Four atheist bloggers arrested in Bangladesh for insulting Prophet of Islam

(The Associated PressDHAKA, Bangladesh — A court in Bangladesh’s capital indicted four bloggers Sunday for their allegedly inflammatory writings about Islam and its Prophet Muhammad.bangladesh-bloggers-charged-with-defaming-islam-1378687962-3646

Metropolitan Sessions Court Judge Zahurul Haque said he had accepted the charges filed by police in two separate cases, the first to be tried under Bangladesh’s recently amended Information and Communication Technology Act.

The opening of the trial was set for Nov. 6. If convicted, the bloggers, who pleaded not guilty, could face up to 14 years in jail.

The accused — Moshiur Rahman Biplob, Subrata Odhikary Shuvo, Russel Parvez and Asif Mohiuddin — are currently free on bail after spending up to three months in jail.

New York-based Human Rights Watch earlier condemned the arrests, while the Islamist group Hefazat-e-Islam has vigorously campaigned for the bloggers to be prosecuted.

The Nation reports:

DHAKA – Four Bangladeshi bloggers are facing up to seven years in jail after they were charged in court Sunday with defaming Islam, a prosecutor told AFP.

The four men, who deny the charges, were arrested earlier this year in the wake of nationwide protests in which Islamic groups demanded the execution of atheist online commentators. Judge Zahirul Haque, sitting in a court in the capital Dhaka, said the bloggers were being charged under the country’s Internet laws, senior public prosecutor Shah Alam Talukdar told AFP.

“They have been indicted… with defaming Islam and other religions through their Internet writings. They spread malice against all religions,” he said. Talukdar said if found guilty the bloggers, who are free on bail, could be sentenced to seven years in jail under the country’s ICT (Information Communication Technology) laws.

“All four have claimed to be atheists,” he added.

There has been vociferous debate between staunch atheists and fundamentalists in Bangladesh’s social media for years, but it took a deadly turn in February when an anti-Islam blogger was murdered.

That came amid massive rallies in the capital in which secular groups demanded the hanging of leading Islamists accused of war crimes during the 1971 war of liberation.

Islamist groups have since staged nationwide demonstrations, with their demands including the prosecution — and execution — of atheist bloggers.

In May, at least 38 people were killed as police broke up a protest by thousands of religious hardliners in some of the country’s fiercest street violence for decades.

Rights groups have called on the government to drop the charges against the bloggers, saying the men are caught in the battle between Islamists and the secular government.

The government has said it is determined to ensure communal harmony in the deeply conservative country where 90 percent people are Muslims.

Five students of an elite university have been arrested in connection with the February blogger murder, while a little known Islamic group has been blamed for masterminding the crime.

5 thoughts on “Four atheist bloggers arrested in Bangladesh for insulting Prophet of Islam

  1. Critisizing Mo is a crime in Islam because blah…blah…blah…blah…

    Mo cordoned the killing of a pregnant women ..set a good example while he was alive


    Tue 4 DhQ 1434 – 10 September 2013

    Confusion about the hadeeth of the blind man who killed his slave woman who reviled the Prophet ()

    Could you please explain the background and justification in the hadith Abu Dawud book 38 # 4348, where a slave who insults the prophet is killed by her master and is not punished. Is it because blood wit could not go to the disbelievers family who may harm the Muslims?.

    Praise be to Allaah.

