

Quran in fact is that very change and the reformation that “Western Civilization” and its intelligent mind is seeking for their own Scriptures. It is the latest and final edition of the same chain and source of Scriptures, including non-biblical ones as well.

References:

Holy Quran – Muhammad Asad
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin [all the above quoted verses, unless indicated otherwise]
——————————
Issue 9e: Robert Spencer in his usual infinite wisdom draws the conclusion: “This means that moderate Muslims, peaceful Muslims if they are sincere have to reject entirely Quranic literalism. But to do so puts them outside the sphere of anything that has been considered orthodox Islam throughout history because to do so is to reject the very basic premise of Islam that this is a book that is dictated by God”

Rebuttal 9e: Answer is plain “No” because Spencer’s Orthodox violent Muslim minority is in fact the ones who are in gross violation of the Quran, whereas it is the overwhelming majority of peaceful and the liberal Muslims who are, in letter and spirit, following the Quranic unabrogated principles of peace and justice which will remain for ever unchanged. Robert Spencer has proved the point. In fact, Robert Spencer should be advocating non-abrogation, which is by the way, followed by the Muslims at large, if he is sincere in spreading peace in the world. Amen!

But, if Robert Spencer is thinking in terms of sectarianism in Islam, then unlike Christian and Judaic sects which are almost separate religions unto themselves, the sects in Islam are essentially difference of opinions on superficiality of issues without difference on articles of faith. Their differences are not to detriment of religion as expressed in Introduction section under the heading “Dissent in the Ummah” in Translation of Holy Quran by Nooruddin:

There is a famous saying of the Holy Prophet that the difference of opinion among the people of his community (Ummah) will bring many blessings in its wake. The importance of this dissension with regard to the preservation of the Holy Qur’ân can well be judged by the fact that the Muslims fell into parties soon after the demise of the Holy Prophet . Had one party only remained in power there was the possibility of their faith having faltered, which would have led them to bring about some changes and alterations in the Sacred Book to satisfy their ends and purposes. However, their mutual differences created a situation wherein the opposing groups kept a constant watch over one another. If one group had ever tried to effect a change in the Holy Qur’ân the other group was there to keep them in check. [pg 16-A]

The literalism or figurative aspects of Quran that Robert Spencer is pointing to have to be understood in light of Quran:

2:26. Indeed, Allâh does not disdain to cite a parable of (a thing) even (as small as) a gnat or (of something) smaller than that. (Be it as it may) those who have believed know that this is a true (parable) from their Lord. As for those who disbelieve say, `What could Allâh mean by (citing) such a parable?’ Many does He adjudge to be erring because of these (parables) and many does He guide through them. Yet it is only the transgressors whom He adjudges to be erring because of them.

3:7. He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation…[Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz]

Note: Jihadwatch.com – take note: Future issues in Quran are allegorical. So are your “seventy virgins” which by the way are not in Quran altogether.

Understanding the allegory and metaphors in Quran requires an unbiased analysis and intelligent exposition on the part of the reader. Every religion is in danger to fall into decay that emanates from literalism. Duncan Greenlee, as quoted by Ulfat Aziz-us-samad, had the following to say about the state of Christian thought at the time of the advent of Islam:

Art hardly existed, philosophy was banned as pagan, the beginnings of science ruthlessly smothered under weight of superstition and impossible dogma created out of the unintelligent reading of metaphor as literal history, and literature prostituted to cause of polemic had almost ceased to be.[The Great Religions of the World by Mrs. Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad, Dar-ul-Isha’at – Kutub-e-Islamia, Bombay, 1991, page 176 – quoting Duncan Greenlees in The Gospel of Islam, introduction., pp. xiii-xiv (Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras, 1948.]

Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad describes the practices of various major religions of the world at said time as follows:

…reduced to bundles of soul-destroying ceremonies and rituals…degenerated into lifeless rituals, idolatry, relic-worship and idle monkery…gross polytheism, elaborate ceremonies and sacrifices, caste system and obstructionist priesthood…given rise to a very powerful hierarchy of priests and invented a complicated eschatology and many lifeless rituals…the spirit had departed from the religion…[which had become] too formalistic and legalistic.
[The Great Religions of the World by Mrs. Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad, Dar-ul-Isha’at – Kutub-e-Islamia, Bombay, 1991, page 175]

Islam at least has the distinct advantage over other religions in that its God is a living God, and unlike others whose God spoke once upon on time, the God of Islam speaks even today. With a living book and living God and the Islamic tradition of an appointed revivalist in every century, Islam will not go into decay. Can any other religion make that claim. The Biblical ones are hoping against hope of the return of Jedi. Even if he appears in the future, their God did abandon them in the intervening millenniums. Now that is an unjust God.

At times, Christians pulpit does sound logical, but that is the logic of the speaker and hardly of their Books.

References:

The Great Religions of the World – Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin [all the above quoted verses, unless indicated otherwise]
——————————
Issue 9f: The statement of Robert Spencer about Muslim belief with regards to Quran continues – that it: “is the perfect copy of a perfect book, the Umal-Kitab, the mother of the book, that has existed for ever with Allah in heaven”

Rebuttal 9f: Quran is a pre-existing full body of knowledge that in the words of Robert Spencer “that has existed for ever with Allah in heaven” – so true, revealed and enforced piecemeal over twenty-three years, so that it could be understood, assimilated and adopted by its audience according to their capacity and maturity:

25:32. And those who disbelieve say, `Why has not (the whole of) the Qur’ân been revealed to him all at once? (But We have revealed it) in this manner (- piece by piece out of necessity). And (inspite of the fact that it has not been revealed all at once,) We have arranged it in an excellent (form and order of) arrangement (and free of all contradictions) so that We may thereby lend strength to your heart.

The pre-existence of this whole body of logic is metaphorically referred to as:

85:21. This is also the truth that it is a glorious Qur’ân,

85:22. (Inscribed) in a Tablet well-guarded (against corruption, distortion and destruction). Note: this is not the last verse revealed, but Quran is referring to itself as a whole preexisting Book.

The following three verses refer to The Book – Ummal-Kitab, which alludes to the Divine Source of all knowledge that is God Himself, the Everlasting:

3:7. He it is Who has revealed to you this perfect Book, some of its verses are definite and decisive. They are the basic root (conveying the established meanings) of the Book (- Ummal Kitâb) and other (verses) are susceptible to various interpretations. As for those in whose hearts is perversity follow (verses) that are susceptible to different interpretations, seeking (to cause) dissension and seeking an interpretation (of their own choice). But no one knows its true interpretation except Allâh, and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge. They say, `We believe in it, it is all (- the basic and decisive verses as well as the allegorical ones) from our Lord.’ And none takes heed except those endowed with pure and clear understanding.

13:39. Allâh repeals (the law relating to punishment) what He will and He establishes and confirms (what He pleases) and with Him is the source and origin of all laws and commandments.

43:4. And it (- the Qur’ân) lies (safe) with Us in the Mother of the Book (which is the source of all knowledge), and (it is) indeed eminently sublime and full of wisdom.

Mr. Robert Spencer, this is how Muslims feel secured about their Book. Do you feel equally secure about yours?

References:

Holy Quran – Nooruddin

Issue 8 [@ 9:00] Robert Spencer, Director JihadWatch.org, tries to build up after Issue 7 and imaginatively connects the concocted history based upon Sirat by Ibn-Ishaq/Ibn-Hisham to present day sound bites: “ Another example, maybe even more chilling of the deleterious influence that Muhammad’s example has upon the Islamic world was exemplified recently by an Egyptian leader of a radical Muslim party who wrote just recently that he couldn’t believe that the be-headings in Iraq were being protested by Muslims. Weren’t they aware that the Prophet Muhammad himself beheaded between 600 and 900 men personally members of Jewish Quraizah tribe in Arabia after he had defeated them. Didn’t they realize that if the prophet did it then this is the proper way to behave and so the Mujahideen in Iraq who are beheading people are simply obeying the example of the prophet. Now we can see then since the Prophet Muhammad himself participated in many battles and raids and did indeed perpetrate these be-headings, he ordered the assassinations of several of his political opponents and he behaved in general like a typical seventh-century warlord. The problem is when this is transferred to twenty-first century behavior, twenty-first century context [image of armed Afghans sitting in a group is shown] of behavior then what you get are terrorists.”

Rebuttal 8: Robert Spencer’s distortions are premised on Sirat, which has been refuted in Rebuttal 7. Just a reminder for Mr. Spencer, that Sirat was written by Ibn-Ishaq about a century after the death of the Prophet. His original work was lost, then it was recompiled on hearsay by Ibn-Hisham about half a century thereafter. His work was based on narratives of Jewish descents of Quraizah tribe alone, who essentially tried to invent another Masada to glorify their ancestors. There are no corroborative sources in Sirat. There is no mention of this event in works of Jewish historians even though there remained about twenty thousand Jews in Medina after the alleged event and more than twenty-thousand Jews lived in Khyber which is ninety-five miles north of Medina. Simply because it did not happen. It is on record that Ibn-Ishaq was declared a liar by his own contemporaries who took great pains to verify chain of sources for their hadith collections. It is a general understanding that Ibn-Ishaq himself had Jewish ancestry and his family business was to narrate tales (if not invent one).

