Outrageous Language Errors in the Quran

By:- Mumin Salih

It was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, who once said: “A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth.” He claimed that the bigger the lie, the greater the likelihood that people would believe it. Muslims employed this big lie theory, with great degree of success, centuries before Hitler’s minister even spoke about it.

One of those big Islamic lies claims that the Quran has a superior language style. Muslims believe this lie as a truth although every chapter of the Quran contains enough mistakes that would make any other book unsuitable for publication. In addition to the dozens of grammatical mistakes, the Quran is ambiguous and fails miserably in its primary objective to deliver a clear message to its readers.

The Quran and the Arabic Grammar

I followed some internet debates about the Quran’s violations of the Arabic grammar. I was surprised to notice that many Arabs believe that the Arabic grammar was based on the Quran, which is a misconception that they use to justify the Quran’s grave grammar mistakes. The Arabic language had its grammar and rules long before Islam, otherwise we wouldn’t consider the pre-Islamic literature as the best the Arabs ever had. The fact that the grammar rules were compiled in books decades after Mohammed’s death doesn’t mean they did not exist. All pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and literature followed those accepted, but not yet written, rules. Writing was in its infancy in Arabia, and formal books were unknown. Even the Quran was not compiled in a book until decades after Mohammed’s death.

It is generally accepted that Sibawayh (760-793) who was the first to compile the rules of the Arabic grammar in a book, and that was long after Mohammed’s death. Many other books, by other authors, followed later. The Arabic language scholars referred mainly to the pre Islamic poetry and literature, including the Quran, to derive the rules that were traditionally observed in Arabia. However, the Quran presented a dilemma to those scholars because, although it largely followed the grammar rules, but in many occasions it didn’t. The scholars faced a tough choice because the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s word and faultless, their only option was to make many exceptions for the Quran.

No other book was treated with such a privilege and had all its mistakes completely forgiven. With the above biased treatment in mind, and after so many concessions on the part of Arabic scholars, one would expect the Quran to be completely free of any further grammatical errors, but it is not. The Quran still has serious errors that are impossible to accept no matter how we twist the rules. The Quran is judged to be faulty by the Quran itself. In other words, some parts of the Quran are faulty, and that is according to other parts of the Quran!

There are dozens of grammatical errors in the Quran, but it is not easy to discuss an Arabic language issue in an English language article. Fortunately, I came across two examples that should be simple enough to explain to the readers, with no knowledge of Arabic, the kind of grammar blunders that exist in the Quran.

Example 1

The word Sabians, which is the name of a religious group, comes in Arabic in two forms, Sabiyoon or Sabiyeen, depending on its place in the sentence, which is all governed by the Arabic grammar. In verse (5:69) it is written Sabiyoon, which is a gross grammatical mistake because it should be Sabyeen.

“Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabiyoon and the Christians…” [Q 5:69]


Inna allatheena amanoo wallatheenahadoo wassabi-oona wannasaraman amana billahi walyawmi al-akhiriwaAAamila salihan fala khawfun AAalayhim walahum yahzanoo

As one would expect, Muslim scholars would justify the abve error by any means, as they always do. For the sake of this argument we would accept whatever explanation the Muslims may put to us. But even this concession doesn’t help the Quran but puts it in another trouble, because the same word is repeated in verse (227) with the same sequence of words and the same grammatical position as in verse (5: 69), but this time it is written correctly Sabyeen

“Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jes, and the Sabiyeen, and the Christians…” [Q 22:17]


Inna allatheena amanoo wallatheenahadoo wassabi-eena wannasarawalmajoosa wallatheena ashrakoo inna Allahayafsilu baynahum yawma alqiyamati inna AllahaAAala kulli shay-in shaheed

If we forgive the Quran for the mistake in verse 5:69, then verse 22:17 must be wrong and vice versa! No matter what Muslim scholars say, one of the verses must be wrong, and that is accding to the Quran!

The above two verses are of particular historical importance. After the completion of the project of writing the Quran in a book during the rule of Caliph Uthman, some Muslims pointed out the error to Aysha, Mohammed’s widow. Aysha said: “it is a mistake from the scribes”. Even Uthman was asked about some of the errors, including the above. The Caliph’s response was: “These are minor errors that do not make a halal to become haram, or a haram to become halal, and surely the Arabs will make the necessary corrections with their tongues.”

I believe that both of the above responses, from Aysha and Uthman, were sensible. Aysha’s point of view was that people shouldn’t blame the Quran for typographical errors made by the scribes. This is a common excuse even in today; publishers and writers frequently blame typing errors to save faces. Uthman, who also admitted the existence of the errors, expected the Arabs to make the necessary corrections as they read them. Uthman didn’t feel that the errors were serious enough to justify restarting the whole project of writing the Quran all over again. Today’s Muslims, however, stick to the errors and say they are marvelous miracles!

The Arabs practiced writing well before Islam. Some of their most famous writings were the seven master pieces of poetry known as Al Mualakkat (the hanging poems). The Arabs loved those poems and treasured them by scribing them and hanging them on the walls of Kaaba. As far as I know, the Quran was the first book to be written by the Arabs and we can imagine that writing a book in that size, with primitive technology, was not an easy task. Editing, reviewing and deleting were not options. The fact that Uthman and his aides approved those faulty copies of the Quran signifies that the Quran was not revered by the Muslims then as it is now.

Example 2

The Quran repeats the same pattern of the above errors in the following verse:

And verily! In the cattle, there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies…. [Q 16:66]

The Arabic word butunihi (translated their bellies) is an obvious mistake and should be butuniha. Muslim scholars, as usual, would say anything to justify the mistake. However, they have a problem because the same word is repeated in verse 23:21 with the same sequence of words and the same grammatical position, but this time is written correctly butuniha.

And Verily! In the cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies….. [23:21]

If we excuse the Quran for the mistake in verse16: 66 then verse 23:21 must be wrong and vice versa!

There are dozens of other grammatical errors in the Quran, which comes as a shock to most Muslims who were brought up on the belief that the Quran is a language miracle. The early Muslim scholars spotted those errors, but by that time the holiness of the Quran was well established in the minds of the brainwashed Muslims. The early Muslim scholars wrote books with lengthy articles and twisted rules to justify the Quran’s errors. Probably the only use of the Muslims’ writings about the Quran’s errors is to provide today’s Muslims with ready-made answers to use it in their debates. They also use those writings to pre-empt any criticism to the Quran, as if they say: “do not think you are clever by bringing this up, we Muslims are aware of them and wrote books about them centuries ago.” However, not one error in the Quran has been convincingly explained.

Al Balagha

Albalagha is defined as the ability to deliver the message clearly and precisely so that all people who receive it have the same clear understanding of the message. Albalagha is an art that is considered central to the Arabic language; the Arabs have long considered it to be the purpose of language communication. The Quran frequently claimed that it has a high level of al balaghawhen it described itself, in a number of verses, as the clear book (Arabic: al kitab al mubeen).

The reality is that Al Balagha is the Quran’s Achilles heel; no two Muslims agree on the meaning of any verse. Referring to interpretation books is no help either because they give multiple possibilities for the meaning of any verse, which only proves that the verse has no precise meaning. Muslims are still in confusion, after fourteen hundreds years, because of the Quran’s remarkable lack of clarity.

Let us read the following two examples of the Quran’s failure in Al Balagha:

Example 1

Verse 4: 3 is an example of how the Quran fails miserably to deliver the message. Read this: ‘4: 3. And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, then marry women of your choice, two or three, or four…’ the verse starts talking about the sin of being unjust to the orphans. Having read that, one would expect to read about some kind of penalty or at least a warning to deter Muslims from committing that sin, but the Quran’s solution is to ask men marry up to four women!

Why polygamy has become an answer to the sin of being unjust to the orphans! What is the relation between this and that? Seeking the help of the interpretation books (tafseer) highlights the state of confusion of the Muslim scholars as reflected by their hard struggle to provide satisfactory theories that explain the bizarre association between polygamy and being unjust to the orphans.

The typical answer we hear from the Muslim scholars, when confronted with such confusing verses, goes like this: “the verse is very clear and not confusing at all, but you have problem in understanding it because of your poor standard in Arabic…” To those scholars I say: it is not only me, please go and read the interpretation books to see how many different interpretations they came up with. Al-Tabari alone mentioned four different possibilities for the meaning of the above verse, which only means that various scholars understood it differently.

There is another interesting error in the above verse. Although the deceptive translation says ‘marry women of your choice, two OR three OR four..’ but the correct translation is two AND three AND four…

Fortunately, the general understanding of the verse in the Islamic societies is that Muslim men are allowed to marry up to four women and it is illegal to exceed that number. It may sound like a joke but I did hear it from a Muslim cleric, who disagreed with the above legislation and believed that the Islamic governments are under the influence of stupid advisers. According to him the verse clearly says that men should marry up to nine women, which is the total of two plus three plus four. He supported his argument with the fact that this was the number of Mohammed’s wives. Also according to this genius Islamic cleric, the verse considers polygamy as the normal practice and not the exception! According to the verse, Muslim men are allowed one wife only if they cannot treat multiple wives equally!

Well, who can argue otherwise? Isn’t this what the verse clearly says? Was it too hard for Allah to ‘reveal’ OR instead of AND?