    The story referred to in the question was narrated by Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said:
    A blind man had a female slave who had borne him a child (umm walad) who reviled the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and disparaged him, and he told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she paid no heed.
    One night she started to disparage and revile the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so he took a dagger and put it in her stomach and pressed on it and killed her. There fell between her legs a child who was smeared with the blood that was there.
    The next morning mention of that was made to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allaah the man who did this to stand up.”
    The blind man stood up and came through the people, trembling, and he came and sat before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said: O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it. She used to revile you and disparage you, and I told her not to do it but she did not stop, and I rebuked her but she paid no heed. I have two sons from her who are like two pearls, and she was good to me. Last night she started to revile you and disparage you, and I took a dagger and placed it on her stomach and I pressed on it until I killed her.
    The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness that no retaliation is due for her blood.”
    Narrated by Abu Dawood (4361) and others. In the answer to question no. 103739 we have explained that the basis of this story is saheeh and that it has been narrated in several versions which, when taken together, indicate that the incident did indeed take place, despite the variations in some reports.
    This woman was not killed because she was a dhimmi, rather it was because she reviled the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so she deserved to be executed for that reason, and if she was a Muslim, she became a kaafir by this action, and deserved to be executed for that reason too.
    Al-San’aani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
    This report indicates that the one who reviles the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is to be executed and no blood money is to be paid for him; if he is a Muslim his reviling of him (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is apostasy for which he deserves to be executed. Ibn Battaal said: without being asked to repent.
    Subul al-Salaam (3/501).
    We have previously quoted the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah concerning the confusion about this story in which the blind man killed this woman – who deserved to be killed – without the permission of the ruler. Please see the answer to question no. 103739.
    This story is indicative of the justice with which the Muslims dealt with the people of the Book, which was enjoined in the sharee’ah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who was a mercy to the worlds. The rights of the Jews who are under Muslim rule are guaranteed and protected, and it is not permissible to transgress against them by causing them any annoyance or harm. Hence when the people found a Jewish woman who had been killed they were alarmed and referred the matter to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who had made the covenant with them and guaranteed them security, and who did not take the jizyah from them. He got angry and adjured the Muslims by Allaah to find out who had done this deed, so that he could determine his punishment and judge his case. But when he found out that she had transgressed the covenant several times by reviling the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and impugning him, she forfeited all her rights and deserved the hadd punishment of execution which is imposed by sharee’ah on everyone who reviles the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), whether he is a Muslim, a dhimmi or a mu’aahid (non-Muslim living under Muslim rule), because impugning the status of the Prophets is kufr or disbelief in Allaah the Almighty, and a transgression of every sacred limit and right and covenant, and a major betrayal which deserves the greatest punishment.
    See: Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah (3/1398); and on our site please see the answer to question no. 22809.
    This is the correct understanding of this story. It is not as many of those who hate and revile sharee’ah rule and slander the character of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not choose to kill her in this manner, but because she deserved to be executed as a hadd punishment for breaking the covenant and reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he did not demand qisaas from her killer. She had said to him many things reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), time after time, and he told her to stop but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she paid no heed, until he could no longer bear it and he silenced the voice that insulted his religion and his Prophet.
    As for killing a dhimmi unlawfully, it is major sin, and the warning concerning that is very stern, as was proven in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (3166) from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr (may Allaah be pleased with him) who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever killed a mu’aahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance may be detected from a distance of forty years’ travel.” Imam al-Bukhaari included this report in a chapter in his Saheeh entitled “Chapter: the sin of one who kills a mu’aahid unlawfully.”
    Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: This is how he defined it in the heading. This idea is based on the principles of sharee’ah and it is also stated in the report of Abu Mu’aawiyah which mentions it with the words, “unlawfully”, and in the hadeeth narrated by al-Nasaa’i and Abu Dawood from Abu Bakrah with the words “Whoever kills a mu’aahid soul that is not permissible, Allaah will deprive him of Paradise.”
    End quote.
    And Allaah knows best.
    Islam Q&A

    Tue 4 DhQ 1434 – 10 September 2013
    Regarding the hadeeth about the blind man who killed his slave woman who had borne him a child (umm walad) because she reviled the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

    My question is regarding the two following ahadeeth:
    “A blind man had a freed concubine (Umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. A child fell between her legs, and became covered by blood. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I ask by Allah the man who has done this action and I order him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”
    (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawood 4361).
    “A blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I ask by Allah the man who has done this action and I order him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.”
    Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”
    (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan An-Nasa’ee, 4081)
    I noticed that the first narration includes a sentence that is not in the second narration (A child fell between her legs, became covered by blood). I know the punishment of apostasy, and that it is to be implemented by the sultan or the vice-sultan. What confuses me is the mentioned sentence, as it may mean that the punishment of apostasy applies to foetus as well. Please clarify; is the mentioned sentence authentic from the prophet, peace be upon him? If it is authentic, is it possible that it may mean that the man was blind and he did not know that the concubine was pregnant? And if it is authentic could it mean that the foetus did not die?
    I do not mean to bring doubts around Islam; I just want to know the answer so that I can refute who tries to distort Islam. May Allah guide you to what pleases Him!.