If one looks closely at the scholarship of Robert Spencer and Walid Shoebat (Issue 7), one glaring fact comes to light. Both have proven that they are uncritical readers and believers in the “Books” written centuries after the events and overlook the self negating contradictions therein. Even worse, they take them as word of God. Robert Spencer quotes an Egyptian (who?) to make a point. But for the critical audience, both the Egyptian and Spencer are two faces of the same coin, who read whatever, and read it uncritically and accept tales or any figment of imagination as long as it can “prove” them right in their insinuations and agendas. The agenda of both is clear. Both breed hate and hostility, and it just so happens that both are opposed to each others faiths. Both believe that Muhammad was atrocious, yet both are surprised that (overwhelming majority of) Muslims are protesting the be-headings. Has any of the participants of the documentary including Robert Spencer protested killing of Muslims civilians by Christian and Jewish bombs to this day? This anti-Islam rhetoric without substance of Robert Spencer is all about money: “The list of people on the anti-Islam circuit goes on. IRS filings from 2008 show that Robert Spencer, who runs the Jihadwatch.org blog, earned $132,537 from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a conservative nonprofit.” [The Tennessean]. How is Robert Spencer different from the extremists that this movie is trying to bring to light. The bigotry of Robert Spencer and his likes have seen its fruition in the recent carnage of Norway. It is ironic that Robert Spencer is now being forced to come to his own defense against the assertions that the Norway shooter was inspired by him [Robert Spencer in Damage Control after Terror Attack in Norway]. How callous are the preacher and the preached.

When the movie shows Afghans in context of terrorists, it creates a nausea in the audience. The world is sick and tired of Robert Spencer & Co and their abettors i.e. American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation and David Horowitz Freedom Center etc., the likes of which first created and funded the “Holy Warriors” i.e. Mujahideen, toasted them in White House to fight the Soviets, but when the chickens came home to roost, now the same Mujahideen are “terrorists.” Their venom and narrow vision firstly created and sustained the world wide chaos for decades running and in the process have distracted their parent nations away from their growth path to paths of self-destructive bankruptcy of ideas and money – You can fool all, some of the time; some, most of the time; but not all, all of the time.

In one place Robert Spencer is factually correct when he states about Muhammad – “Personally he took part in many battles and raids.” But, he fails to state the reasons, facts, outcomes and principles that form the basis for his statement. For a summary of these factors see Rebuttal 1. Quran summarizes the then moral compunction upon Muhammad that Robert Spencer is trying to ridicule. This compunction is valid even today for the whole world that includes Robert Spencer himself:

4:75. What (excuse) have you (to offer) that you would not fight in the cause of Allâh [The Lord of Mankind 144:1] and for (the rescue of) the weak and the down-trodden men and women and the children who all say, `Our Lord! take us out of this town of which the people are tyrants, and grant us a defender who comes from You and a helper by Your Own grace.’ [Nooruddin]

In context of this sub-statement of Robert Spencer, Khawaja Kamaluddin in his book “The Ideal Prophet” [pub. 1925], under the chapter “Right Use of Sword” writes:

For the first time the world was taught by the Prophet the right use of the sword. Secular and sacred history alike show that the sword has never been dispensed with. It was unsheathed by the Hindu Prophets and the Hebrew Patriarchs; for neither the Hebrew Law nor that of the Hindus is in any way favourable to “pacifism.” The Prince of Peace also declared that he came to send on the earth “not peace but a sword;” he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets; the laws of his religion permitted it, and his prophets waged war. In fact he would have had recourse to the sword had a favourable occasion arisen, but it did not; and if he prevented Peter from drawing the sword, it was because the time was not propitious. Violence would but have entailed further trouble for him and for his followers. Besides, what Jesus himself could not do has been done with considerable thoroughness by his followers. His words have proved dangerously prophetic. A large portion of the wealth and the brain of Christendom is expended in discovering various ways in which they may send sword and fire more efficaciously into the world; and that, not for the furtherance of any humane cause, but to pander to the spirit of aggression and “grab.”

“I, however, maintain that at times it becomes one of our highest humanitarian duties to unsheathe the sword. We cannot conscientiously stand aside as indifferent spectators when the liberties of an oppressed people are being trampled upon, when religious freedom is at stake. There do arise situations when the use of arms becomes an unavoidable necessity. But the arms have often been abused, and it was the duty of a Prophet from God to tell us the right occasion when the sword can be wielded.” [The House Divided – by the author]

Jesus was prepared to send sword and fire into the world, but Muhammad was compelled to do so. He allowed the use of arms on the following three occasions:

i. To save a house for the worship of God from destruction, be it Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. (Holy Quran, 22:40)

22:40. Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, surely cloisters and churches and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz]

ii. To establish freedom of conscience. Everyone, according to Quranic teaching, has the right to choose his own faith, and no one should force his religious beliefs on others by persecution or otherwise. And if a person does so, it is the duty of a Muslim to fight against such religious persecution, irrespective of whether the aggrieved by a Jew or a Christian and the persecutor a Muslim. (2: 190-193)

2:190. And fight in the cause of Allâh those who fight and persecute you, but commit no aggression. Surely, Allâh does not love the aggressors.

2:191. And slay them (the aggressors against whom fighting is made incumbent) when and where you get the better of them, in disciplinary way, and turn them out whence they have turned you out. (Killing is bad but) lawlessness is even worse than carnage. But do not fight them in the precincts of Masjid al-Harâm (the Holy Mosque at Makkah) unless they fight you therein. Should they attack you (there) then slay them. This indeed is the recompense of such disbelievers.

2:192. But if they desist (from aggression) then, behold, Allâh is indeed Great Protector, Ever Merciful.

2:193. And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is (freely professed) for Allâh [-the Lord of Mankind 114:1]. But if they desist (from hostilities) then (remember) there is no punishment except against the unjust (who still persist in persecution).[Nooruddin]

iii. In self defence. (22:39)

22:39. Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is Able to assist them [Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz]

But in each case a Muslim should suspend hostilities whenever the oppressor shows an inclination towards peace. (2:194)

2:194. (The violation of) a sacred month may be retaliated in the sacred month and for (the violation of) all sacred things the law of retaliation is prescribed. Then he who transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent he has transgressed against you, and take Allâh as a shield, and know that Allâh is with those who guard against evil. [Nooruddin]

Other Prophets of the world, especially the Hebrew, drew the sword for a cause of doubtful righteousness, as the Old Testament shows; but Muhammad did what righteousness demanded. Nevertheless the Western mind has become so much poisoned by prejudiced statements carped at Islam, that it will not care to hear what is true. [pg 145-147. Note: verses in italics and emphasis in bold are added]

In his infinite wisdom, Robert Spencer concludes that the so called Mujahideen are following the teachings of Muhammad while they are occupied by foreign forces in Iraq. The picture that he trying to paint is no different than the crusaders who drew the sword that Peter could not. Factually, if they are drawing a lesson from history, then they are following in the footsteps of the Pope Urban II rather than Muhammad, whose example of victory of Makkah was replicated by Nelson Mandela, when the latter too provided general amnesty and was able to build a nation of the future. Can Robert Spencer follow Nelson Mandela to eliminate apartheid in Israel? Not at all. Just trace his sources of money and the agenda tied to that money.

Quran fully addresses the deceivers as follows – Robert Spencer take note:

4:108. They seek to hide (their crimes) from the people, but they cannot hide from Allâh; and He is present with them when they pass the night in holding discourses which does not please Him. And Allâh encompasses all that they do (until He puts an end to their evil ways).

4:113. (Prophet!) a party of those (who are false to themselves) had certainly made up their minds to ruin you, but for the grace of Allâh and His mercy upon you, they ruin none but themselves, and they can do you no harm. And Allâh has revealed to you this perfect Book and the Wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. Allâh’s favour upon you is great indeed (and you enjoy His protection in temporal as well as in spiritual matters).

4:114. There is no good in many of their secret conferences. But (good lies only in the secret deliberations of) those who enjoin charity, equitable dealings or making peace between people. And whoso does that, seeking the pleasure of Allâh, We shall soon bestow a great reward on him.

4:115. And as to him who opposes the Messenger in a hostile manner after true guidance has become clear to him, and follows a way other than that of the believers, We will let him pursue the way which he is (himself) pursuing, and shall cast him into Gehenna, and an evil destination it is! [Nooruddin]

But, the life of Muhammad tells us that we can pray for Robert Spencer with the following hope for him:

4:105. We have surely revealed to you this perfect Book comprising the truth, that you judge between the people (enlightened) by that knowledge which Allâh has given you, and do not become a partisan of the dishonest.