Example 2

Let us read the following from verse 35:8

Is he, to whom the evil of his deeds made fairseeming, so that he considers it as good? Therefore, Allâh sends astray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So destroy not yourself in sorrow for them…. [Q 35:8]

The above verse is either very stupid or has something missing! In its Arabic version, the first part looks like Allah is comparing the person whose evil deeds are made nice looking to him with…one would expect a comparison with a genuinely good person. But by the time Allah reached this part, He has forgotten completely about the comparison issue and moved on to talk about something else.

The above verse is only an example; the Quran contains many other verses with similar errors. I find it hard to believe that Mohammed or whoever authored the Quran, would say such nonsense and get away with it because the Arabs would have stopped him and corrected him immediately. This is not an issue of language fluency, but such verses look like incomplete sentences joined together. The missing parts were probably dropped decades after Mohammed’s death, or even after collecting the Quran.

Today’s Muslims subscribe to the myth that the Quran is preserved. Hinting at the possibility of missing words or letters signals the total collapse of Islam. Therefore, Muslims would rather blame their intelligence or do anything to maintain that false picture of a preserved Quran. Hence their golden rule: if we cannot understand it then it must be a miracle.

22 thoughts on “Outrageous Language Errors in the Quran


      SHIA PEN:
      Ch 8: Examples of Sunni morality

      As we stated in the previous chapter, Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have made a big mistake by attempting to argue that Shi’ite hadeeth literature legitimises immorality. All that we have discussed leaves no doubt that Mut’ah is in no way immoral, and that it was sanctioned by Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s). Conversely, the Sunni hadeeth literature abounds with some of the most lurid and disgusting tales. The Sunni fiqh is, at times, even worse. Some notable examples of the public immorality of some companions and Sunni ‘ulama are given below, as well as some of the blasphemous stories attributed to the Holy Prophet (s) himself. For the sake of taste, we would normally not bring such issues up; but Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have uttered words of utter blasphemy against Allah, His Prophet, and His Religion, as well as forging numerous hadeeths against them. Since Dr. Salamah has decided to make a moral argument, than we will see how “moral” the Sunni belief system, hadeeth literature, and law is:

      (1) First example of Sunni morality
      Shamsuddin Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya who is one of the only scholars that the Wahabis do not reject and who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya. Let us quote what he writes in his Bada’i al-Fuwa’id, page 129:
      “Ibn ‘Aqeel, and many of our scholars, and our Shaykh [Ibn Taymiyya] have ruled that masturbation is makruh (disliked), and never explicitly said he that it was haram”.
      Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 129
      He then presents his own discussion on the conditions that make masturbation halaal:
      “If a man is torn between continued desire or releasing it, and if this man does not have a wife or he has a slave-girl but he does not marry, then if a man is overwhelmed by desire, and he fears that he will suffer because of this (someone like a prisoner, or a traveller, or a pauper), then it is permissible for him to masturbate, and Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) is explicit on this. Furthermore, it is narrated that the Companions of the Prophet (s) used to masturbate while they were on military expeditions or travelling”.
      The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene:
      an army of pious companions, their pants nice and short, their beards stretching down to their wastes, their swords held high with one hand while they heartily masturbate with the other. If this was the type of scene going on, we might be able to understand why so many companions refused to go on jihad. Would Dr. Salamah march off to battle with only an army of masturbators to protect him? Or was this tactic of masturbatory jihad supposed to be some sort of an offensive stratagem, to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy? Indeed, these companions were masters at the art of war!
      We appeal for justice: who is promoting debauchery, the Sunnis or the Shi’a? There are a lot of Ahkam surrounding travelling mentioned by the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as): the obligation to pray two rakaat for zuhr instead of four, or the obligation to break one’s fast. This Sunni ‘alim, who is one of the singularly most distinguished Sunni’ ulama and is adored by the Wahabis, has offered another hukm for travelling the permissibility of masturbating. And yet when a Shi’a says that a man is allowed to contract temporary marriage in order to satisfy his desires, Dr. Salamah passes a hukm of takfir. One is allowed to masturbate but not contract a temporary marriage? Is this not the peak of insanity?

      (2) Second example of Sunni morality:
      After this ingenious fatwa, Ibn Qayyim then goes on to make permissible the use of a dildoe by women. It is only logical; when the husbands leave to go masturbate and spread Islam by the sword, they need something to do with themselves. On the same page as quoted above, Ibn Qayyim writes:
      “If a woman does not have a husband, and her lust becomes strong, then some of our scholars say: It is permissible for the woman to take an akranbij, which is a piece of leather worked until it becomes shaped like a penis, and insert it in herself. She may also use a cucumber”.
      Now, according to Dr. Salamah’s logic, the Saudi government should therefore purchase a large number of such dildoes, and distribute them to old widows or otherwise unattractive women who cannot marry. Since anything that is permissible, according to Dr. Salamah, requires stand sanction and support, than clearly a dildoe distribution office needs to be immediately established in the great Islamic state of Saudi Arabia.
      Maybe this is another reason why ‘Umar the Khalifa never went on jihad: somebody had to stay behind and organize the cucumber distribution.

      (3) Third example of Sunni morality –
      That was not a typographical error. Ibn Qayyim continues this discussion, which exemplifies the morals espoused by Sunni Islam:
      “If a man makes a hole in a watermelon, or a piece of dough, or a leather skin, or a statue, and has sex with it, then this is the same as what we have said about other types of masturbation [i.e., that it is halaal in the same circumstances given before, such as being on a journey]. In fact, it is easier than masturbating with one’s hand”.
      All the Muslims should certainly be grateful that Ibn Qayyim has offered this advice on the easiest way to masturbate, and clearly Ibn Qayyim has done a lot of personal research on this issue. This is the ruling of the “saved sect”: Contracting temporary marriage with a woman is haram, but contracting temporary marriage with a watermelon is halaal. In his defence, perhaps Ibn Qayyim only meant that it is allowed to marry a watermelon with the intent of divorcing it, for doing Mut’ah with a watermelon would clearly be an act of fornication.
      Let us remember the words of Dr. Salamah quoted at the beginning of this book:
      Mut’ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford. The women who engage in Mut’ah are hired women; thus, it can be performed with all women irrespective of their age, character, conduct or religion. It requires no witnesses, nor is there any obligation on the man’s part to provide food and shelter to the woman.
      • Well, it seems that in the Nasibi logic having sex with as many women as one can afford is utterly immoral, but having sex with as many watermelons as one can afford is not. Based on this, let us ask him some questions about the Ahkam related to having sex with watermelons: Are there any conditions as to the age of the watermelon? For example, is it allowed to perform a marriage with the intent to divorce with a newly grown watermelon, or must one wait until the watermelon is nine years old?
      • Must it be a pious watermelon, or is it permissible to contract a marriage with the intent to divorce with a watermelon that is known to “get around”?
      • May a pious brother share his watermelon with another pious brother, or would the second man’s marriage with the intent to divorce constitute an act of fornication unless the watermelon observes proper ‘iddah?
      • Are witnesses required in the marriage with the intent to divorce of a watermelon? May other watermelons serve as witnesses in that marriage, since according to Sunni fiqh all marriages require witnesses? Applying the Sunni principle of Qiyas (analogy), we can strongly argue that if it is allowed to marry (with intention of divorce) a watermelon, than certainly it is allowed for a watermelon to bear witness to another watermelon’s blessed and chaste marriage.
      • What about oranges?
      Really, we have to ask all reasonable Muslims: would you rather follow ‘ulama that rule on the permissibility of having sex with fruits and vegetables, or follow the pious path of the Holy Imams (as), of whom Allah (swt) has said:
      We intend, O Family of the Prophet, to remove from you all impurity, and to give you a through purification.
      Al-Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 33
      Does somebody who spends his time thinking about whether or not it is permissible to have sex with watermelons really sound like somebody who has been removed of all impurity? Why is Ibn Qayyim even thinking about such things? What kind of personal life does such a person have that would lead him to debate such issues in his mind? What happened in Ibn Qayyim’s life that one day he woke up and said: “I really need to find out if its halaal to have sex with watermelons.” Is the type of clergymen who openly rules for the permissibility of having sex with watermelons (with conditions, of course, such as that one is on a journey) be the kind of person you would want to meet in a dark alley, much less do taqlid of?