    Praise be to Allaah.
    Discussion of the incident mentioned in the question involves the following topics:
    1 – The ruling on the hadeeth.
    This hadeeth was narrated by Abu Dawood (4361), and via him and via another isnaad also by al-Daaraqutni (3/112). It was also narrated by al-Nasaa’i in al-Mujtaba (4070) and in al-Sunan al-Kubra (2/304); by Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in al-Diyaat (no. 249); by al-Tabaraani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer (11/351); by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (4/394); and by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7/60). All of them narrated it via several isnaads from ‘Uthmaan al-Shahhaam, from ‘Ikrimah, from Ibn ‘Abbaas, with variations in wording and length of the reports.
    This is a hasan isnaad, and its narrators are thiqaat (trustworthy). Hence the hadeeth was accepted by Abu Dawood and al-Nasaa’i who narrated it but did not comment on it, and it was also narrated by Imam Ahmad. Al-Majd Ibn Taymiyah said: Ahmad quoted it as evidence according to the report of his son ‘Abd-Allaah. End quote from Nayl al-Awtaar (7/208). Al-Haakim said: It is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim although they [al-Bukhaari and Muslim] did not narrate it. It was classed as saheeh by al-Dhahabi in his Talkhees, and by Ibn Hajar in Buloogh al-Maraam (363), where he said: Its narrators are thiqaat. Shaykh al-Albaani said in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (5/91): Its isnaad is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. End quote.
    It is supported by the report narrated by al-Shi’bi from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), which says that a Jewish woman used to revile and disparage the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). A man strangled her until she died, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.
    Narrated by Abu Dawood in al-Sunan (4362) and via him by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7/60) and by al-Diya’ al-Maqdisi in al-Mukhtaarah (2/169).
    Shaykh al-Albaani said in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (1251): Its isnaad is saheeh according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), but he classed it as da’eef in Da’eef Abi Dawood because of interruptions.
    Perhaps it is most likely that the hadeeth is mursal. Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (5/68): al-Daaraqutni said in al-‘Ilal: al-Shi’bi did not hear anything from ‘Ali except a single phrase, and he did not hear anything else.
    It is as if what he meant was what al-Bukhaari narrated concerning stoning from him [al-Shi’bi] from ‘Ali, when he stoned a woman and said: “I stoned her in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” End quote from Ibn Hajar.
    But the mursal reports of al-Shi’bi are acceptable according to many scholars. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (p. 65): This hadeeth is jayyid, because al-Shi’bi saw ‘Ali and narrated from him the hadeeth of Shuraahah al-Hamdaaniyyah. At the time of ‘Ali he was in his twenties, and he was a Kufan. It is proven that he met him, so the hadeeth is muttasil (connected). Moreover, even if it is mursal because it is unlikely that al-Shi’bi heard it from ‘Ali, it still may be used as evidence according to scholarly consensus, because in their view the mursal reports of al-Shi’bi are saheeh, and they do not know of any mursal reports from him that are not saheeh. Moreover he is one of the most knowledgeable of people of the hadeeth of ‘Ali, and the most knowledgeable about the trustworthy (thiqaat) among ‘Ali’s companions. End quote.
    There is another corroborating report for this story that was narrated by Ibn Sa’d in al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra (4/210), where he says:
    Qubaysah ibn ‘Uqbah told us: Yoonus ibn Abi Ishaaq narrated to us, from Abu Ishaaq, that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ma’qil said: Ibn Umm Maktoom stayed in the house of a Jewish woman in Madeenah, the paternal aunt of an Ansaari man. She was kind to him, but she annoyed him with regard to Allaah and His Messenger, so he took hold of her and hit her and killed her. The matter was referred to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: By Allaah, O Messenger of Allaah, she was kind to me, but she annoyed me with regard to Allaah and His Messenger, so I hit her and killed her. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “May Allaah cast her away. There is no recompense for the shedding of her blood.”
    The narrators of this isnaad are thiqaat (trustworthy).
    To sum up these reports, the basic story is proven in the saheeh Sunnah, but was there one incident or several?
    It seems that it was one incident. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah was inclined towards this view when he said:
    This – the fact that it was one incident – is indicated by the words of Imam Ahmad, because it was said to him concerning the report of ‘Abd-Allaah: Are there any ahaadeeth about the execution of the dhimmi if he reviles [the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)]? He said: Yes, such as the hadeeth about the blind man who killed the woman. He said: He heard her reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – and ‘Abd-Allaah narrated these two hadeeth from him.
    This is supported by the fact that for there to have been two blind men who were both treated kindly by two women who both repeated slurs against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), each one of whom was killed by the blind man acting alone and in both cases the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) adjured the person responsible to come forward, is something very unlikely.
    Al-Saarim al-Maslool (p. 72, 73).
    But there remains the problem of how to reconcile between the differences which are mentioned in the report about the way in which the Jewish woman was killed – was it by strangling or by stabbing with a sword in her stomach?
    Ibn Taymiyah mentioned two possibilities: the possibility that Ibn Umm Maktoom strangled her then stabbed her, and the second possibility, which is that there was a mistake in one of the two reports.
    See: al-Saarim (p. 72).
    There is nothing in the report to indicate that there was a foetus in the Jewish woman’s womb. The one who understands that from the context is mistaken. As for the words in some versions of the report, “a child fell between her legs, and became covered with blood”, this does not indicate that in any way whatsoever, rather it seems that it was one of her two children whom he described as being “like pearls”, who came to his mother because he felt sorry for her then got covered with blood. The evidence for that is that the version of the hadeeth that was narrated by al-Tabaraani says “Her two children came between her legs and became covered with blood.” In the version narrated by al-Bayhaqi it says: “Her two children fell between her legs covered with blood.”