4:106. And seek protection of Allâh. Verily, Allâh is Great Protector, Ever Merciful.

4:107. And do not plead on behalf of those who act dishonestly towards themselves. Surely, Allâh does not love him who is given to dishonest ways, (and is) a great sinner.

4:108. They seek to hide (their crimes) from the people, but they cannot hide from Allâh; and He is present with them when they pass the night in holding discourses which does not please Him. And Allâh encompasses all that they do (until He puts an end to their evil ways).

4:109. Behold! you are of those who may plead on their behalf in the present life. But who will plead on their behalf with Allâh on the Day of Resurrection, or who will be a disposer of their affairs?

4:110. And whoever commits evil and does injustice to himself and then asks forgiveness of Allâh, will find Allâh Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful.

4:111. And whoever commits a sin deliberately, commits it only against himself. Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

4:112. But one who commits a fault or a sin and imputes it to an innocent person (for the sake of his own defence), he certainly bears the burden of calumny along with that of a flagrant sin. [Nooruddin]

References:

The Ideal Prophet – Khwaja Kamaluddin
The House Divided – Khwaja Kamaluddin
Anti-Muslim crusaders make million spreading fear – The Tennessean
Robert Spencer in Damage Control after Terror Attack in Norway – LoonWatch.com
Pope Urban II – Wikipedia
Crusades – Wikipedia
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin

Issue 7 [@ 7:13]  Walid Shoebat, Author – Why I left Jihad, alleges: “Muhammad, the prophet of Islam wiped out all of Jews of Saudi Arabia. There were three tribes, Banu-Nadir [also pronounced as Banu-Nazir], Banu-Qainqah, Banu-Quriaza. We were probably studying this in school Muhammad the prophet of Islam ordered the beheading of the Jews of Banu-Quraiza and the women being taken as concubines. As soon a child had pubic hair, he was beheaded. So the Jewish population was either extradited or beheaded. The story of Rabia Kanina is a well known documented story in Islam. Rabia Kanina was tortured by the order of the prophet of Islam himself. His eyes were put out. He was burned in order to confess where the Jewish tribes were hiding their goods, their gold and silver all those kind of things. And this is right from the Hadith [But which Hadith? no authority presented]. This inspired us the Palestinians, inspired us in fighting Jihad against the Jews in Palestine.”

 Slide show: “Authoritative Islamic History – The Life of Muhammad / Sirat Rasul Allah. By Muhammad bin Ishaq (d 773 AD). Edited by Abdul Malik bin Hisham (d 840 AD). Translated by Prof Alfred Guillaume (1955). — “Then they [Quraizah tribe] surrendered and the Apostle confined them in Medina…Then the Apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches…There were 600 or 700 hundred in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.

Rebuttal 7:
Any child can read a text, but one needs a scholar to read it critically and if found ambiguous or contradicting, then such a scholar should ethically reject it. But these bigots lack scholarship to begin with. Their only merit is hate-mongering and deceit. Please read Background to fully understand this blatant distortion before reading further.

Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat begets a fundamental correction. His manuscript was lost. Ibn Hisham then wrote it again on hearsay about fifty years later. Essentially, what these bigots are quoting is a misquote to begin with i.e. they quote Ibn Hisham while calling it Ibn Ishaq’s work to give it credibility, but for the sake of this rebuttal we give them this room.

The “odd tales” of Banu Qurayzah’s “massacre” at the hands of Muslims for their sedition in the Battle of Trench is dealt with by Barakat Ahmad in his book “Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-Examination” which is excerpted below.

Besides, the three main Jewish tribes of Banu Qainqah, Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayzah who were exiled by then, there were other Jewish groups in Medina that are identified in Sahifa i.e. compact of Medina namely – Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba. [Constitution of Medina]. This compact essentially was the basis of ummah which included all monotheists of Medina and was updated after the expulsion of Banu Qurayza from the city.

By estimates of Barakat Ahmad the sum total of all the above Jewish tribes and groups was about 36,000 to 42,000 Jews in Medina at the time of arrival of Muhammad [Muhammad and the Jews – pg 36]. Even if half were sent into exile we are still left with about twenty thousands who would have witnessed the event under discussion. Besides Medina, there was a whole city of Jews namely Khaibar [also written as Khaybar] just ninety-five miles north of Medina which just by its proximity could not had escaped the news of the time.

With these thousands of remaining Jews in Medina besides others in its vicinity brings up the fundamental questions as to why Jewish history is silent about the alleged massacre? Why Ibn Ishaq was only able to take the accounts from the descendants of Banu Qurayzah alone? Why does he not quote chain of authorities? Barakat Ahmad sums up his analysis as follows:

Of all historical ‘facts’, stories of massacres and mass executions and murders are most susceptible to doubt and the most likely to prove either pure fabrications or high exaggerations. lbn Ishaq and to a lesser degree, al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa’d and their predecessors or al-Zuhri and Musa bin Uqbah remembered, noted and reproduced what they considered to be significant facts. Events and details which are significant from our point of view were probably not of any consequence to them. They were not of any importance to the Jews either. [Were] There were no Jewish historians and writers, no correspondents, no travelers who carried the tales of the misfortunes of the Jews of the Hijaz when these tragic events were taking place.[?] It is improbable and difficult, however, to believe that in the second and third centuries of Islam when Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa’d were collecting their material, the learned rabbis of the Gaonate and the Exilarchate of Babylon were unable to obtain the Jewish version of the events which had a profound influence on the life of the Jewish community of the Hijaz at the time of the Apostle. It is not normal with the Jews not to record their misfortunes. The Jews of Khaybar reported to be expelled by Umar were settled in Kufa, which was not very far from the Gaonate. They were the descendants of the B. al-Nadir and the children of the B. Qurayzah; Jewish scholars could gather their material from them. Samuel Usque’s book A Consolation for the Tribulations of Israel – Third Dialogue is a sixteenth-century classic of Jewish martyrology. This “deft painter of Jewish suffering”, who “caused the long procession of Jewish history to file past the tearful eyes of his contemporaries, in all its sublime glory and abysmal tragedy” [ibid – translated by Gershon I. Gelbart, New York, 1964 – pg 16] reports neither the expulsion of the B. Qaynuqa and the B. al-Nadir nor the execution of the B. Qurayzah. Jewish history up to Geiger’s time (1833) seems to be free of these stories. [Muhammad and the Jews – pg 24]

As far as the validity of Ibn Ishaq reporting is concerned, suffice is to pay close attention to analysis of Barakat Ahmad:

Ibn Ishaq had no direct knowledge of the events and in view of the self-contradictory nature of the accounts one would have expected that he would either qualify his statements or absolve himself of the responsibility of reporting something of which he either had no direct knowledge or which he thought was of a doubtful nature. In all other doubtful cases he normally uses phrases such as “in what has reached” or “it was mentioned to me” or he would simply finish a story by adding that God knows best what happened. lbn Ishaq does not show this caution and scrupulousness in his account of the B. Qurayzah” [Muhammad and the Jews – pg 16]

Barakat Ahmad further gives the reverse view of the event by its absence from other contemporary scrupulous sources of Islam:

It is significant that neither aI-Bukhari nor Muslim reported any Tradition on the actual execution of Sa’d’s judgment. Since they did not report how Sa’d’s judgment was carried out they also did not report on the number of people killed or taken prisoner. [Muhammad and the Jews – pg 88]

Besides the event itself, Barakat Ahmad also draws attention to the property of Banu Qurayzah in that its distribution and taxation which would had formed the basis of future jurisprudence is absent from the works of Imam Shafi, Abu Yusuf and Yahya b. Adam, whose own works are based upon authentic traditions and well-established precedents as they “did not consider either Ibn Ishaq’s account or the current qass material reliable” [Muhammad and the Jews, pg 89]

The ridiculousness of Ibn Ishaq’s account is quite evident in the following excerpts:

The first part of Ibn Ishaq’s story gives us a picture of demoralized people trying to avoid fighting at any cost; the second part paints for us a picture of heroes ready to die for their faith. Walking in a flowered robe in which he had made holes so that no one might take it as spoil, Huyayy b. Akhtab addressed the Apostle:

“By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.”

The discrepancies in Ibn Ishaq’s account do not end here. The B. Qurayzah lived at a six to seven hours walking distance from Medina [According to Ibn Ishaq, the Muslims left Medina at noontime and reached the B. Qurayzah after the last evening prayers. Ibn Hisham. p. 685.] On surrender they were brought to Medina and kept in a house. The next morning trenches were dug in the market place to bury the executed people. It is surprising that a general of the Apostle’s astute knowledge of strategy and logistics would have brought nearly five thousand captives nine hundred of them to be slain all the way to Medina and bury them right in the middle of the town. It would have been far better, safer and more efficient to make short shrift of them outside their forts, and then to take only the women and children to Medina. The problem of the security of prisoners, and of sanitation in Medina, would have been solved. If they had to he marched to Medina then there was a ready-made trench which was dug outside Medina only a month back [i.e. many miles long trench in the battle of Trench]. It was not far.