      (4)Fourth example of Sunni morality –
      We read in Sahih Muslim Hadith Number 3426:
      Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.
      This reference is especially for Dr Salamah who has accused the Shi’a of being filthy proponents of Mut’ah, what right do you have to attack us when have the above Fatwa of Ayesha allowing your women to suckle men with beards so as to make them mahram? How many pubescent Salafi men has your mother suckled so that they can enter your house? When your madhab allows your mothers / daughters to breast feed men with beards what gives you the right to attack the practice of Mut’ah? If today any Nasibi tries to suggest that this practice no longer exists in their school and it was only Ayesha who had issued the fatwa then we shall present the thoughts of their Imam Ibn Tamiyah as quoted by one of the revered scholars of Salafies Ibn Uthaimeen:
      واختار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيميه رحمه الله التفصيل وقال إذا دعت الحاجة إلى إرضاع الكبير وأرضع ثبت التحريم
      “Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymia (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) chosed to explain in details and said that if the breast suckling by an adult was necessary and he suckled, then the prohibition (of marriage) is established.”
      Fatawa Nur Ala Aldarb, Volume 10 page 204
      Imam Ibn Hazm records:
      ورضاع الكبير محرم ولو انه شيخ يحرم كما يحرم رضاع الصغير
      “The breast suckling by an adult prohibits (marriage) even if he is an old man just like it prohibits (marriage) in the case of suckling by a child”
      Al-Muhala, Volume 10 page 17
      Now compare this morality to the comments of a contemporary Salafi scholar from “Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women” compiled by Muhammed al-Musnad and translated by Jamal Zarabozo. In Chapter 19, Questions of a Miscellaneous Nature under the sub heading Ruling Concerning Women Driving Automobiles’, Imam of the Salafi Nasibi Shaykh bin Baz stated:
      There have been numerous questions concerning the ruling of women driving automobiles. The response is the following:
      There is no doubt that such is not allowed. Women driving leads to many evils and negative consequences. Included among these is her mixing with men without her being on her guard. It also leads to the evil sins due to which such an action is forbidden. The Pure Law forbids those acts that lead to forbidden acts and considers those means to be forbidden also. Allah has ordered the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the women of the believers to remain in their houses, to wear hijab and not to display their adornments to non-mahram males as that leads to promiscuity that overruns a society.
      Now on the one side these moralistic Salafi have this kind of fatawa prohibiting their women from (Allah forbid) driving a car as this may cause promiscuity, and on the other hand they deem it permissible for their women to suckle men with beards! Women driving ‘leads to many evils and negative consequences’, but if the same women were to remain at home suckling men with beards, that’s fine!

      (5) Fifth example of Sunni morality –
      Sunni Imam Abu Bakar al-Kashani (d. 587 H) records in his authority work ‘Badaye al-Sanae’ Volume 2 page 216:
      ولو وطئ بهيمة لا يفسد حجه
      “If he had sexual intercourse with an animal that will not make his hajj void”
      (6) Sixth example of Sunni morality –
      In Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603:
      “It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.
      Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603
      Not to be hard done by, the Hanafi’s follow suit. In Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820, the learned Hanafi scholar Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan sets out those acts that do not invalidate one’s fast, and he includes:
      “Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not invalidate one’s fast provided ejaculation does not occur”
      Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820
      What can we say about such Fatwas of morality? Fasting in Islam, is viewed as a means via which a believer purifies himself, via self-discipline, he dedicates that time to the remembrance of Allah (swt) and keeps aloof from sinful thoughts and acts. That is the theory, but the Hanbali and Hanafi madhab allows a man (whilst fasting) to have sex with kaffir women, animals, and dead people, the only proviso being that no ejaculation takes place! Ibn Hanbal was however more considerate to his adherents allowing for a man to ejaculate whilst fasting, providing the deed is achieved via masturbation, and to this end he can do it himself, or seek the help of his wife or a small child! Is this is not evidence that Ibn Hanbal was endorsing paedophilia? Would any decent man (Muslim or Non Muslim) find it appropriate to use a child for sexual stimulation? If we put together these type of fatwas one shudders to think of the image of these great Salaf, entering the war whilst fasting, their buttocks exposed, having sex with melons at the ready. This image would have terrified the opposition!

      (7) Seventh Example of Sunni morality –
      According to the great Salafi Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely permissible to pray behind a drunkard. We read in the his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, p. 271
      The Companions would pray behind people whom they knew to be open transgressors, such as when Abd ‘Allah ibn Mas’ud and other Companions would pray behind Walid ibn ‘Uqba ibn Abi Mu’it, who may have recently drunken alcohol (when he was praying) and would wind up praying four rakaats.
      The salat is the pillar of the religion, and yet here we see it being stated that it is permissible to pray behind someone who is drunk at the time, and who is so intoxicated that he prays four rakaats for the morning prayer. Yet let us remember that, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely impermissible to pray behind a Shi’a!

      (8) Eighth Example of Sunni morality –
      We read in Dur al-Mukhthar, Volume 2, Page 474 (a compilation of the great Fatwas of Imam Abu Hanifa) as follows:
      We read in Fathul Qadeer that if a man informs a woman that he is paying her for sex then he cannot be subject to any manner of Islamic penalty.
      Dur al-Mukhtar, Volume 2, page 474
      It is indeed sad to say that the Hanafi madhab whilst catering for a man’s sexual appetite is very prejudicial to monkeys. In Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188 we read the very sad plight of this immoral, promiscuous monkey:
      Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:
      During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
      If this Hanafi had paid this she monkey for sex he would have been absolved of any Islamic penalty, whilst this poor she monkey who releases her animal instincts is stoned to death!

      (9) Ninth example of Sunni Morality Fatwa of Abu Hanifa on –
      Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan writes in his book of fatwa, Volume 4, p. 820:
      Of things which are haram but for which there is no Islamic penalty, these include… marrying your wife’s sister, or her mother, or a woman who is already married.
      Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, page 820
      On the very next page Qadhi Khan records a classic Fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa
      “if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty”.
      Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, Ppage 821
      We read in another authority Hanafi work, Fatwa Alamgiri:
      “If someone marries five women at a time or marries a fifth woman while already having four wives or marries his sister in law or mother in law and then performs intercourse with her and then says that I knew that it is haram for me or performs nikah al mutah with a woman then there will be no plenty of adultery on him in all of these situations though he confessed that he knew it was haram on him”
      Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 3 page 264
      Let us understand this then: in accordance with the fatwa of ‘Umar, the Sunni position is that anybody who contract Mut’ah should be executed. However, if somebody marries his mother, not just commits incest, but actually pronounces a formal marriage, there is no penalty for that person.
      This should demonstrate the degree to which Sunni Islam is nothing but an artificial construction, designed solely to be a bulwark against the mission of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). When a sincere reader sees that these individuals have ruled that there is no Islamic penalty for marrying one’s mother, but that there is for doing Mut’ah, does not reason dictate that such fatwas about Mut’ah are motivated only by bigotry and hatred of the Shi’a? When a Sunni rules that it is permissible to pray behind a drunk person who is so intoxicated he can’t even keep track of the number of rakaats he has prayed, but then says that it is not permissible to pray behind a sober Shi’a, what should one think? Does this seem like the religion of the Prophet (s), or the religion of a group of hate-filled scholars?

      (10) Tenth example of Sunni morality –
      As we are intending on highlighting the morals presented by a favourite of the Salafi and Nasibi we have chosen to rely on the following authentic Sunni sources:
      1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 293
      2. Al Akhbar at Tawaal, page 177 Dhikr Sifeen
      3. Al Manaqib al Khwarizmi page 162 Dhikr Sifeen
      4. Al Fusul al Muhimma, page 91 Dhikr Sifeen
      5. Tadhkira al Khawwas al Ummah, page 51 Dhikr Sifeen
      6. Mutalib al Saul, page 122 Dhikr Sifeen
      7. Nur al Absar, page 94 Dhikr Sifeen
      8. Aqd al Fareed, page 235 Dhikr Sifeen
      9. Al Imam wa al Siyasa, page 99 Dhikr Sifeen
      We read in al Bidaya:
      “One day ‘Ali attacked Amr ibn Aas, he threw a spear and Amr fell to the ground, Amr fell to the ground and he then exposed his buttocks. ‘Ali then turned away his face [people said] this was Amr bin Aas. ‘Ali replied he showed me his anus and this made me merciful to him. When Amr ibn Aas returned, Mu’awiya said ‘You should praise Allah and your anus”.
      Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 293
      Allamah Abu Hanifa Ahmed bin Dawud Dinori in ‘Akhbar al Tawaal’ has reported the flashing incident in the same manner, with the words of Mu’awiya to his beloved Commander as follows:
      “You should shower praises on Allah (swt) and that black anus that saved your life today”
      Islam has a code of ethics for all scenarios, including behaviour during Jihad, we are yet to find any code wherein Rasulullah (s) authorised the Sahaba to expose their buttocks as a means of sickening the opposition! In Karachi a Nasibi scholar said to his blind followers ‘Had Mu’awiya not entered on the plains of Sifeen the entire continent of Europe would have been conquered’. We agree with this conclusion but it would have been achieved through the battle tactics of Amr ibn Aas, since not even the greatest military tactitioner would not have accounted for this ‘shock and awe’ tactic! Our appeal to our Rafidi brethren is to control the illiterates in our community from throwing mud at Amr ibn Aas for this immoral act: after all had Amr not survived that day, who would have been enlightened enough to place the Qur’an on spears? Who would have dishonestly made Mu’awiya the khalifa during the negotiations? The Salafi are no doubt ever indebted to Amr bin Aas, for all future events such the rise to power of their fifth Khalifa Mu’awiya as Khalifa was all through the Sadaqa of the anus of Amr ibn Aas.

  1. None of the above are YOUR claim per se. They are commonly found on the internet. And you are NOT able to deal with them.

    You have copied someone elses article – which has been well answered. As someone who is scholar of Arabic – I can answer. Then thing is YOU cannot deal with the answer.

    Hence – what is the point of reply to you?

    But I will answer some things . .

    – – –

    “It is generally accepted that Sibawayh (760-793) who was the first to compile the rules of the Arabic grammar in a book, and that was long after Mohammed’s death.”

    This is actually completely wrong there were many books before Sibawayh – For example Al Jumal Fi Nahw. Sibwayah himself learned from his teachers – and they used books.