    This is also indicated by what it says in Su’aalaat al-Aajurri Aba Dawood al-Sijistaani (p. 201):
    Abu Dawood said: I heard Mus’ab al-Zubayri say: ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Yazeed al-Khatami was not a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said: He is the one whose mother was killed by the blind man, he is the child who fell between her legs, (the woman) who reviled the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
    End quote.
    So there was no foetus who was killed, and it cannot be the case that sharee’ah would blame the foetus for its mother’s crime. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And no bearer of burdens shall bear another’s burden” [Faatir 35:18]. Despite the difference in the various versions of the hadeeth, and the fact that it is sometimes narrated in mursal reports from ‘Ikrimah, as it was narrated by Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Salaam in al-Amwaal (no. 416), and some scholars criticized the reports of ‘Uthmaan al-Shahhaam because of some munkar reports among them, as Yahya al-Qattaan said: Some you may recognize and some you may find odd, but he is not so good in my view, and Abu Ahmad al-Haakim said: He was not strong in their view, and al-Daaraqutni said: he is Basri and subject to further examination, all of which implies that there should be some doubt and hesitation about some of the details mentioned in the story – but nevertheless that does not mean that the basic story of the incident should be rejected. There are other corroborating reports, as mentioned above, which were accepted by earlier and later scholars.
    This story is indicative of the justice with which the Muslims dealt with the people of the Book, which was brought by sharee’ah as a mercy to the worlds. The rights of the Jews who had entered into a treaty with the Muslims were guaranteed and protected, and it was not permissible to transgress against them by annoying them or harming them in any way. Hence when the people found a Jewish woman who had been slain, they were upset and they referred the matter to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who had given them that covenant and promise of safety, and had not taken the jizyah from them. He got angry and adjured the Muslims by Allaah that the one who had done this deed should show himself, so that he might determine his punishment and issue a ruling concerning him. But when he found out that she had broken the covenant time after time, by insulting the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and reviling him, all her rights were denied, and she deserved the punishment of execution which sharee’ah imposes on everyone who reviles the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), whether he is a Muslim, a dhimmi or a mu’aahid, because transgressing against the status of the Prophets is disbelief in Allaah Almighty, and it invalidates every sanctity, right and covenant; it is a major betrayal which deserves the most severe punishment.
    See: Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah (3/1398); on our website see question no. 22809.
    With regard to the idea that the hadd punishment for apostasy can only be implemented by the sultan (ruler) or his deputy, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned this issue and said:
    It remains to be said: The hudood punishment can only be carried out by the ruler or his deputy. Then he (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
    1 – The master may carry out the hadd punishment on his slave, based on the evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Carry out the hadd punishments on those whom your right hands possess.” [Narrated by Ahmad (736) and others; classed as hasan by al-Arna’oot because of corroborating evidence. Al-Albaani was inclined to the view that these are the words of ‘Ali, as stated in al-Irwa’ (2325).] And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If the slave woman of one of you commits zina, let him carry out the hadd punishment on her.” [Narrated by Abu Dawood (4470); there is a similar report in al-Saheehayn.] I do not know of anyone among the fuqaha’ of hadeeth who disagreed with the view that he should carry out hadd punishments on her, such as the hadd punishments for zina, slander and drinking; there is no difference of opinion among the Muslims concerning the fact that he may carry out disciplinary punishments (ta’zeer) on him. But they differed as to whether he may carry out punishments of execution or amputation on him, such as executing him for apostasy or for reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or cutting off his hand for stealing. Two reports were narrated from Imam Ahmad concerning this. The first says that it is permissible, which is the view narrated from al-Shaafa’i, and the second says that it is not permissible, like one of the two views of the companions of al-Shaafa’i. This is also the view of Maalik. And it was narrated in a saheeh report from Ibn ‘Umar that he cut off the hand of a slave of his who stole, and it is narrated in a saheeh report from Hafsah that she executed a slave woman of hers who admitted to practising witchcraft, and that was based on the opinion of Ibn ‘Umar. So the hadeeth is evidence for those who say that it is permissible for the master to carry out the hadd punishment on his slave on the basis of his knowledge, in all cases.
    2 – The most that can be said about that is that he is transgressing the position of the ruler, and the ruler may pardon the one who carried out a hadd punishment that must be carried out without referring the matter to him.
    3 – Although this was a hadd punishment, it also comes under the heading of killing a harbi (a non-Muslim in a state of war against Islam), and it is permissible for anyone to kill a harbi.
    4 – Similar things happened at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), such as the hypocrite who was killed by ‘Umar without the permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the hypocrite did not agree with the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Then Qur’aan was revealed approving ‘Umar’s action. And there was the daughter of Marwaan who was killed by that man, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him the supporter of Allaah and His Messenger. That is because the one whose execution becomes necessary because of his plot to corrupt the religion is not like one who is executed because of his sin of zina and the like. End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool (285-286).
    And Allaah knows best.
    Islam Q&A