Since the captives included women, children, and old and sick people they must have walked to Medina at a much slower pace ten to eleven hours. Neither during this march nor during their captivity in the house of Binth aI-Harith did any incident take place. No one tried to escape except Amr b. Sauda al-Qurazi, and no one accepted Islam to save his life except Rifaa b. Samaw’al al-Qurazi. It was both a tame and a brave crowd. If the story is true the martyrs who fell under Bar Kochba (A.D. 132) against overwhelming odds were nothing in comparison to the martyrs of the B. Qurayah.

The disposal of nine hundred bodies did not seem to have posed any problems. The trenches neatly dug were filled by the same night.

There was apparently a complete absence of any sentiment among the Muslims who watched this execution. It must have been a shattering experience for many and an unforgettable event even for those who thought it to be fully justified. Several heart-rending incidents must have taken place during the day; some must have tried to struggle and run, others would have uttered words of dismay and repentance, and there must have been many who either did not die at the first blow, or died of fright even before the executioner’s sword struck. Swords must have blunted and broken. Ali and Zubayr, who were the executioners, must have faced several problems, and witnessed many facets of human nature on that day. But neither Ali nor Zubayr, in fact no one, ever later mentioned anything about his experience of this execution.

A detailed scrutiny indicates that the whole story of this massacre is of a very doubtful nature. As Ibn Khaldun has pointed out “the rule of distinguishing what is true from what is false in history is based on its possibility or impossibility” [R. A. Nicholson, A Literary History of Arabs (Repr. Cambridge, 1966, p. 438]. We have already pointed out that Medina in the Apostle’s time was not equipped to imprison four to five thousand people and execute 600 to 900 people in a day. Killing such a large number of people and disposing of the dead bodies created problems even for Nazi Germany, with hydrogen cyanide [Raul Hilberg, ed. Documents of Destruction: Germany and Jewry 1933-1945 (Chicago, 1971), p. 219.] as an efficient lethal agent. A massacre in the midst of a town where people live is very different from a massacre in a town which is being sacked by a conquering army marching onwards from town to town with dead bodies left to make it uninhabitable.

Under these conditions it is almost impossible that the people of Medina should have escaped typhoid, typhus, both epidemic and endemic, influenza, diarrhoea and above all cholera. As regards the dead bodies the infection would depend on the animals and birds having access to the remains. But even if there were only flies, and the people whose corpses were lying there had all been healthy, the proliferation of agents, especially bacterial agents, after death would have been a health hazard, since the healthy may be carriers of dangerous diseases such as meningococcus.

Discussing the mass execution of the B. Qurayzah under “the alleged moral failures” of the Apostle, Watt has remarked:

This may seem incredible to the Europeans, but that is in itself a measure of remoteness of the moral ideals of ancient Arabia from ours. [Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 327]

But the effects of such a mass execution on the spectators and executioners is not related to moral values – ancient or modern. The human psyche, as is well known to students of psychology may have nothing to do with a sense of duty, or political and religious obligations. Executioners, grave diggers, undertaker deal with death in the ordinary course of life as an honest and moral profession, nevertheless this continuous association with death creates suffering and tenor of blood guilt [Barbara Levy, Legacy of Death (Englewoods Cliffs, N.J., 1974)]. No one could come out of such a holocaust – 600 to 900 killed in void blood in one day—without damage to his personality. Ali’s and Zubayr’s holocaust legacy of massive deadness would not have left them in peace. Though Zubayr’s life is not fully known to us, we do know well enough about the life of the fourth Caliph of Islam. His sermons, letters, political discourses and sayings collected in Najm al-Balaghah do not reflect experience of such a mass execution. His scruples in “retaliation” among other aspects of his personality “cannot be disregarded for the understanding that it affords of his psychology” [L. Veccia Vaglieri, “Ali b. Abi Talib”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, (2) Vol. 1, p. 385]. After his ‘victory at the camel’, “he tried to relieve the distress of the vanquished by preventing the enslavement of their women and children, in face of the protests of a group of his partisans: when battles ended, he showed his grief, wept for the dead, and even prayed over his enemies” [ibid – L. Veccia Vaglieri]. Ali was a brave soldier, not a hardhearted executioner. Ali’s partner in the execution, al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, was also renowned for gallantry and took part in all the great battles and campaigns of the Apostle’s lifetime. The very idea of such a massacre by persons who neither before nor after the killing showed any sign of a dehumanised personality is inadmissible from a psychological point of view. [Muhammad and the Jews, pg 84-87]

Barakat Ahmad further analyzes the self-contradictory exaggeration of Ibn Ishaq about the captives of Banu Qurayzah:

The story that the captive women and children of the B. Qurayzah were sent to the Najd to be sold For horses and weapons does not agree with the practice [Ibn Hisham, p. 693]. The Jews always bought their captives from Arabs after every skirmish [Ibn Hisham, p. 253]. The Jews of Khaybar, including the B. al-Nadir, Wãdi al-Qura, Taymã’, and even Medina itself were capable of buying these captives and, as al-Waqidi says, they bought them [Al-Waqidi, Vol II, pp. 522-24]. The Muslims, if interested in the money at all, were interested in it to buy weapons and horses. It made no difference to them if the captives were sold in the Najd or Khaybar. In fact it seemed to be far more convenient to sell them in the Hijaz than to travel with such a large number of captives to the Najd. [Muhammad and the Jews, pg 88-89]

After clearing the above dross around the event, Barakat Ahmad then lays out the actual event:

After their defeat they surrendered to the Apostle. A party (fariq) from among them who had fought but not taken a leading part was taken prisoner [33:26. And He brought down from their strongholds those of the people of the Scripture (- the Jews of Madînah, the perfidious Banû Quraizâh) who had backed them (-the invading enemies). He inspired awful terror into their hearts (so much so that) some of them you were able to slay and others you could take as captives.- Noouruddin]. The leaders of the B. Qurayzah were, however, left to the judgment of Sa’d b. Mu’adh. There are indications that the sentencing of these leaders was done right on the spot. As al-Samhudi has pointed out, S’ad was brought to the Qurayzah mosque and not to the mosque of Medina [Al-Samhudi, Vol III, p. 824. The place where the Apostle prayed during the siege was converted into a mosque.]. The Hadith in both al-Bukhari and Muslim suggests that Sa’d, who was mortally wounded in the battle, went to a mosque. His tent was so close to the Apostle’s mosque in Medina that in his grave condition it was not necessary to bring him there. Sa’d decreed that the combatants from among the leaders should be executed. Probably the main leaders included old men and ordained priests, who were not combatants, hence the word ‘combatants’. This party (fariq) was not brought to Medina but was beheaded [The Quran, Al-Ahzab, 26, “You slew a party”.] at the spot. The leaders, Huyayy b. Aktab, Ka’b b. Asad [Al-Waqidi, Vol. II p. 516.]. Nabbash b. Qays and Ghazzal b. Samawal were executed by Ali and Zubayr [Al-Waqidi, p. 513.]. In conformity with the policy adopted by the Apostle that executions should be carried out by a member of the tribe who is in alliance with the tribe of the guilty party minor leaders were handed over to the Aws. Two of the condemned were given to each of the clans or sub-clans of the Aws; (i) Abd al-Ashhal; (ii) Harithah; (iv) Zafar; (iv) Muawiyah; (v)Amar b. Awf; and (vi) Umayyah bin Zayd, so that all the clans were involved in the blood of the B. Qurayzah [Ibn Hisham, p. 554, Al-Waqidi, pp. 515-16.], The culpable leadership of it tribe of 600 to 900 men; especially when some of them have already been killed in the battle and one group has been taken captive would not normally exceed sixteen, or seventeen accounted for in the above analysis, The decision to help the Ahzab [the confederates] must have been taken by the leaders and the elders of the B. Qurayzah. The whole tribe could not be given the same punishment that was in store for their leaders. The Apostle himself was bound by the Quranic maxim of just retribution; “an eye for an eye and a life for a life’ [Al-Baqarah 2:178].This principle, as we have shown earlier [Supra, Chapter II], had been agreed upon both by the Muslims and the Jews, for we find it formalized in the Sahifah: “a person acquires guilt against himself” [Ibn Hisham, p. 344. also: Constitution of Medina]. [Muhammad and the Jews, pg 90-92]

With regards to what happened to the rest of the Banu Qurayzah minus the sixteen or seventeen, we are left with following information:

The Quran mentions only two groups which were punished: one was executed and the other was taken captive. Unfortunately Ibn Isbãq and other magazhi writers were not interested in those members of the B. Qurayzah who were not punished. Some of them might have stayed behind others (as Jabal b. Jawwal al-Thalabi said) might have migrated:

O Sa’d, Sa’d of B. Mu’adh
For What befell Qurayzah and al-Nadir
By thy life, Sa’d of B. Mu’adh
The day they departed was indeed steadfast.
[Ibn Hisham, p. 713, Guillaume’s translation]

[Muhammad and the Jews, pg 93]

As to the hypothesis of why an event, if true, disappeared after a blip in the narration of exaggerated history, Barakat Ahmad puts forth a plausible theory:

It is reasonable to conclude that is minor and unimportant incident in which probably Sa’d b. Mu’adh was involved in dealing with the B. Qurayzah was blown up out of proportion by pro-Umayyad Tradition collectors. In course of time while the tahkim [meaning – in the absence of both a regular guardian and of any regular Judge, a party agrees to empower someone with adequate knowledge of the the law to act for it] controversy became irrelevant due to the Abbasid revolution, the reason for investing this minor incident with the force of an important precedent was also forgotten. The incident of the B. Qurayzah [Ibn Hisham, pp. 423-27] occurred before the armistice of Hudaybiyah and the peace with Khaybar were achieved. It is impossible that the pagans and the munafiqun, would have remained muted. When Jahsh violated the sacred month and shed blood therein, when the palms of the B. al-Nadir were burnt, when the Apostle married the divorced wife of his adopted son, the people criticised and the Qur’án defended the Apostle [Ibn Hisham, pp. 654]. It is improbable that the Apostle’s critics would have paid less attention to the lives of the B. Qurayzah than to the palms of the B. al-Nadir. That the news of this “massacre” did not reach Syria, which included Jerusalem and Adhraat, with which the Medina Jews had contacts, and the Exilarchate in Iraq, which exercised religious authority over them, is highly unlikely. [Muhammad and the Jews, pg 93-94]

W. N. Arafat in his research paper draws up close parallels in the “odd tales” of Banu Qurayzah and that of Masada, which is excerpted below:

Important details of the two stories are remarkably similar, particularly the numbers of those killed. At Masada the number of those who died at the end was 960 [De bello Judaico, VII, 9, 1. ]. The hot-headed sicarii who were eventually also killed numbered 600 [De bello Judaico, VII, 10, 1.]. We also read that when they reached the point of despair they were addressed by their leader Eleazar (precisely as Ka’b b. Asad addressed the Banu Qurayza)[Sira, 685-6/II, 235-6.], who suggested to them the killing of their women and children. At the ultimate point of complete despair the plan of killing each other to the last man was proposed.

Clearly the similarity of details is most striking. Not only are the suggestions of mass suicide similar but even the numbers are almost the same. Even the same names occur in both accounts. There is Phineas, and Azar b. Azar [Sira, 352, 396/I, 514, 567.], just as Eleazar addressed the Jews besieged in Masada.

There is, indeed, more than a mere similarity. Here we have the prototype – indeed, I would suggest, the origin of the story of Banu Qurayza, preserved by descendants of the Jews who fled south to Arabia after the Jewish Wars, just as Josephus recorded the same story for the Classical world. A later generation of these descendants superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with one from their less remote history. The mixture provided Ibn Ishaq’s story. When Muslim historians ignored it or transmitted it without comment or with cold lack of interest, they only expressed lack of enthusiasm for a strange tale, as Ibn Hajar called it.

One last point. Since the above was first written, I have seen reports [The Times, 18 August 1973; and The Guardian, 20 August 1973.] of a paper given in August 1973 at the World Congress of Jewish Studies by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, in which she challenges Josephus’ assertion that 960 besieged Jews committed suicide at Masada. This is highly interesting since in the story of Qurayza the 960 or so Jews refused to commit suicide. Who knows, perhaps the Story of Banu Qurayza is an even more accurate form of the original version.

References:

Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-Examination – Barakat Ahmad
Constitution of Medina – Wikisource
New Light on the Story of Banū Qurayẓa and the Jews of Medina – W. N. Arafat
(From publisher, from others)

Note to Reader: The investigative reporting of CNN about Mr. Walid Shoebat might be of value to anyone interested – Part – 1, Part – 2

Issue 6 [@ 6:43]: Robert Spencer gives a background to Muslim behavior – “In Islamic theology the prophet Muhammad is considered Al-Insan-al-Kamil which is the perfect man. He is the model par excellence to be imitated. He is the person that the more a Muslim is like him the better off he is. So the prophet Muhammad is revered today in the Islamic world as the primary model of human behavior.”

Comment 6: Even though Robert Spencer by above statement is setting a stage for his smear later in the movie, but factually he is correct. Many authors, Muslims and non-Muslims could be quoted who expounded this statement. For now we will read from Khwaja Kamaluddin.

Khwaja Kamaluddin in his book “The Ideal Prophet” [pub. 1925], in the chapter “Prophets of God as Ideals” outlines the philosophy of prophet-hood and the ideal therein, which is excerpted below:

A Muslim must believe in the Divine origin of every great religion. He must believe that Prophets were given to every nation and that all the Prophets of God were entitled to equal respect, and he must not make any distinctions between them. The position is logically tenable as well. We are composed of body and soul. Both should be equally nourished by our Creator. If in His physical dispensation to minister to our physical needs He has made no difference between man and man, shall He then be partial in His spiritual Providence? If His message through Jesus could not reach the four corners of the world – even now there are millions whom it has not reached – would the Sustainer of all the human race suffer those waiting multitudes to starve for lack of spiritual food? No. He sends His message to them through other Divine messengers; and this it is that explains the existence of so many religions in the world.

These Messengers from Above brought Divine lore and illuminated the world. They were the teachers, and the models for the practice of the tenets they inculcated in their people, under Divine guidance. But their contemporaries did not keep full records of the words and deeds of these masters. Whatever has come down has been merely hearsay, giving such ample occasion for adulteration that within the space of a century each religion had suffered in its purity. Coming generations were given a religion which was never taught by the Master, and in the case of Christianity, I may say, not even imagined by the Founder. This paucity of contemporary records of the various Teachers has led to a further difficulty. None of the old religions possess enough material to meet the needs of the day, and the world in general has been left to its own judgement on many vital matters of life.

Christianity is a case in point; if we leave aside the mystical side of the creed, the sermons and other utterances of Jesus do not come up to our demands. His teachings, as recorded, give a general outline of a religion of Love and Kindliness, and that again in an idealistic way, that hardly suits the practical side of life; and this is not all, as Arnold Bennett rightly says. The ideals of Jesus tend, rather more than less, to influence the individual towards the life of a recluse. They do not fit in with social or national life. They have no bearing on International relations.

There is, moreover, a sort of discrepancy between the various utterances of Jesus and his recorded actions which does not help us in understanding his precepts. They in a way are contrary to his own teachings. The root of all is that his disciples or other contemporaries did not leave us an adequate record of his life. Such has been the case with the other Prophets of God.

“Unlike all other Prophets, whose proper likeness is concealed from us in a mist of reverence, Muhammad is a clear historic character, the numberless details of whose conduct and demeanour are recorded for us by his own contemporaries.”[Marmaduke Pickthall]

Muhammad is the only Prophet who may be called historic in the true sense of the word. From his childhood to his death, most of his life – and especially the period of his ministry as a Prophet – is on record. I know more of him than I know of my own parents in many respects; and is it not a wonderful thing that, with all our knowledge of him, he commands our respect and admiration? I cannot say what would be our estimate of others had we known more of them. The lives of other Prophets are enshrouded in mystery and myth; we know very little of their daily life, they speak like oracles; and are tolerable only when considered as subjects of fiction; but Muhammad is more definitely historic than any personality in history. It is indeed wonderful how little his detractors find to use against him in all this mass of evidence.

Herein lies the superiority of the Holy Prophet, and for this, among many other things, we accept him as the Ideal Prophet. The record of his words and deeds is complete, and his precepts and examples stand in complementary relation to each other, as if every need of the human soul has been anticipated and every contingency of human existence provided for in the mirror of his life. As a Muslim I cannot say that other Prophets of God did not perfect their mission. I only say that we find very little in their record to help us. They must have done that for which they were sent; but their historians have not been faithful. In the matter of this dearth of record of the world’s Prophets, I am constrained to remark that had it not been for Muhammad we would not have been able to appreciate the Divine institution of Prophethood. If a Prophet comes only to read homilies on morality, while he himself in his life does nothing to raise humanity, but simply reiterates in a different accent the lesson taught by others before him, I fail to understand the necessity of his Divine Mission. We can learn the same from those who did not claim to have been raised up by God. [pg 25-28, emphasis added]

A few prayers and a few curses, or a few sermons and a few miracles, do not make up the whole furniture of a Prophet; much more than this is needed to make a Prophet of a man. A Prophet comes to resuscitate humanity when – death mental, moral and spiritual death – has overtaken it; he comes with high principles, acts upon them himself, and leads other to do likewise; he thus brings reanimation to his environment. In a word, he comes to evolve humanity, a problem of a very complex nature. Humanity has very many sides – physical, emotional, sentimental, social, moral, mental and spiritual. They all are mixed with each other; they are complementary to each other for their existence and growth; they serve each other reciprocally in performing their respective functions. We cannot neglect one for the benefit of another. For instance, we hear much said against our low passions. We are advised to crush them. But that would be unnatural. These passions are in their evolutionary state; they are the bedrock of high morality, and germinate spirituality. A Prophet must have regard to them all. He must evolve a system that may bring every human instinct into proper play, and control every faculty in a way that may raise humanity and enable man to reflect Divine morality, as I said in these pages elsewhere.