    – – –

    “If we forgive the Quran for the mistake in verse 5:69, then verse 22:17 must be wrong and vice versa! No matter what Muslim scholars say, one of the verses must be wrong, and that is accding to the Quran!”

    See what the author says:

    “No matter what Muslim scholars say, one of the verses must be wrong”

    In other words . . . he is NOT prepared to accept answers – which HE knows exist.

    See what he says earlier:

    “There are dozens of grammatical errors in the Quran, but it is not easy to discuss an Arabic language issue in an English language article. Fortunately, I came across two examples that should be simple enough to explain to the readers, with no knowledge of Arabic, the kind of grammar blunders that exist in the Quran.”

    Actually – he does NOT give any grammar errors!

    He simply puts two similar looking verses – as they do NOT match – he call it an error. Else – which grammar rule is being abused?

    Let’s see:

    إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والصابئون والنصارى من آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وعمل صالحا فلا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون

    [Quran 5:69]

    Read WHAT he says:

    “As one would expect, Muslim scholars would justify the abve error by any means, as they always do. For the sake of this argument we would accept whatever explanation the Muslims may put to us. But even this concession doesn’t help the Quran but puts it in another trouble, because the same word is repeated in verse (227) with the same sequence of words and the same grammatical position as in verse (5: 69), but this time it is written correctly Sabyeen”

    He knows full well – there are answers – he does NOT bother to give – rather:

    “As one would expect, Muslim scholars would justify the abve error by any means, as they always do.”

    Look at this absurd attack! It is logically fallacious – he is deceiving openly . . . closing mind of the reader!

    He points to this verse next:

    إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والصابئين والنصارى والمجوس والذين أشركوا إن الله يفصل بينهم يوم القيامة إن الله على كل شيء شهيد

    As this is about same – just by pattern match – he calls it an error!

    There IS no error here – simply stylistic choice. Else what difference does this “grammar” error, which he refers to being “gross”, make?


    Hence aware of this he refers to this:

    The Caliph’s response was: “These are minor errors that do not make a halal to become haram, or a haram to become halal, and surely the Arabs will make the necessary corrections with their tongues.”


    As pointed out . . . there is no grammar error – else he would have explained it KNOWING fully well – it is PEOPLE that have Arabic knowledge WILL read this . . . But he didn’t.

    English doesn’t have marked notation of grammar. Hence it is difficult to convey – but this person completely sides step this – and only uses pattern to claim error.

    The change of vowels – In Arabic – simply show position and function of words – either way the above is written – there is not ONE iota difference to the meanings. So what grammar error?

    The nearest in English I can explain is this:

    “I smacked the hat”.

    “The hat, I smacked”

    Both sentences convey the same thing. It is easy to deduce that is both – “the cat” is the object, smack is the verb, ‘I’ the subject. It your choice – whcih ever way you wrote it.

    The difference in Arabic? Rather than placement – Arabic uses diacritic marks.

    – – –

    “The above two verses are of particular historical importance. After the completion of the project of writing the Quran in a book during the rule of Caliph Uthman, some Muslims pointed out the error to Aysha, Mohammed’s widow. Aysha said: “it is a mistake from the scribes”. Even Uthman was asked about some of the errors, including the above. The Caliph’s response was: “These are minor errors that do not make a halal to become haram, or a haram to become halal, and surely the Arabs will make the necessary corrections with their tongues.””

    Again the original author is lying outright – These two “hadith” do NOT relate to the above example.

    – – –

    “This is a common excuse even in today; publishers and writers frequently blame typing errors to save faces. ”

    Where? Another easy lie!

    – – –

    • YO aminthemystic,




      Pakistan has banned content on more than a dozen websites because of “offensive” and “blasphemous” material, while they themselves rank No. 1 for certain sex-related search terms, including “child sex,” “rape sex,” “animal sex,” “camel sex,” “donkey sex,” “dog sex,” and “horse sex”.[1]



      In a society where homosexuals and adulterers are stoned to death for “sexual immorality” you would expect a similar outcome for someone caught having sex with an animal. Surprisingly this is not the case.
      An Afghan soldier was detained by police after being caught having sex with a donkey in southeastern Afghanistan, a police officer told AFP.
      The soldier was discovered with the donkey in an abandoned house in a small village of Gardez, the capital of Paktia province, last week, a local police officer said.
      “He was caught in the act by a small boy who immediately told police about what he had seen and police arrested him in action,” the Gardez-based officer told AFP, requesting anonymity.
      The soldier claimed he committed the act because he did not have enough money to get married.

      After being caught with the donkey in a village about 100km south of the capital Kabul, he was jailed for four days and then released without charge.
      According to tradition in south and southeastern Afghanistan, a suitor must pay around $US5,000 ($A6,800) to the parents of the girl he wishes to marry.
      Soldier caught with his pants down
      The Age, March 16, 2004
      Could it be that the soldier was released without charge because there is nothing in the Qur’an that prohibits bestiality?


      In 1923, the Director of Health in the British Mandate government in Palestine sent out a questionnaire to his Principal Medical and Health Officers in the country, asking them to report on various sexual practices and attitudes among the Muslim Arab population.
      As a result, the British discovered that the Muslim Arabs engaged in bestiality.
      The Nablus officer finds sodomy and “similar vices” “not uncommon in some of the towns but less so in the villages where…bestiality is by no mean unknown” and “immorality…rather lightly regarded” in those villages that are closer to the larger towns. He comments, “in the villages there seems to be curiously little feeling against bestiality which I have heard admitted in a very airy way on more than one occasion. Sodomy is considered disgraceful but not I think more so than ordinary immorality” (III).

      “Unnatural Vices” or Unnatural Rule? The Case of a Sex Questionnaire and the British Mandate
      Ellen L. Fleischmann, Jerusalem Quarterly File, Issue 10, 2000


      In Southern Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh and Balochistan, sex with animals is a common practice among rural youths and considered a rite of passage into adulthood.
      In southern Punjab, much of NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan sodomy and bestiality are common among rural youths. In fact, he caught two boys trying to rape a goat in the vicinity of the mazar of Hazrat Sultan Bahu. The punishment meted out to them was 10 blows with a chhittar (shoe) each on their butts. They protested however that in many rural areas having sex with an animal was considered a rite of passage on the way to becoming full members of the male society!

      Desegregation of the sexes and promiscuity
      Ishtiaq Ahmed (associate professor of political science at Stockholm University), Daily Times, June 27, 2006


      In June 2011, a male who was caught having sex with another man’s donkey was fined Rs 50,000. This fine was not imposed for having sex with an animal, but for committing adultery. The raped donkey was labelled a ‘kari’ (an adultress) and eventually honor killed by its owner.

      Incredible though it may sound, a donkey was declared ‘Kari’ and shot dead here in a remote area on Monday. The Jirga imposed 110,000 rupees fine on the alleged ‘Karo’.
      The reports said that in Village Ghahi Khan Jatoi, a villager Ghazi Khan alias Malang shot dead his donkey on being ‘Kari’ with Sikandar Ali alias Deedo. He attempted to kill Sikander too but the alleged Karo managed to escape and surrendered himself to an influential person of the area.
      Sources said the influential person summoned both the parties and imposed 110,000 rupees fine on the Karo. They said Sikander and his family were forced to pay Rs 50,000 on the spot and the remaining amount in two installments.
      The sources added that the alleged Karo pleaded innocence at the Jirga, but the Jirga members paid no attention to it. Sikander’s family said he paid Rs 50,000 to save his life otherwise he would have been killed.
      Donkey declared ‘Kari’ killed

      The News International, July 19, 2011
      Pakistan ranks number 1 for such varied search terms as “child sex,” “rape sex,” “animal sex,” “camel sex,” “donkey sex,” “dog sex,” and “horse sex”.

      The Muslim country, which has banned content on at least 17 websites to block offensive and blasphemous material, is the world’s leader in online searches for pornographic material
      . . .
      Google ranks Pakistan No. 1 in the world in searches for pornographic terms, outranking every other country in the world in searches per person for certain sex-related content.
      Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for “horse sex” since 2004, “donkey sex” since 2007, “rape pictures” between 2004 and 2009, “rape sex” since 2004, “child sex” between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, “animal sex” since 2004 and “dog sex” since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.
      The country also is tops — or has been No. 1 — in searches for “sex,” “camel sex,” “rape video,” “child sex video” and some other searches that can’t be printed here.
      No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches? Call it Pornistan
      Kelli Morgan, Fox News, July 13, 2010


      Pakistani Muslims are not alone in their search for porn.
      Google, the world’s most popular Internet search engine, has found in a survey that mostly Muslim states seek access to sex-related websites and Pakistan tops the list. Google found that of the top 10 countries – searching for sex-related sites – six were Muslim, with Pakistan on the top. The other Muslim countries are Egypt at number 2, Iran at 4, Morocco at 5, Saudi Arabia at 7 and Turkey at 8. Non-Muslim states are Vietnam at 3, India at 6, Philippines at 9 and Poland at 10.


      Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, May 17, 2006
      Here are the Muslim countries and how they placed in the top five world ranking of various bestiality-related internet search terms:[8]
      Pig Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
      Donkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
      Dog Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
      Cat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Egypt (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
      Horse Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Turkey (No. 3)
      Cow Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
      Goat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1)
      Animal Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Morocco (No. 2) Iran (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
      Snake Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Malaysia (No. 3) Indonesia (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
      Monkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Indonesia (No. 3) Malaysia (No. 4)
      Bear Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 2)
      Elephant Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 3) United Arab Emirates (No. 4) Malaysia (No. 5)
      Fox Sex: Saudi Arabia (No. 1) Turkey (No. 4)


      Bestiality is common among boys of tribal Arab cultures.
      Miner and DeVos (1960) comment that amongst Arab tribal cultures, “Bestiality with goats, sheep, or camels provides another outlet. These practices are not approved but they are recognized as common among boys.” Havelock-Ellis [note 52] states “The Arabs, according to Kocher, chiefly practice bestiality with goats, sheep and mares. The Annamites, according to Mondiere, commonly employ sows and (more especially the young women) dogs.”
      Historical And Cultural Perspectives On Zoophilia
      Serving History
      There is also a certain saying which remains popular among the Arabs:
      The Arabs have never taken quite so condemnatory an attitude towards the practice, and indeed a popular Arab saying had it that

      “The pilgrimage to Mecca is not complete without copulating with the camel.”


      In February 2006, a man caught having sex with a neighbor’s goat was not punished, but ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbor a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal because he “used it as his wife”.
      A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his “wife”, after he was caught having sex with the animal.
      The goat’s owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.
      They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.
      “We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together,” Mr Alifi said.
      Sudan man forced to ‘marry’ goat
      BBC News, February 24,2006


      Morocco is an Islamic country, with 98.7% of the population Muslims. The following is taken from a paper on sexuality in Morocco written by Nadia Kadiri, M.D., and Abderrazak Moussaïd, M.D., with Abdelkrim Tirraf, M.D., and Abdallah Jadid, M.D. Translated by Raymond J. Noonan, Ph.D., and Sandra Almeida.
      In the rural world, zoophilia is still very widespread and not blameworthy. With masturbation, it constitutes an obligatory passage in the adolescent male’s apprenticeship of sexuality.
      The operative phrase is ‘obligatory passage in the adolescent male’s apprenticeship of sexuality’. Obligatory. It means in rural Morocco, Muslim males must have sexual intercourse with animals as part of their sexual apprenticeship.
      Also according to the scholars Allen Edwardes and Robert Masters, Ph.D, FAACS, the Muslims of Morocco believe that sexual intercourse with donkeys “make the penis grow big and strong” and masturbation is often scorned by them in favor of bestiality.


      The above paper also says “it is prohibited without question by the Shariâ”. But is this alleged prohibition within the Shari’ah extracted (as it must be) from the Qur’an and Hadith, or has this fiqh been derived using external non-Islamic sources?


      In contrast with what secular and non-Islamic religious sources say about bestiality, this is what the Qur’an has to say on the subject:
      That’s right – absolutely, positively nothing. Unlike the Qur’an’s clear-cut rulings on the morality of homosexuality, Polygamy, rape, and pedophilia, the permissibility of bestiality seems to have been left open to ‘interpretation.’
      If Islamic teachings were truly opposed to such a practice, then this omission is somewhat surprising when you consider that, historically, bestiality was indigenously accepted in the Middle-East.


      There is no prohibition against bestiality to be found within the two Sahihs. The following hadith is taken from the Sunnah Abu-Dawud collection, not Bukari or Muslim.
      Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.
      Abu Dawud 38:4449
      Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? And it is. Just look at the very next hadith.
      Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.
      Abu Dawud 38:4450
      This is a very clear contradiction. How can one hadith say kill the person committing bestiality, and the very next one say there is no prescribed punishment for the same person? Both statements cannot be true.

      What’s worse; these two contradictory hadiths (transmitted through different isnad) have been attributed to the same person. Abu Dawud himself had said the former of the two hadith is “not strong” and the latter further “weakens” it.

      From the above, we can gather that Robert Masters had correctly stated, “bestiality was not specifically prohibited by the Prophet,” so there is little wonder that Islamists generally shy away from mentioning Abu Dawud 38:4449 in their pronouncements on bestiality.

  2. Hi, Allah has better knowledge than ours. This faculty we possess, the mind, I can see my Dadima who died in 1969 and I can see a vague image of you struggling feebly to prove the Quran wrong? Why? Muslims believe in it as it is! Read Sura 109 Kul yaaayuhal Kaafirun……..Allah answers the likes of you!

    • Plum,

      How you see doesn’t matter here, the thing which matters the most is to prove the above allegation wrong.. If you have any better refutation than the below posted video, do share it with me.

      Regarding Allah’s knowledge I would say, that he didn’t even knew what’s the shape of earth, then how can he have better knowledge than ours. Even you have far much better knowledge than that of Allah. Don’t forget to read this article:-http://mostintolerantreligion.com/2012/04/06/is-earth-egg-shaped-as-per-quran/

      • Dear bro, a teacher gives us initial knowledge then later after graduation ought we to become haughty and be filled with pride to undermine that great teacher?

          • Hi Bro, the word “dahaahaa” in verse 79 : 30 Allah says made it egg shaped to make our Human brains understand roughly about the shape. That cannot be refuted by the Polytemics because it is different from the word “spread” in verse 84 : 3, where Allah says about how He will bring the end of the World. So, that means in the beginning (79:30) He created the Earth oval, oblate , egg shaped or whatever but when the End comes He will spread it out flat(84: 3)!

          • Plum,

            I guess you did not bothered even to go once through this article, all the Arabic-English dictionary states that the word ‘Dahaha’ means a flat, spread out surface, or the place where Ostrich lays egg, and not what Zakir Bhai tells, that ‘Dahaha’ means ostrich egg. Here are the following evidences.

            If this is not sufficient then check out the lexicon dictionary which states:-

            Daha (., MM_b;,, 1,) first pers. Dahouth aor, yad’hoo inf. N. dahoo He spread; spread out, or forth; expanded; or extended; (S, Msb, K; ) a thing; (K; ) and, when said of God, the earth; (Fr, S, Mb, 1V; ) As also daha first pers. dahaithu (K in art. daha) aor. yaad’heae inf. n. dahae: (Msb, and K in art. dahae : ) or He (God) made the earth wide, or ample; as explained by an Arab woman of the desert to Sh: (TA : ) also, said of an ostrich, (S, TA,) he expanded, and made wide, (TA,) with his foot, or leg, the place where he was about to deposit his eggs: (S, TA : ) and, said of a man, he spread, &c., and made plain, even, or smooth. (TA in art. dhaha) [Source]

            Aren’t these clear proof that Allah says earth is flat??


          • Plum,

            You claimed that the word for ‘flat’ is muddat and not ‘dahaha’. For the sake of argument I agree with your claim, still what does ‘Dahaha’ mean as per Lexicon Arabic dictionaries. It still means ‘a spread out surface, where Ostriches lays egg’. Would you not accept this meaning, which is from your own Lexicon dictionary?


          • Hi, again a mis-conception: for your kind information the word “spread” does not mean “flat”. After Allah created the heavens He spread the Earth. Ref 11: 7 and 15 :16-19. It means He set it among other heavenly bodies. Where is the word in Quran that in creation He “laid it like a carpet or made it flat”??


          Since many Creationists, Fundamentalists, and I suppose Jews and Christians in general believe that they believe what the author of this 2,500 year old text believed (and by extension what the god of his text also believed!), I’ve decided to list his beliefs (and “God’s”) clearly and orderly. This follows from the textual analyses of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that were previously posted: Gen 1:1-2; Gen 1:3-5; Gen 1:6-8; Gen 1:9-10; Gen 1:14-19; Gen 1:24-27; and Gen 2:2-3. Consult them for specifics.

          As has been repeatedly voiced, our aim here is to reproduce as objectively and faithfully as possible the beliefs of the author of Genesis 1:1-2:3—not ours—as evidenced by an understanding and reading of the text on its own terms and as a product of its own historical and literary world. The author that penned the creation account now found at Genesis 1:1-2:3 had a very unique worldview and set of beliefs that, in large part, were shaped by, and shared throughout, the larger ancient Near Eastern world within which he lived. And these beliefs themselves were most likely formed as the result of what ancient peoples saw and perceived about their world and the conclusions they naturally drew from these limited empirical observations.