    Tue 4 DhQ 1434 – 10 September 2013
    Ruling on one who insults the Prophet ()
    I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail?

    Praise be to Allaah.
    The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues:
    1 – The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
    The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16
    This ruling is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
    In the Qur’aan it says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur’aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’
    If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’
    Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed”
    [al-Tawbah 9:64-66]
    This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir, whether he was serious or joking.
    With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.
    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below.
    This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
    Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”
    (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)
    It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.
    Al-Nasaa’i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, ‘Shall I kill him?’ He rebuked me and said, ‘That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .’” (Saheeh al-Nasaa’i, 3795)
    It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.
    The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not?
    The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.
    But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution.
    Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented.
    They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:
    In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas said: “On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh… As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of ‘Abd-Allaah.” He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: “Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?” They said, “We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?” He said, “It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes.”
    (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334)
    This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant.
    ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Sa’d was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115.
    With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:
    They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance.
    If it is said, “Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?” The answer is:
    The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.
    Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
    Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.
    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar’i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr.
    And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.
    Islam Q&A


    Early History of Peaceful Islam:

    Islamic leaders and politicians constantly tell us in English that “Islam is a peaceful religion”, but one can’t help wondering if they would say it quite so often if they were absolutely sure it was true.

    Some recorded massacres of Muslim history:

    On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughtered its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was apparently incited by Muslim preachers that had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power. Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco. Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

    Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854­859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Qur’an’s purported prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344). Some escaped, but the Jews of Arabia who remained were pretty much completely wiped out. Islamic revisionists claim they were killed because they were literally asking for it, is their apologetic rubbish propaganda. These Islamic revisionists (Islamaniacs) claim that the Jews demanded it as per their own law. I mean that’s like the Nazis claiming they were only accommodating the Jews demand to get warm by the ovens. Like Goebbels said, the bigger the lie, the easier it is for others to believe it.

    In the violent, nearly 1,400-year relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, Jihad and Dhimmitude were firmly established by the 8th century. Perhaps the pre-eminent Islamic scholar in history, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), summarized five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

    In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

    Between 1894-96, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 (Dhimmi) Christian Armenians, followed by the first formal genocide of the 20th century, in 1915, at which time they slaughtered an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians. Contemporary accounts from European diplomats confirm that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal Jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of Dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. Regarding the 1894-96 massacres, the Turkish-speaking interpreter of the British embassy reported:

    …[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the “rayah” [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians…”

    The scholar Bat Yeor confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their “legal status,” which involved a “contract” (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers).

    This …breach…restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property…

    In the following chronology, note how closely Islam’s inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims…. Muslims tell us Islam is a religion of peace, but all historical facts seem to discredit that claim rather convincingly.

    Chronology of early Islam

    • 570 – Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish.

    • 577 – Muhammad’s mother dies.

    • 595 – Muhammad marries, starts to have children.

    • 605 – Placement of Black Stone in Ka’aba.

    • 610 – Mohammed, in a cave, hears an angel tell him that Allah is the only true God.

    • 613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.

    • 615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraysh.

    • 619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha

    • 620 – Institution of five daily prayers .

    • 622 – Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, gets more converts.

    • 623 – Battle of Waddan

    • 623 – Battle of Safwan

    • 623 – Battle of Dul-‘Ashir

    • 624 – Raids on caravans to fund the movement begin.

    • 624 – Zakat becomes mandatory

    • 624 – Battle of Badr

    • 624 – Battle of Bani Salim

    • 624 – Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr & Zakat-ul-Fitr

    • 624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’

    • 624 – Battle of Sawiq

    • 624 – Battle of Ghatfan

    • 624 – Battle of Bahran

    • 625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims killed.