Elsewhere, I have summed up some of the special and exclusive achievements of the Prophet Muhammad, and the unique service he rendered to humanity in such a capacity. His achievements are the achievements of a Prophet. I do not find them in the life of other Prophets, probably on account of the two causes mentioned above. But if we Muslims accept Muhammad as the Ideal Prophet, it is in his representative character as well. Every Prophet of God was an Ideal, and came as a model, to be imitated by the people he was raised up among, and he would be the same ideal to all coming generations, if we were in possession of his full record and if he had the necessary opportunities for the display of various virtues which he undoubtedly possessed but was unable to put into practice for want of an opportunity. But as things stand, we look only to Muhammad as such a Prophet. In him we find every requisite of a Prophet. He assembles in him all that was individually possessed by the other Prophets. He collects in himself all that we want to see in a Prophet. Salawatu- ‘l-Lahi ‘alaihi wa ‘ala alihi – the blessings of God be upon him and his followers. [pg 31-32]

Khwaja Kamaluddin’s book “The Ideal Prophet” needs a review as it preempts and unhinges the rest of the movie for its allegations against Muhammad. The contents of the book by themselves make the case for the Ideal Prophet and are worth perusal below:

Foreword – by Lord Headley
Introduction
Pen Portrait of the Holy Prophet
Gods-Incarnate as Human Ideals
Sermon and Sacrament
The Prophets of God as Ideals
Before Muhammad
The Ideal Call
The Ideal Personality
The Ideal Character
The Ideal Success
The Ideal Teacher of Religion

Object of Religion
The Muslim Conception of Heaven
God Our Prototype
Morality A Reflection of Divine Attributes
Muslim Prayer
Muslim Formula of Life
Formula for Greeting
No Intermediary Between Man and God
Monotheism in its Purest Form
Object of Monotheism
God Not Impersonal
Human Capabilities and Sinlessness of Nature
The Problem of Good and Evil
Universal Brotherhood
Universalism
All Prophets Sinless
Complete Religious Tolerance
Right Use of the Sword
Equality of Man and Elevation of Womanhood
Marriage Ennobled
Polygamy
Slavery Abolished
Drink and Gambling
Respect for Learning and Logic
Universality of Teachings
A Liveable Religion

The Ideal Expounder
The Ideal Exemplar

Keeping of Promise
Doing Justice
Sacrificial Spirit
Fairness in Dealing
Disregard of Distinction
The Prophet Discouraged undue Reverence
Modesty, Leniency, Shyness and Humility
Praise Discouraged
Sublimity of Manner

The Assemblage of Virtues

Benevolence
Bravery
Forgiveness
Humility of Mind
The Prophet would do the work of others
Exchange of Presents
His Aversion for Beggary
Hospitality

References:
The Ideal Prophet – Khwaja Kamaluddin

Issue 5 [@ 6:35]: Part 1 of 6 – A slide is shown with Kalima Shahada – “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS PROPHET”

Comment 5: Please note this is not a rebuttal but an agreement with the above slide with the following elaboration:

La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah
“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”

This declaration also known as Kalima Shahada is the fundamental oath of a Muslim. It identifies the source of belief (Allah) and the messenger (Muhammad).

By declaring Allah as one’s only God, one is barred from taking others as gods, including any person, entity or resource. Along the same lines, it prevents one from thinking or acting like a god towards others, yet, the very objective of Islam is to revive godly attributes in oneself. This declaration fundamentally makes one humble, unburdening one from the shackles of arrogance, myths and fears, thus unleashing human potentials.

By declaring Muhammad the Messenger, the oath assigns human status to Muhammad and prevents the Muslims from attributing super human qualities to him. In other religions, their followers, out of love for their respective messengers, coupled with their ancestral and inherent idolatrous traditions, over a period of time started attributing godliness to their messengers. The Muslim oath preserves the fundamental immaculate monotheistic nature of Islam.

Issue 4 [@ 6:13]: Abdullah Al-Araby, Director, The Pen vs. The Sword Publications insinuates – “I believe that those terrorists that want to do harm to others are applying the true Islam that was practiced by Muhammad and his followers in the early stage of Islam.”

Rebuttal 4: Al-Araby’s enlightened opinion can be read in two steps:

Step 1 – “ I believe that those terrorists that want to do harm to others” – The emphasis is on terrorists i.e. someone who terrorize the innocent. There are no two opinions about this scrooge of humanity that is recorded from early Jewish history of Joshua killing every man, woman, child, animal and tree in Jericho to Romans and their conspirators crucifying the prophet of God, to repeat attackers of Medina, to Crusaders eliminating city after city, to Spanish inquisition of monotheists, to the Genocide of Jews in Germany, to bombers of Dresden and London, to rape of Nanking, to nuclear bombing of cities, to napalm bombing of Vietnam, to massacre of Sabra and Shatila, to Rawandan Genocide, to Genocide of Srebrenica, to 9/11 of US, to 7/7 of UK, to shock and awe of Baghdad, to destruction and siege of Gaza, to 26/11 of Mumbai etc. etc. They are all morally debased killings of humanity en-mass and perpetrator could be either an individual, a group or a state. Ruthless killing, collective punishment or mass murders cannot be sugar coated in any shape or form. It is terrorism, pure and simple.

Step 2: “I believe that those terrorists that want to do harm to others are applying the true Islam that was practiced by Muhammad and his followers in the early stage of Islam.” If this is view of Al-Araby of history, then one cannot feel but sorry about the “Director” of ignorance who cannot only lie but believe in it too. With this statement he himself declares his pitiful knowledge of history. Scores of western and non-Muslim scholars could be quoted to rebut Al-Araby, but the followings words should suffice:

“I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme for life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword, carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble. The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom not only for Muslims but for all mankind. — Mahatma Gandhi”

Muhammad is singularly that person who ever was, about whom the more one knows, the more one admires him. This cannot be said about anyone else, including Al-Araby, who I dare say, will not be able to hold such opinion about his “father.” Look no far than the articles of Al-Araby, an Arab by name and language, to determine his unlettered mind who would possibly translate and believe in “Richard the Lion-Heart” as someone who had a human body and an actual lion’s heart, if only so that it can give him some scholarly limelight, no matter how pseudo. One has to hold one’s nose to his pathetic out-of-context references and quotes of Quran.

Take for example Al-Araby’s understanding of verses:

Surah 2:106, “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” Also, in Surah 16:101 “When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.” [unknown translator]

He then quotes “”al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh” (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) by Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr.” [Abil-Kasim who?] and gives the following example of abrogation:

An example of the abrogation: there are 124 versus [sic] that call for tolerance and patience which have been canceled and replaced by this one single verse: “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…..” Surah 9:5 [unknown translator]

What he fails to read himself or hide from the readers is the following full context:

9:1. (This is) a declaration of complete absolution on the part of Allâh and His Messenger (from all obligations) to those of the polytheists with whom you had entered into a treaty (but they broke it repeatedly).

9:2. So you may go about (freely O you breakers of the treaties!) in the land for four months (since the date of this declaration), and know that you cannot frustrate (the will of) Allâh, and (know) that Allâh will humiliate the disbelievers.

9:3. And this is a proclamation from Allâh and His Messenger to the people on the occasion of the Greater Pilgrimage (on the day of Sacrifice) that Allâh and His Messenger owe no obligation to these polytheists. If you (O polytheists!) turn to Him in repentance it is better for you. But if you turn away then know that you cannot frustrate (the will of) Allâh. And proclaim (O Prophet!) the news of a grievous punishment to these disbelievers;

9:4. Excepting those of the polytheists with whom you have entered into a treaty (and) who subsequently did not fail you in any manner, nor did they back up anyone against you. So abide by the treaty you had entered with them to the end of the term you have fixed with them. Allâh, surely loves those who keep their duty.

9:5. But when the prohibited (four) months (when no attack on the breakers of the treaties was permissible) have expired, slay such polytheists (who broke their treaties) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every place from which it is possible to perceive the enemy and watch their movements. But if they turn in repentance and keep up Prayer and go on presenting the Zakât, leave their path free. Indeed, Allâh is Great Protector, Ever Merciful.