          Genesis 1 is an account of the origins of the world as its author perceived it. That is to say, his perception and beliefs about the world and its origins were projected onto the god of his text and in turn this god then created the world that he himself, our author, perceived and experienced. These then are his beliefs:
          1. That God created the earth (dry habitable land, never the planet) and the skies out of preexistent undefined and inhabitable earth that was immersed in a deep, dark watery abyss.
          2. That creation was an act of separating this primordial matter (earth and water) out, subduing it, and forming it into an habitable, life-bearing world.
          3. That the source of day’s light is an inherent and essential property of day itself; its source is not the sun.
          4. That God created day, as light or daylight.
          5. That night is the original primordial darkness.
          6. That God subdued the primordial untamed waters by creating a domed barrier in their midst which separated the waters, now above and below this barrier.
          7. That the sky is this solid transparent domed barrier.
          8. That the sky’s function, as God created it, is to keep back the waters above.
          9. That the sky is blue because of the waters above it.
          10. That the sky, this domed barrier holding the waters above, touched the waters below at the horizons.
          11. That God subdued the waters below and caused them to gather together into seas.
          12. That earth, specifically dry habitable life-supporting land—not the planet—emerged from the depths of these now tamed seas.
          13. That the land or earth was flat.
          14. That the land or earth “floated” upon or was supported by the waters below.
          15. That the earth brought forth all plants and vegetation, each by its own kind.
          16. That God created and placed the sun, moon, and all the stars together in the domed barrier that he had made earlier, above which were the waters above.
          17. That these luminaries were created to regulate and to distinguish between the day and the night, not to create day (daylight) and night.
          18. That these luminaries moved through this domed barrier.
          19. That the moon produces its own light.
          20. That the luminaries’ purpose, in part, was to indicate when the months began, and on what days Yahweh’s festivals (Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, Horn-Blast Holy Day, Day of Atonement, and Booths) fell and were to be observed.
          21. That the observance of these festivals or holy days were eternal laws punishable by death or excommunication.
          22. That the luminaries, particularly the moon, were created to serve as a calendar system, each new moon beginning a new month.
          23. That God created the living beings of the waters below, each by their kind.
          24. That God created the birds, each by their kind.
          25. That God created the animals of the earth, each by their kind.
          26. That in opposition to the animals, God created mankind, male and female, in his image.
          27. That there existed a plurality of divine beings or a divine counsel of some sort.
          28. That God created all of this in 6 days.
          29. That God created and consecrated the 7th day as holy.
          30. That God rested from his work on the 7th day and therefore man too must rest from his work on the 7th day, as reckoned from the new moon and then each 7th consecutive day afterward.
          31. That anyone caught doing work on the 7th day, that is not observing the Sabbath (our Saturday—but this is still inaccurate since we do not follow a lunar calendar), was to be stoned to death by commandment from God himself.
          32. That the Sabbath was an eternal covenant, to be observed forever, on penalty of death.

          These, then, are what the author of Genesis 1:1-2:3 believed—well actually just a small fraction of what he believed and perceived as “true,” as his experience of the world dictated.

          How many of these are seriously believed by our so-called modern day Creationists? 5? 10? 30%? How long are we as sentient beings going to put up with this dishonest and hypocritical practice? For by feigning belief in Genesis 1, they themselves are some of the most strident enemies of this ancient text and its author. I would expect more out of a species made in the image of God!
          by Dr. Steven DiMattei Copyrighted and posted on May 27, 2014

      • Raj dont discuss or dont put on internet wrong thing about islam if you do not have knowledge Quran is the only BOOK NO error this Book is from God not written by human

        all above allegation is wrong totally Wrong and your type of human never understand every till your death but we pray for you that god give you mercey and forgive you

      • Lucky bin SATAN bin Lucifer bin Damien the Devil, YOU are ONE hell of a mentally SICK dude! Muslims have to prove to NOTHING to the West …but watch them day in, day out, gradually overwhelming YOU ~the Western world, gradually putting their arms round YOU gay necks, squeezing with tight grip, squeezing harder and harder till blood pours forth so YOU too become the Saviour Jesus in whose blood YOU monkeys bask…making millions of dollars, cheating, LYING…deceiving the poor, poor, poor people who thirst for spiritual knowledge..cheating them, conning them of their hard earned penny, cheating them with YOUR fake preachings!!
        Yes, YOU fit to be another blood sacrifice so YOU wash away their SINS of child molestations, raping the worshippers wives, sodomising their daughters and boys and fighting for legalising the ass screwing…through YOUR stupid “human rights”.
        Ass fucked, stop insulting the Prophet and Islam…because nobody has told YOU to worship Allah, as YOU are one big fuck!
        Q 2:17-18 : “Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindleth fire, and when it sheddeth its light around him Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see. Deaf, dumb and blind; and they return not.”

        YOU ass-fucked, do YOU see what the Quran talks of YOU?

    • Mustahsin,

      This video instead of refuting my claims, confirms my claims, as Zakir Bhai, because in 2.04 Minute of the video he says, “All Arabic grammar is taken from the Quran,” which is obviously a blunder. Arabic grammar was in use in Pre-Islamic era, and is already answered in the article, as it says, “many Arabs believe that the Arabic grammar was based on the Quran, which is a misconception that they use to justify the Quran’s grave grammar mistakes” Further the article says, “It is generally accepted that Sibawayh (760-793) who was the first to compile the rules of the Arabic grammar in a book, and that was long after Mohammed’s death. Many other books, by other authors, followed later. The Arabic language scholars referred mainly to the pre Islamic poetry and literature, including the Quran, to derive the rules that were traditionally observed in Arabia. However, the Quran presented a dilemma to those scholars because, although it largely followed the grammar rules, but in many occasions it didn’t. The scholars faced a tough choice because the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s word and faultless, their only option was to make many exceptions for the Quran.”

      So you see, how easily the video of Zakir Bhai is refuted.

      What you say about this grammatical mistake? Try to refute it:-

      The word Sabians, which is the name of a religious group, comes in Arabic in two forms, Sabiyoon or Sabiyeen, depending on its place in the sentence, which is all governed by the Arabic grammar. In verse (5:69) it is written Sabiyoon, which is a gross grammatical mistake because it should be Sabyeen.

      “Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabiyoon and the Christians…” [Q 5:69]


      Inna allatheena amanoo wallatheenahadoo wassabi-oona wannasaraman amana billahi walyawmi al-akhiriwaAAamila salihan fala khawfun AAalayhim walahum yahzanoo

      As one would expect, Muslim scholars would justify the abve error by any means, as they always do. For the sake of this argument we would accept whatever explanation the Muslims may put to us. But even this concession doesn’t help the Quran but puts it in another trouble, because the same word is repeated in verse (227) with the same sequence of words and the same grammatical position as in verse (5: 69), but this time it is written correctly Sabyeen

      “Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jes, and the Sabiyeen, and the Christians…” [Q 22:17]


      Inna allatheena amanoo wallatheenahadoo wassabi-eena wannasarawalmajoosa wallatheena ashrakoo inna Allahayafsilu baynahum yawma alqiyamati inna AllahaAAala kulli shay-in shaheed

      If we forgive the Quran for the mistake in verse 5:69, then verse 22:17 must be wrong and vice versa! No matter what Muslim scholars say, one of the verses must be wrong, and that is accding to the Quran!



        Muslims state that Islam possesses a rich heritage far in advance of Christian civilization. They point to the peaceful era and the intellectual activity found in such dynasties as that of the Abbassids and the rule of Islam in Cordova.

        The development of Arab civilization is often remarked as being the result of vibrant intellectual activity in a culture which called for originality and imagination. The Arab civilization however, is not due to any special genius of her people but rather her civilization developed largely by copying and imitating the civilizations they subdued in their Empire.

        The Arabs in their initial conquests found themselves in the midst of cultivated nations who exerted an incontestable influence upon them. The earliest works in the Arab language were composed under the rule of the Abbassid Caliphs, not by the Arabs but by Syrians, Greeks and Persians converted to Islam. The growing influence of these conquered nations only made itself felt upon those Arabs who had left their country to settle in Syria, Persia or in Egypt. The bulk of the nation who stayed in Arabia were shut off from this influence and remained unchanged.

        To believe that the artistic, literary and scientific movement that coincided with the accession of the Abbassid Caliphs is to fall into error. The Arab contribution was hardly perceptible for it was the result of the activity of foreign nations, converted to Islam by force.

        When Caliph Al Mansur (745-755), fascinated by the brilliancy of Byzantine culture and advised by Syrian, Greek and Persian officials, who filled the various offices of the Empire, wished to spread the knowledge of science, he caused translations to be made into Arabic of the principal Greek authors; Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, Euclid, Archimedes and Ptolemy. There were Syriac versions of these authors already in existence, and the task of translating them into Arabic was therefore entrusted to Syrian scribes. It was through these translations that the Arabs made acquaintance with Greek works in the first instance. The Syrian scribes were too recently converted to Islam to be fully imbued with Muslim dogma and were therefore content to translate the Greek authors faithfully.

        The Arabs finding that certain passages wounded their religious feelings hastened to bring out new translations in harmony with Muslim conceptions. They suppressed everything in the Greek works that seemed contrary to the teachings of Islam; added the religious formulae with which they were familiar, and even caused the names of the original authors to disappear.

        These shapeless or distorted works passed into the Middle Ages as the original productions of Arab genius. There true character was not discovered until much later, when at the time of the Renaissance, the Greek scripts were exhumed from ancient libraries and there were scholars capable of translating them.


        During the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd (786 to 809), scientific, cultural and religious prosperity abounded along with art and music; the astronomer Masha’allah ibn Atharī (c.740–815 AD) wrote treatises on the astrolabe and the armillary sphere but these were reproductions of the Syriac works translations of the works of Ptolemy. Ptolemy’s Almagest may be regarded as a complete statement of the astronomical attainments of antiquity. It is from this work, known to them by Syriac versions that the Arabs authors quarried, and upon which they commented, under a hundred different forms, without adding anything to the original.


        Al-Kindi (801-873) had a great reputation in the Middle Ages and was known as the ‘Philosopher par excellence.’ He was not an Arab but an Islamized Syrian Jew. His works on geometry, arithmetic, astrology, meteorology, medicine and philosophy were translations or compilations from Aristotle and his commentators.

        The Arab Muslims did not devise their own system but adopted those of Greece, Persia and India. It was through chiefly works of the Alexandrian School that they were initiated into this branch of science. The Ptolemy’s had drawn to this great city numbers of learned men from all parts of the then civilized world, notably from Greece, Syria and Persia. And it was during the period of the third to the fifth centuries that Oriental philosophy developed, relying on the one hand on mysticism through the works of Plato and on the other hand on reason and logic through Aristotle.