    • 625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad

    • 625 – Battle of Banu Nadir

    • 625 – Battle of Dhatul-Riqa

    • 626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra

    • 626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal

    • 626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah

    • 627 – Battle of the Trench

    • 627 – Battle of Ahzab

    • 627 – Battle of Bani Qurayza

    • 627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan

    • 627 – Battle of Ghaiba

    • 627 – Battle of Khaibar

    • 628 – Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish. (The 628 Al-Hudaybiyya agreement, between the Prophet and the Meccan tribe of Quraish, was signed for a period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims. The agreement was broken after 18 months, Muhammad’s army then conquered Mecca)

    • 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca.

    • 630 – Battle of Hunain.

    • 630 – Battle of Tabuk

    • 632 – Muhammad dies. The reign of the Caliphs begins.

    • 632 – Abu-Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.

    • 633 – Battle at Oman

    • 633 – Battle at Hadramaut.

    • 633 – Battle of Kazima

    • 633 – Battle of Walaja

    • 633 – Battle of Ulleis

    • 633 – Battle of Anbar

    • 634 – Battle of Basra,

    • 634 – Battle of Damascus

    • 634 – Battle of Ajnadin.

    • 634 – Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.

    • 634 – Battle of Namaraq

    • 634 – Battle of Saqatia.

    • 635 – Battle of Bridge.

    • 635 – Battle of Buwaib.

    • 635 – Conquest of Damascus.

    • 635 – Battle of Fahl.

    • 636 – Battle of Yermuk.

    • 636 – Battle of Qadsiyia.

    • 636 – Conquest of Madain.

    • 637 – Battle of Jalula.

    • 638 – Battle of Yarmouk.

    • 638 – The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.

    • 638 – Conquest of Jazirah.

    • 639 – Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.

    • 641 – Battle of Nihawand

    • 642 – Battle of Rayy in Persia

    • 643 – Conquest of Azarbaijan

    • 644 – Conquest of Fars

    • 644 – Conquest of Kharan.

    • 644 – Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.

    • 647 – Conquest of Cypress island.

    • 644 – Uman dies, succeeded by Caliph Uthman.

    • 648 – Byzantine campaign begins.

    • 651 – Naval battle against Byzantines.

    • 654 – Islam spreads into North Africa

    • 656 – Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.

    • 658 – Battle of Nahrawan.

    • 659 – Conquest of Egypt

    • 661 – Ali is murdered.

    • 662 – Egypt falls to Islam rule.

    • 666 – Sicily is attacked by Muslims

    • 677 – Siege of Constantinople

    • 687 – Battle of Kufa

    • 691 – Battle of Deir ul Jaliq

    • 700 – Sufism takes root as a sect.

    • 700 – Military campaigns in North Africa

    • 702 – Battle of Deir ul Jamira

    • 711 – Muslims invade Gibraltar

    • 711 – Conquest of Spain

    • 713 – Conquest of Multan

    • 716 – Invasion of Constantinople

    • 732 – Battle of Tours in France.

    • 740 – Battle of the Nobles.

    • 741 – Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa

    • 744 – Battle of Ain al Jurr.

    • 746 – Battle of Rupar Thutha

    • 748 – Battle of Rayy.

    • 749 – Battle of lsfahan

    • 749 – Battle of Nihawand

    • 750 – Battle of Zab

    • 772 – Battle of Janbi in North Africa

    • 777 – Battle of Saragossa in Spain

    Undeniably, Christians have in the past also committed despicable acts in the name of God, and in recent history the Serbia conflicts and the Protestant-Catholic Northern-Ireland clashes stand out as examples. But there are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between those crimes and the acts committed in Islam’s name.

    The first difference is that the unfortunate events were limited in both time and scope, they had an end.

    The second distinction is that terrorists acting from Christian cultures always did their vile deeds in violation of scriptural teaching and the example of Christ, not in fulfilment of it, as in Islam.

    The third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes. To expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam’s founding in the 7th century, is to expect them to jettison core values of their faith — something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history. Although nowadays nothing seems less tolerated than pessimism, yet in relation to Islam this attitude is in fact simply just realism.

    Most Americans have a benignly positive attitude toward religion, but is our civic piety, allied with political correctness, blinding us and keeping us from asking reasonable questions about Islam, questions upon which the survival of our civilization may depend. Do Western cultures, obsessed with tolerance, render us incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions about Islam’s core values and designs? The general reluctance to criticize any non-Christian religion and the almost universal public ignorance about Islam make for a dangerous potentially lethal mix.