9:6. And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allâh, then conduct him to a place where he feels himself safe and secure. That (treatment) is (to be meted out to them) because they are a people who have no knowledge (of Islam).

9:7. There can be no treaty (on the part) of these Polytheists (after their repeated violations of the same) in the sight of Allâh and His Messenger. This, however, does not apply to those with whom you entered into a treaty near the Holy Mosque (at Makkah). So long as they keep true to (the treaty for) you, you should also keep true (in maintaining the treaty) for them. Allâh, surely, loves those who become secure (against the breach of trusts).

9:8. How (can there be a treaty with deliberate violators of agreements) while, if they get the better of you they would respect no bond, nor words of honour in dealing with you. They would try to please you with (mere words of) their mouths whereas their hearts dissent (from what they say), and most of them are perfidious.

9:9. They have preferred paltry gains (- this world) to the revelations of Allâh and thus have turned (people) away from His path. Surely, evil is what they do!

9:10. They observe no bond nor any word of honour while dealing with one who trusts (them). It is these who are the transgressors.

9:11. But if (even) such (sworn antagonists) turn in repentance and keep up Prayer and go on presenting the Zakât, they are your brethren in faith. And We explain the commandments in detail for a people who know.

9:12. If they break their oaths after (they have ratified) their pledge and revile and commit aggression against your Faith, then fight such leaders of disbelief that they may desist. Indeed, solemn (binding) oaths have no value with them.

9:13. Will you not fight a people who have broken their solemn oaths and proposed to turn out the Messenger and were the first to commence (the fight) against you. Are you afraid of them? Nay, Allâh is more worthy that you should stand in awe of Him if you be (true) believers.

9:14. Fight them, Allâh will punish them at your hands and humiliate them and will grant you victory over them, and He will heal (the agonies of) the minds of a believing people.

9:15. And He may take away the suppressed rage of their (- the disbeliever’s) hearts. And Allâh turns (with mercy) to him who wishes (Him to turn to him with grace). Verily, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise. [Nooruddin]

With the above example, there is no telling that one day Al-Araby will state that Muslims do not believe in any God and for that he will quote half of the Kalima Shahada i.e.

There is no God [but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger]

Lets re-quote Al-Araby’s abrogation theory of Quran i.e.

Surah 2:106, “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” Also, in Surah 16:101 “When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.” [unknown translator]

What Al-Araby failed to understand is that this abrogation in context of the treaty violation verses above is the abrogation of something following:

“And when the Lord, thy God, hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the woman and the little ones and the cattle and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take in to thy self and thou shalt eat the spoils of thy enemies which the Lord thy God has given thee” (Deut., 20:13, 14).”

Mr. Al-Araby, we understand that you are trying to serve God, but you are serving out of ignorance and arrogance. Please self reflect in the following verse:

62:5. The case of those who were charged to observe (the law of) Torah but did not carry out (its commandments in its true spirit), is like the case of a donkey that carries (a load of) volumes (of Books; he neither understands them nor gathers any advantage from them). Wretched is the case of the people who cry lies to the Message of Allâh. And Allâh guides no unjust people to success.[Nooruddin]

With this, Quran rests its case.

References:

Aerial Bombing of Cities – Wikipedia
What Unbiased Thinkers Say About Holy Prophet
What Unbiased Thinkers Say About Holy Prophet – Part I
The Abrogator and Abrogated – Al-Araby
Holy Quran – Nooruddin

Buyer Beware: the articles of Al-Araby, Bat Ye’or, and others are deceitfully posted on a web site “Islam Review” which is grammatically incorrect to begin with. This should not be confused with “Islamic Review” magazine started by Khawaja Kamaluddin from Woking, England in 1913.

Issue 3 [@ 5:10] Bat Ye’or, Author of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam asserts: “The origins are, of course, in the Muslim desire to impose all over the world the only religion – the only just religion – which is Islam. And the suppression of all other religions in order to establish the rule of Allah over the whole earth. This is a religious duty, which binds the whole community, and which the Muslim community is obliged to impose because they are obliged to obey the order of Allah and this is the desire of Allah as expressed in the Koranic revelation.”

Rebuttal 3: Bat Ye’or in her baseless statement gives the impression that Muslims have a well defined plan (eerily similar to Zionists conspiracies) to dominate the world and the implied undercurrent is that Muslims have a God, Allah, apart from the rest of the world’s monotheist religions and in whose name they will use suppression, coercions and forced conversions to satisfy their desire for world dominance over other religions. She further alleges that such is the desire of Allah as revealed in Quran.

First of all, lets see what Quran has to say about exclusivity of Allah for Muslims to begin with:

2:139. Say, `Do you dispute with us with regard to Allâh, while He is our Lord and your Lord (as well). We shall be judged by our deeds, and you by your deeds, and to Him alone are we sincerely devoted.[Nooruddin]

Allah in Quran is God of all religions which are based upon Divine Messengers namely Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and possibly includes Zarathustra, Buddha, Rama, Krishna, Confucius as well. For a Muslim all places of worships are ultimately for the same God i.e. Allah:

22:40… cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques wherein the name of Allâh is mentioned very frequently…. [Noourddin]

As far as the human starting points of religions are concerned, it is just not a politically correct “tolerance” by Muslims towards them, but it is an article of faith to believe in all the prophets:

6:83. That was Our argument with which We equipped Abraham against his people. We raise, in degrees of rank, whom We will. Verily, your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.[Noourddin]

6:84. And We granted him Isaac and Jacob, each one We guided aright, and Noah did We guide before. And of his descendants, We guided David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses and Aaron. In this way do We reward the performers of good to others.[Noourddin]

6:85. And (We guided) Zachariah, John, Jesus and Elias, every one (of them) was of the righteous.

6:86. And (We also guided) Ismâîl and Elisha and Jonah and Lot – and every one did We exalt above their people.[Noourddin]

6:87. And (We exalted men) from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. We chose them and We guided them along the exact right path.[Noourddin]

40:78. And indeed We have already sent (Our) Messengers before you. There are some of them whom We have mentioned to you and of them there are some whom We have not mentioned to you…[most likely Zarathustra, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Tao, Confucius, Socrates, to name a few – Peace be upon them][Noourddin]

Islam in the Quran traces its roots back to Noah and also refers to previous scriptures which have prophecies about it:

35:31. And the perfect Book which We have revealed to you is the lasting truth (itself and contains all that is required). It confirms the truth (of the prophecies about the advent of Islam contained in the revelations) that preceded it. Verily, Allâh is All-Aware of His servants and a keen Observer (of them).

42:13. He has ordained for you the same course of faith as He enjoined on Noah (to adopt), and which We have revealed to you, and it is that (same faith) which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, Jesus, so keep the faith and do not differ in it. (He ordains you) to establish obedience (to Allâh) and not to be divided (in sects) therein…

Thus, the above verses confirm the distinctly unifying principles of Islam for all the faiths in the world. No wonder one does not find Bible or Torah burning ceremonies in Islamic societies. Dr. Zahid Aziz in his book Islam, Peace and tolerance takes these ordinances further in the chapter “Freedom of Religion in Islam” which is excerpted below:

No Compulsion in Religion
The Holy Quran altogether excludes compulsion from the sphere of religion. It lays down in the clearest words:

“There is no compulsion in religion — the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error.”— 2:256

In fact, the Holy Quran is full of statements showing that belief in this or that religion is a person’s own concern, and that he is given the choice of adopting one way or another. If he accepts the truth, it is for his own good, and that, if he sticks to error, it is to his own detriment. Some quotations to this effect are given below:

1. “The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve.” — 18:29

2. “We have truly shown him (man) the way; he may be thankful or unthankful.” — 76:3

3. “Clear proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord: so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever is blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a keeper over you.” — 6:104

4. “If you do good, you do good for your own souls. And if you do evil, it is for them.” — 17:7

The duty of the Messenger of Allah, and, following him, the duty of every Muslim, is only to deliver the message of truth and no more. This is indicated in the Holy Quran in passages such as the following:

1. “If they accept Islam, then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, your duty (O Prophet) is only to deliver the message.” — 3:20

2. “And obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away, the duty of Our Messenger is only to deliver the message clearly.” — 64:12; see also 5:92

3. “Say (to people): Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, he is responsible for the duty imposed on him, and you are responsible for the duty imposed on you. And if you obey him, you go aright. And the Messenger’s duty is only to deliver (the message) plainly.” — 24:54

4. “O people, the truth has indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever goes aright, goes aright only for the good of his own soul; and whoever goes astray, goes astray only to its detriment. And I am not a custodian over you.” — 10:108

5. “Surely We have revealed to you (O Prophet) the Book with truth for people. So whoever goes aright, it is for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, goes astray only to its detriment. And you are not a custodian over them.” — 39:41

6. “We have not appointed you (O Prophet) a keeper over them, and you are not placed in charge of them.” — 6:107