        The most celebrated Arab philosopher, Averroes (Ibn Rushd), wrote commentaries upon Aristotle, with extracts, that made his reputation at a time when the works of the Greeks philosophers were unknown. The Averroes system has nothing original about it, it is merely a resume’ of doctrines common to earlier Arab philosophers and borrowed by them from writers of the Alexandrian School. He was the last in the line and as such was considered as the inventor of ideas which he only set out in a more complete form. Averroes knew no Greek, and knew the writings of Aristotle only through Arabic versions made from Syriac and Coptic translations.


        Likewise in the study of mathematics the Arabs added nothing new. For a long time they were credited with the invention of algebra, whereas they did no more than copy the works of the Greek mathematician Diophantus of Alexandria who lived in the third century. He sets out hundreds of arithmetic problems with their solutions and six survive in Greek with another four in medieval Arabic translations. The numerals commonly called Arabic and the system of notation which bears the same name, come from Hindustan and were developed by Indian mathematicians. The Indian numerals were adopted by the Persian mathematicians in India, and passed on to the Arabs further west. They were transmitted to Europe in the Middle Ages. The use of Arabic numerals spread around the world through European trade, books and colonization. The reason they are more commonly known as ‘Arabic numerals’ in Europe and the Americas is that they were introduced to Europe in the 10th century by Arabs of North Africa, who were then using the digits from Libya to Morocco. Europeans did not know about the numerals’ origins in ancient India, so they named them “Arabic numerals”.


        The same absence of invention is found in respect of medicine. From the third century AD, Greek physicians had found their way into Persia, where they founded the celebrated school of Gundeshapur, which soon became the rival of Alexandria. They taught especially the doctrines of Aristotle, Hipparchus and Hippocrates, which the Persians readily assimilated. Masawayh , one of their pupils of Persian origin became physician to Harun-al-Rashid and three other Caliphs. He composed in imitation of Hippocrates a considerable number of Arabic medical monographs, on topics including fevers, leprosy, melancholy, dietetics, eye diseases, and medical aphorisms. The works of Galen of Pergamon under the name of ‘Pandects of Medicine’ were compiled and translated into Syriac by Aaron, a Christian priest who lived in Alexandria. This Syriac version was translated into Arabic in 685, becoming a major source used by Arab physicians, most notably Serapion, Avicenna, Albucasis, and Averroes.

        The only Muslim who introduced anything new into medicine was Razi who was a Persian. He introduced the use of mild purgatives and chemical preparations into pharmacy. The philosopher, Maimondes, is sometimes wrongly considered an Arab doctor. He was a Jew who was born in Cordova in 1135. When the Almohads (Berber-Muslim dynasty) conquered Cordova in 1148 the life for the Jews changed considerably. Many were forced to convert or to wear humiliating, identifying clothing. Maimondes’s family, along with most other Jews, chose exile, though Muslim sources maintain the family did undergo forced conversion. For the next ten years they moved about in southern Spain, avoiding the conquering Almohades, but eventually settled in Morocco. During this time, he composed his acclaimed commentary on the Mishnah. His Aphorisms of Medicine were translated into Latin in 1409.


        In this area the Arab Muslims excelled. The Syrian and Persian writers supplied them with abundant materials from which they drew. Massoudi, traveled extensively throughout the Islamic world, from Malaysia and China to Madagascar and documented a wealth of information and observations in his works of historico-geographical encyclopedias; the principal work was Akhbar al-Zeman, Ibn Khaldoun (1332-1406) whose Annals contain the history of the Arabs up to the end of the fourteenth century, and that of the Berbers was one of the few Muslim writers who was not content with merely compiling from previous documents. He was born at Tunis, and was of Spanish origin. In the area of geography the Arabs have left some works of indisputable originality. Their conquests, the obligation upon them to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, and their commercial travels enabled them to make the acquaintance of regions unknown to the Greeks. Their highly developed faculty of observation led them to record valuable information. The greater part of their accounts are strictly accurate such as Ibn Battuta (1304-1368); Ibn Jubayr (1145-1217); Ibn Hauqal (943-969); Ibn Khurdadabeh (820-912); Abu al-Fida (1273-1331); Istakhri (d.957); Al-Bakri (1014-1094) and Al-Idrisi (12thcentury).


        Many of the ablest grammarians were Islamized foreigners for example Sibawiya and Al-Zamakhshari; the latter is renown for his great scholarship of the Quran and his mastery of the Arabic language ; both were Persians.


        In towns like Mecca and Medina, the architecture was of a primitive character, with mud walls and roofs of palm leaves. The famous temple of the Ka’aba was merely a modest enclosure of stone and sun-dried mud bricks. The first mosque that Muhammad built at Medina, was a very humble construction in sun-dried brick.
        The Arabs only became acquainted with architecture when they left their native country; in Syria and Persia they saw Byzantine and Persian monuments, in both cases inspired by Greek art. The Greeks were the great initiators of the East in architectural matters; it was they who constructed the greater number of the palaces of the kings of Persia, and it was from them, finally that the Arabs drew their inspiration. The dome, so widespread in Muslim countries, is of Persian origin; it was adopted by the Greeks, and then by the Byzantines. Syrian architects, combining Greek art with that of Persia, have contributed to the creation of what has been called Byzantine art. It was the Syrian architect Anthemius of Tralles, who drew up the plans of the Santa Sophia (532-537), in which we find all the characteristics of the art wrongly attributed to Muslims: the dome, lacework in stone, mosaics, colored tiles and “arabesques.” The dome had long been in use in Persia, as is proved by the dome of the Hall of Audience of Chosroes 1 and of the palace of Machida, built by Chosroes 2. It was Persia that invented the arch; all the domed and arched work in the world sprang from Persia. The dome and the arch were known in Rome from the first century; the most ancient examples of them are to be found at Tivoli, in Hadrian’s villa, and also in the Baths of Caracalla in Rome.

        Those mural decorations, which were later called arabesques, had their origin in Greece and Egypt. The immense halls with ceiling supported by a forest of columns are equally of Greek origin. The Great Mosque at Cordova, and the Alhambra at Granada are the products of Greco-Latin art, like the embossing and the cut-plaster-work of their walls and ceilings.


        Throughout Islamic history the constant operation of two conflicting influences may be noted. On the one hand there was the influence of foreign nations, hastily converted to Islam, the Syrians, Persian, Hindus, Egyptians and Andalusians of southern Spain who tended to introduce their foreign civilization into Islam. At the periods when this influence was at its greatest, there is a great expansion of culture, with the Arabs, as it were, standing outside. On the other hand, there was the influence exercised by Arab elements, which was hostile to all progress and innovation, for it was other nations that urged Islam on to a higher civilization. When Islam was in the ascendancy, it arrested all forward movement; gradually, by means of religion, it introduced Muslim conceptions into the manners and customs of the subject people; and in the course of a few generations the nation becomes afflicted by paralysis and stagnation.


        In the past fifty years, many countries have caught up with the rich and developed Western World. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, with virtually no natural resources, have created advanced, urbanized and prosperous societies, complete with world-class technology that often exceed that which is found in the West. India, Brazil and China, although not yet fully developed, now all possess large and affluent middle classes that did not exist just a few decades ago. There is no reason to believe why their economic and social progress of all of these countries will not continue for the foreseeable future.

        The Muslim world, on the other hand, has struggled during this era of unprecedented global wealth creation. These countries have profited almost solely, by happy geological accident, from oil and gas extraction. Beyond these activities, economic activity in Muslim countries remains scant, low tech and strictly oriented towards local consumption. Despite trillions of dollars in oil revenue over the past sixty years, Muslim progress in many other areas, such as scientific research, social issues and education, lags badly behind the rest of the world.

        How could this be the case? The answer, which the major media dares not touch, lies in the very culture of Muslim countries themselves. Consider the following cultural traits which are all typically found in majority Muslim countries:


        State-owned Malaysian newspapers and television stations routinely run breathless stories about witch doctors (“bomoh”), evil spirits and other forms of the supernatural. Visitors to Malaysia get a good laugh out of such quaint cultural practices, until they realize with a shock that Malaysian belief in such superstition is absolutely sincere. But it’s not just here in Malaysia where this happens.

        In Saudi Arabia, witchcraft is considered very real and a capital offence.

        In Iran, laws are on the books that make ‘sorcery’ a crime.

        And in Iraq, many of the locals are absolutely convinced that American soldiers wear sunglasses that can see through clothing and have bases protected by force fields.

        A culture that is eager to embrace the supernatural takes a giant step away from rationality and deceives itself fundamentally. Self-deception is always, sooner or later, the path to failure.


        In Malaysia, it is telling that the word in the Malay language for innovation (“inovasi”) did not exist until it came from the English language, quite recently, as a loan word. Innovation, meaning to create something without precedent, is a risky and therefore dangerous business in the Islamic world. The reason for this is because Islam already has a word for innovation, “bid”ah”. In Islam, this word is essentially the same in meaning as “˜heresy”, which is yet another capital crime under Islamic law. Hence creativity and individuality are utterly stifled in a totalitarian fashion, even in Muslim countries where Islamic law has not yet been fully implemented. Improvisation is also discouraged for similar reasons. This is a major reason why Islamic countries are usually characterized by a near-total lack of scientific research and reluctance to embrace technology in general.