    Unlike Constitutional provisions in the US, there is no cultural or scriptural mandate for separation of church and state in Islam, making secular democracy an alien and hostile concept. Women have few rights over and against their husbands, who may legally beat their wives and concubines. Enslaving infidels and raping infidel women are justified under Qura’nic law (and still occur in some Muslim lands). Grotesque punishments for crimes — beheadings and the like — are not medieval holdovers; on the contrary, they will forever be part of authentic Islam as long as the Qur’an is revered as the perfect Words of Allah.

    While Muslims in the West live in peace, prosperity and religious liberty, Christians and other “Infidels” in Muslim lands have been, are now, and will continue to be persecuted, sometimes unto death. Turkey is the only Muslim country that could be called democratic, and that’s probably a stretch. The example of Turkey is laudable, but sadly it shows that secularist values can only be imposed on Islamic societies by force, and will therefore remain tenuous. Because Islam demands death for heretics, moderate Muslims will always risk their lives if they offer more liberal interpretations of their faith.

    The problem is that for all its schisms, sects, and multiplicity of voices, Islam’s violent elements are firmly rooted in its central texts; as such, Islam cannot be other than a religion of violence. It would be too pessimistic to say that there are no peaceful strains of Islam, but it would be imprudent to ignore the fact that deeply imbedded in the central documents of the religion is an all-encompassing vision of a theocratic state that is intractable and fundamentally different from (and opposed toward) democratic values and Western governments based on them.


    A basic principle of Islamism holds that humanity is divided according to a strict hierarchy of worth. At the top of this hierarchy are free Muslim males, the cream of humanity. Below them, in descending order of humanity, are: Muslim male slaves, free Muslim women, Muslim female slaves, the males of the “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians), and, then, the females of the ‘People of the Book’. Finally, the rest of humanity comes in dead last (excuse the pun), because they lack a soul they are regarded as worthless having no rights whatsoever. This unfortunate final grouping includes Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, and others. But before Jews and Christians celebrate escaping last-place in this uniquely Islamic popularity contest, the fine print should first be carefully studied.

    With quotes referencing Christians and Jews from the Quran like: – “WORST OF CREATURES, PERVERSE, FRIENDS OF SATAN”, it seems impossible to characterize Islam as a tolerant religion harmless to others. By one widely accepted definition of a ‘Religion’; … “An organization dedicated to raising the spiritual awareness and moral standards and actions of its followers, and in improving peaceful relationships with others”, Islam seems to fall well short of qualifying. Early Islam was clearly neither harmless nor tolerant of non-believers. Intolerance seems the cruel norm in Islamic societies, while tolerance, charity and kindness towards different cultures and religions is glaringly absent. The fruits of extreme Islam are bitter indeed, and it is by their fruits that we should judge them.

    The clear direction appears to be that Muslims are not allowed to even be friends or take favours from Jews and Christians, unless the devotion and tax is extracted by force or threat of force.

    Quran 98:1 Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and among Al-Mushrikun (polytheists) were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence.

    Quran 98:6 Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

    Quran 5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya’ to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya’, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong & shy; doers and unjust).

    Quran 58:19. Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!

    Quran 4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).

    Quran 47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

    Christians and Jews then and now hold a special place in Islamic theology. In the end, they were regarded with contempt by Muhammad, and were presented in a hateful manner in the Qur’an and in modern Islamic theology today. The final direction appears to be this: When the Muslims have the upper hand, they are not to seek peace, but instead they are expected to sacrifice and toil for the continued destruction of all their enemies. The final words reported from the mouth of the dying Muhammad were a curse on the favoured ‘People of the Book’.

    From Ibn Sa’d page 322: When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over his face; but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said:

    “Allah’s damnation be on the Jews and the Christians who made the graves of their prophets objects of worship.”

    The bitterness of this final utterance from their beloved prophet, as he died a painful death at the hands of a Jewish girl (Shiias say it was Abu Bakr, Umar & their two daughters, Aisha & Hafsa, who poisoned him), obviously still weighs heavy on the minds and hearts of all of Islam. Revenge is a glorified mandate for Muslims yesterday and today.



    Islam has an anti-family element, causing Muslims to fight and kill even their relatives if they reject Muhammad’s rule. Family ties, devotions, and sensibilities form the backbone of Western civilizations, from which we derive our strength and teach morality. In Islam, even normal, natural family bonds are subservient and must yield to Muhammad’s vision of Islam. That is why in many Muslim communities and households each family member is expected to police the acts, thoughts, and expressions of other members in the household. On a slightly broader scale, communities are expected to monitor the conduct of families in their neighbourhoods. So in Islamic lands, the control structure in place extends from the highest branches of the government (including the Judiciary), to the lowliest family member. The consequences imposed for failure to support the official family, neighbourhood, tribal, national policy with respect to violent Jihad vary by tribe and region, but are often quite brutal.