7. “Your duty (O Prophet) is only the delivery of the message, and Ours (God’s) is to call (people) to account.” — 13:40

8. “And your people (O Prophet) call it (the message) a lie while it is the truth. Say (to them): I am not put in charge of you.” — 6:66

9. “And those who keep their duty (i.e., Muslims) are not accountable for them (i.e., the unbelievers) in any way,
but their duty is only to remind; perhaps they (the unbelievers) may become devout.” — 6:69

10. “And you (O Prophet) are not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Quran him who fears My warning.” — 50:45

The Quran tells us that it is in the natural order of things that while some people believe, others do not, and no human being can or should apply compulsion to others in this regard. The Holy Prophet Muhammad is told:

“And if your Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Will you then force people till they are believers?” — 10:99

The above verse refers to the deep anxiety felt by the Holy Prophet that people should embrace the message brought by him. Elsewhere his feelings of pain are expressed as follows:

“Then perhaps you will kill yourself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they do not believe in this message.” — 18:6

As the Holy Prophet was grieving and sorrowing over the fallen state of his deniers and their rejection of his message, and pleading day and night before God that the Almighty may bring them to the right guidance, he could not even conceive of resorting to coercion to compel them to accept him. A passage which recognizes that different people follow different religions is as below. It tells the whole of mankind:

“… for everyone of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made you one religious community, but He wishes to try you in what He has given you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds. To Allah you will all return, and He will then tell you about your differences.” — 5:48

[Note to the reader – all verses in this section are from translation of Quran by Muhammad Ali, edited by Zahid Aziz]

In the light of non-existence of dogmas in Islam in the matters of faith, one draws the logical conclusion that Bat Ye’or & Co. is more scared of deficiencies in their own faiths rather than the secular and moral strengths of Islam. So the problem is in their own ideologies which fears the arrival of a faith on their shores which inherently appeals to commonsense and it has the possibility of displacing their ancestral dogmas. In order to deflect the inevitable inter-faith dialogue and debate, they try to distract by political scare tactics as is obvious in the issue at hand.

The statement of Bat Ye’or which consists of unsubstantiated empty and generic words is reflective of her background that influences her allegations. According to Wikipedia, she was a Jewish citizen of Egypt, who along with her family was forced into exile after the Israel’s Suez invasion of 1956 against Egypt. She describes her experiences as:

“I had witnessed the destruction, in a few short years, of a vibrant Jewish community living in Egypt for over 2,600 years and which had existed from the time of Jeremiah the Prophet. I saw the disintegration and flight of families, dispossessed and humiliated, the destruction of their synagogues, the bombing of the Jewish quarters and the terrorizing of a peaceful population. I have personally experienced the hardships of exile, the misery of statelessness − and I wanted to get to the root cause of all this. I wanted to understand why the Jews from Arab countries, nearly a million, had shared my experience.”

Lets try to understand her experience. She has all praise above for Egyptians till 1956. But what happened after 1956? Of course, Israel invaded Egypt. What does she expect? Egypt did what Israel did to its native Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims. Anyone of them can describe their experiences in the words of Bat Ye’or:

“I had witnessed the destruction, in a few short years, of a vibrant Christian and Muslim community living in Israel for over 1,400 years and which had existed from the time of Muhammad the Prophet. I saw the disintegration and flight of families, dispossessed and humiliated, the destruction of their mosques, churches, the bombing of the Muslim and Christian quarters and the terrorizing of a peaceful population. I have personally experienced the hardships of exile, the misery of statelessness − and I wanted to get to the root cause of all this. I wanted to understand why the Christians and Muslims from Israel, many millions, had shared my experience.”

Wikipedia further brings to light her anti-Islam bias which is the core basis of her work that attracts the likes of Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes to her corner. In her works she totally glosses over the persecution of Jews in Europe and in the process tries to invent degrading Dhimmitude under Islam. She also coins the word Euroabia in which she cannot hide the racial dislike of Arabs and such coinage is nothing but to draw a wedge between natural inclinations of two worlds towards each other and she finds support from the above mentioned cohorts. Her Euroabia view is selective with blinders:

“Her most recent book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis explored the history of the relationship from the 1970s onwards between the European Union (previously the European Economic Community) and the Arab states, tracing what she saw as connections between radical Arabs and Muslims, on the one hand, and fascists, socialists and Nazis, on the other, in what she identified as a growing influence of Islam over European culture and politics.” [Wikipedia]

Interestingly, after the recent carnage of Christian terrorist in Norway, Der Spiegel draws exactly opposite conclusions from her:

“Islamophobic parties in Europe have established a tight network, stretching from Italy to Finland. But recently, they have extended their feelers to Israeli conservatives, enjoying a warm reception from members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition. Some in Israel believe that the populists are Europe’s future.”

Der Spiegel further explains the Islamophobes as:

“It is a document which has led many to question Breivik’s sanity. But it has also, due to its myriad citations and significant borrowing from several anti-immigration, Islamophobic blogs, highlighted the deeply entwined network of right-wing populist groups and parties across Europe — from the Front National in France to Vlaams Belang in Belgium to the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ).”[Europe’s Right-Wing Populists Find Allies in Israel] These are the parties of Nazis and Fascists.

Clearly her theses has a political and racial agenda and her conspiratorial scholarship falls on its face in the light of facts on ground. No wonder she is one of the participants of the documentary under discussion.
With the above background out of the way, her statement about Islam in the issue at hand if looked at from agenda of American Enterprise Institute (AEI) whose goal was democratization of Middle East solely to protect Israeli interests can be rephrased again in the words of Bat Ye’or:

“The origins are, of course, in the AEI and Israel desire is to impose all over the world the only ideology – the only just ideology – which is western pro-Israeli democracy. And the suppression of all other systems in order to establish the rule of West over the whole earth. This is a religious duty, which binds the whole community, and which the anti-Islamic community is obliged to impose because they are obliged to obey the order of Israel and this is the desire of Israel as expressed in the Zionist revelation.”

It would be injustice to the very institution of knowledge to give her and her cohorts any status of a scholar.

When Bat Ye’or rants of a Muslim desire to impose Islam over the whole world, she naturally provokes a thought in a critical audience i.e. how does she know? She, in her own words, was forced exiled from a Muslim country at a young age. According to Wikipedia and other web sources, she was “stateless.” Then what Muslim institutions or societies is she privy to that no one else knows of? But on the reverse, the financial institutions, weapon manufacturers, currency and stock markets, news and print media do have the power to dominate regions and the world. Now the question to her is who owns such institutions and where are those institutions located? Who trades in them and what races and religions own them? If she has a question, then that’s where the answer is. Her blatant accusations are nothing but conspiracy theories that serve certain interests who historically have wronged the Muslims globally and regionally.

When she talks of global domination of Islam, at least she cannot allege domination by a particular race or region, as Islam, in its very identity, is independent of such factors. The factors that she cannot claim such freedom from for herself. On the contrary, her fears are factually found in Christian history where Christianity was lead by military boots on the ground of European powers in North, Central and South America, Africa, Asia and Australia. Ironically, in the world history, no religion other than Christianity was spread by sword. Yet this historical fact has been openly denied and intentionally suppressed. At the same time, it is an interesting fact that only in Spain there were forced conversions of monotheist religions i.e. Islam and Judaism to another “monotheist” religion i.e. Christianity. Another interesting fact to note is that despite colonization of the world, Christianity was not able to take a foot hold in Muslim lands or minds. Why? Obviously, it had nothing better to offer despite its material appeal. But in present West and its natural rejection of its dogmas of the past, Islam appears quite appealing to its mind. And that is scary for populists like Bat Ye’or, whose empty allegations against Islam are clear proofs of either their having not read Quran or their deliberate distortions of Quran. Their insecurity stems from the fact that their scriptures stand no chance against the logic and principles of Quran. It is no surprise that they cannot cite their scriptures in support of their arguments. Instead they try to deflect the argument by focusing on that Muslim behavior which is in direct contradiction of Quran to degrade Islam. There are many positive things which are exclusive domain of Muslim world e.g. stable family structure, less prevalence of HIV and alcoholism etc. To them, war and not peace is a natural state of the world.

If she is scared of Islam, then that’s where she is absolutely wrong. Islam is not a racially or regionally segregated dogma and unlike the biblical religions it is neither rigidly stuck in time, rituals, mythologies or hierarchy. Islam and Quran will never shy away from a fair debate for its natural appeal to any seeker of morality and spirituality based upon reason and practicality. If she ever approaches Islam minus her ancestral bias, she might find Islam not too unappealing. Now that is scary. Is it so?

References:

Bat Ye’or – Wikipedia
Islam, Peace and Tolerance – Dr. Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Muhammad Ali, edited by Dr. Zahid Aziz
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
The Likud Connection – Europe’s Right-Wing Populists Find Allies in Israel – Der Spiegel
What is a neo-conservative anyway? – Asia Times