        In most Muslim societies, loyalty often runs no farther than one’s tribe or sect. People from the far-off central government, or those from the next valley over for that matter, are foreigners to be met with suspicion or hostility. Afghanistan is a perfect example of this sort of chaos. Even if these differences are eventually papered over, so to speak, by the force and coercion of a dictatorship, the lack of cohesion and distrust remain. Muslim leaders usually come into and stay in power by exploiting this very characteristic, by playing one tribe or group off another. Patriotism amongst the general public is another foreign concept, taken for granted in the West. Muslims may remain loyal to Islam in general, but more importantly, to the tribe in particular.


        The future, no matter what form it may take, is almost certainly going to involve more technology, not less. How well equipped is a society for this future if half of its members are only (at best) grudgingly given their rights? In many Islamic countries, women are often illiterate and have no rights in essential critical life decisions, such as those involving child-rearing, marriage or education. And why should they? Various Quranic verses, age-old Islamic traditions, and core Islamic teachings render women as nothing more than chattel and the property of their male relatives and never the equal of men. And no one can “˜reform” these teachings to something more enlightened” (see the penalty for “bid”ah” above.)


        Muslim leaders often lie to or deceive their own people, to subordinates, or to allies in order to advance their own personal agendas.

        Remember that most Muslim countries are a patchwork of tribes who barely tolerate one another in the best of times. Loyalty to one’s country as a whole is next to non-existent. So, the main objective of these leaders, whether at the top, middle or bottom, is to steal as much as they can, while they can, in order to enrich themselves and their families, clans or tribes “national interest” be damned. If you’re one of the rare incorruptible types, or are otherwise too stupid to steal when presented with the opportunity, then more the fool you are. Other tribes or groups are useful as scapegoats when the need arises or when blame must be deflected.


        Rich, developed and successful countries like Germany, Japan and others do not just spring into existence. It takes the efforts of millions, skilled specialists toiling endlessly in dangerous and/or monotonous drudgery for decades; to build and also maintain the ever-growing complex web of systems that modern nations depend on to function. But Muslim countries, even the ones with trillions from oil revenue, have consistently failed to create large enough castes of technical specialists that modern nations must have. As there are never enough people willing or able to work within their own borders, Muslim nations are forced to outsource their labor needs. In Saudi Arabia and most Arab states, for instance, cleaners and maids come from India or the Philippines, while engineers and others in the technical trades come from America, Europe and increasingly East Asia. This trend is accelerating, paradoxically enough, at a time when the governments of the burgeoning Arab world are having an increasing problem just feeding their exploding populations.


        The West has thrived not only because they have learned to hold people responsible for their actions, but also they have learned to give out rewards based on individual achievement. Hence higher performing individuals tend to be eventually in charge and reap the most rewards (in prestige, rank, money, etc.). Westerners do not always manage to live up to these ideals, but the concepts themselves are not questioned. In the Islamic world, however, what counts are personal loyalty, personal connections, and tribal/sect membership. Incompetent leaders are preferable to competent ones, so long as they are properly loyal. Such a state of affairs makes for incredible inefficiency on a normal day and catastrophic consequences when any sort of crisis arises. Muslims are fond of saying “it’s God’s will” at difficult times, which for Muslims seems like most of the time. Actually, it’s not so much “God’s will” but more like the inevitable consequences of their dysfunctional culture.

        If you’ve read up to this point, no doubt that you could add a few more things to this list. But remember, political correctness dictates that all cultures are somehow “equal”, and Muslims are convinced their cultures are somehow superior; never mind the reams of evidence to the contrary. So while I want to be optimistic, the smart money is not riding on the would-be reformers of the under-performing societies of the Muslim world. At least not yet.

        Why Muslims cultures noticeably lag behind much of the rest of the world, the following eight traits were summarized as characteristics of the dysfunctional societies of Islam:
        1. Belief in magic
        2. Belief in conspiracies
        3. Lack of innovation
        4. Lack of devotion to non-family/non tribal/non clan organizations
        5. Lack of empowerment of women
        6. Lack of personal responsibility
        7. Lack of skilled labor
        8. Lack of meritocracy

        Interestingly enough, an article appeared today in one of Malaysia’s English daily newspapers that addresses this very topic. Entitled “The Muslim dilemma today“, its author Dr. Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, Senior Fellow/Director at the Centre for the Study of Syariah [Sharia], Law, and Politics, attempts to also summarize the reasons why Muslim nations are stagnating and falling behind. As the Doctor is the director of a major organization in Malaysia and writing an editorial in a government-backed newspaper, it can be reasonably surmised that he is in fact writing on behalf and with the full backing of Malaysia’s Muslim-controlled government.

        I started reading Doctor Azhar’s article eagerly, hoping that the distinguished, esteemed writer (at least to Muslims) and ‘Islamic scholar’ would have had the decency to be plainspoken and the courage to let loose at least a little of the truth. It’s probably hardly surprising to the ‘Islamophobes’ reading this, but I was soon to be disappointed. Worse than that, I found the good Doctor’s words plainly wrong-headed and disturbing, in yet another instance of denial and self-deception.

        Regardless, the good Doctor’s words are worth analyzing, deconstructing and given a thorough debunking. The analysis is especially needed because Doctor Azhar, as a quasi bureaucrat, writes in encoded bureaucratic language that will baffle many outsiders who try to follow his thinking.

        First, the doctor starts by saying this:

        “MUSLIMS, regardless of times and locations, have been facing a varied magnitude of challenges since the very inception of Islam. This will never cease to happen”.

        But how could all these ‘challenges’ happen? After all, Islam is supposed to be the perfect ‘deen’, the perfect religion and the best way of life for everyone. That’s the pitch, at any rate. So why is life so hard for Muslims? Maybe because Islam is not all that it’s cracked up to be? But never mind that for the moment.

        “Let’s examine the conditions of Muslims in this country today. They are generally in a state of crisis almost in every respect of life, religiously, socially, economically and politically. … But the above phenomenon can be discerned, among other things, from the increasing number of ignorant, secular and non-practicing Muslims.”

        The first sentence is true enough. But while the first part is blindingly obvious, the second sentence is an oblique nod to the usual Islamic sham; namely, any difficulties for Muslims are either due to the scheming of evil outsiders (i.e. non Muslims) or due to the fact that many Muslims are insufficiently pious. This typical drivel should warn the clear-thinking that this ‘doctor’s’ writing is not to be taken seriously.

        “In terms of politics, Muslims basically rule the country, but have been perceived as compromising too much, even on fundamental matters, at the expense of their own interests and dignity”.

        The references to ‘compromise’ and ‘dignity’ are not explained, so allow me to elucidate. It means anytime when Muslims treat the followers of other belief systems in Malaysia (Christians, Buddhists, Hindus) too much like equals. Namely, if a Buddhist is ever treated as the equal of a Muslim, or anything approaching equal terms, then this is seen as a ‘compromise’ to Islam’s/Muslims’ ‘dignity’. And note the author’s use of passive voice — perceived as compromising by whom? This bureaucrat of a writer fails to specify, but I strongly suspect he is referring to the various Muslim pressure groups in Malaysia (Perkasa et al) who constantly agitate for more Islamic ‘purity’ and ‘devoutness’ for Malaysians (i.e. more Shariah).
        On with the good Doctor’s argument.

        Once ignorance spreads from top to bottom and defines the character of the ummah, the community will have no integrity and strength. … They will gradually become more fragile and vulnerable to foreign influences, especially harmful ones.

        It is this foregoing disintegration of internal qualities of the Muslim ummah that causes confusion and disunity.

        Remember those scheming evil nonbelievers? According to Doctor Azhar, these ‘foreign influences’ are extraordinarily dangerous to Believers (Muslims), a position which adheres quite well to Muslim orthodoxy.

        What Azhar has primarily in mind is probably the influence of Western culture, which naturally is harmful to Muslims and their supposed ‘perfect’ way of life. And since everyone is failing to show up at the mosque every Friday, that’s the ‘disunity’ he is lamenting about.
        The most disturbing part of Doctor Azhar’s argument is his closing, in which he states:

        [Muslims should] give priority to religious consideration or interests and put aside differences in facing their common enemies.

        Who are those enemies exactly, Doctor Azhar? Of course, he’s keeping it vague here, but Islamic scripture makes it quite clear who he is referring to. So, if you’re a non Muslim and you’re reading this, you are one of those “common enemies” that he means. Doesn’t this sound peace-loving, open-minded and tolerant?

        So, to recap, here’s Doctor Azhar’s list for why the Ummah is stumbling so badly:

        • Lack of Islamic piety
        • Being too open to outside/’enemy’ influences
        • Lack of unity

        This is what we can expect from the finest minds of Planet Islam. Now, compare his list with the one at the beginning of this column. Which do you think is a better diagnosis?

        Doctor Azhar, with all due respect, I suggest a different remedy for you and your co-religionists. Recognize the equality of the so-called ‘infidel’, embrace your ‘common enemies’ as ‘fellow humans’ instead, and acknowledge the universal brotherhood of mankind. As these are all inherently unIslamic ideas, I am sure devout Muslims will not take heed. But there’s a chance that the “ignorant, secular and non-practising Muslims” will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s