    Quran 48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

    Quran 58:22 You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Ruh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And We will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Verily, it is the Party of Allah that will be the successful.

    In the officially state-sponsored Wahhabi controlled elementary schools in Saudi Arabia (our alleged ally in the war on terror), there is a fifth-grade lesson book that reads as follows:

    “It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a friend of one who does not believe in God and his Messenger or who fights the Islamic religion. God has severed the [link of] friendship between Muslims and infidels. The Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother-in-belief, while the infidel, even if he is your brother of kin, is your enemy by religion.”

    When one takes into consideration all that Muhammad and his devoted followers ask of the faithful, the direction to have no Muslim friends makes perfect sense. It’s all part of the psychology of violence. Built-in natural human feelings of empathy and all impulses of conscience must first be overcome before an individual can perform an act of violence on another. Normal feelings of affection, respect, and trust toward a friend would get in the way of an Islamic Jihad movement. So not only does Muhammad dehumanize non-Muslims, he also specifically tells followers not to develop personal relationships with others. This philosophy and psychology, when internalized, is designed to groom the Muslim believer into becoming an effective, non-thinking, non-feeling Jihadist warrior (i.e. a killing machine). Not exactly in line with his oft repeated claim that ‘God is most merciful, most forgiving, most loving and charitable’, but that contradiction does not seem to register. Certainly any personal dilemma resulting from such contradictions are easily dismissed once fully immersed in the blood-lust and lynch-mob mentality of Islamic Militants. Apparently ‘most-merciful’ in their minds only applies to Muslims, or to survivors who agree to pay tribute, or in other words, an eternal ‘survivor tax’.


    Instead of trying to comprehend and facing the true roots of militant Islam, we have preferred to hope that Islamic violence is just the pernicious work of a few individuals or radical groups. We hope that by destroying the al-Qaida network the threat of Islamic terrorism will cease. We can then put it out of our minds and hope and pretend that it will no longer affect us. We are captivated by sports, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, and rock stars. We are happy that the DOW is back up and interest rates have lowered, and hope the recession will soon be over. Yet, those planning our destruction are still living among us and saying that Islam is a religion of peace. All the while, just as Maslama deceived his good friend Ka’b b. al-Ashraf in order to murder him, militant Muslims are prudently, patiently planning their next acts of terrorism.

    (1) What are the teachings of real Islam found in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira with respect to the use of violence, call it jihad if you like, to aggressively spread it’s power over non-Muslims, and are these teachings valid and applicable today?

    ANSWER: It should be obvious that real Islam still calls for the use of jihad, force and violence, when able, to spread Islam’s power over non-Muslim people. The jihad may take the form of passing out literature for Islam, or it may take the form of assassination, or a bombing of a building, or a massacre, for worse. These teachings are valid and applicable even today.

    (2) Is real Islam behind and does it condone the murder of hundreds of thousands of victims all over the world, or are these Muslim terrorists doing something well outside Muhammad’s religion?

    ANSWER: Yes. Real Islam is behind the murder of hundreds of thousands of victims all over the world. Official Islamic theology taught in most parts of the world justify violent acts to further the cause of converting all to Islam, especially acts designed to weaken the “Great Satan- America”, deemed the biggest threat to that cause.

    (3) What does the future hold for Islam and the West?

    ANSWER: Continued Islamic violence. Would that it could be said otherwise, but it appears likely that Muslims will yet perform many large and small acts of murderous violence against us. If given the chance they may, one day, detonate a nuclear warhead, or warheads, as many in the movement see it as their only viable option. In order to advance Muslim theology as they see it, these militants know that the West must be brought low, regardless of the cost. They are dedicated and may eventually succeed in obtaining the bombs or bomb material from Iran, Pakistan, Korea or perhaps from a former Soviet Republic Country. Muslim militants are cognizant of how to go about this, their goal is our incapacitation, and they believe the best way to accomplish this is through the use of WMD’s.

    So, why is it that so many Muslims want to see the West broken or destroyed?

    The West is a powerful. Its military strength and cultural power represents the best hope against the violent spread of Islam. Obviously, if the West is weakened or incapacitated, then Muslim terrorists can begin to act with more impunity throughout the world.


    By their own words and works, Islam is apparently a violent religion after all, and large parts of it continue to condone and allow the use of aggressive violence to spread its dominion over non-Muslims. The war that Muhammad launched long ago continues today, but the stakes are getting higher. America, European and Asian nations will continue to be adversely affected by the actions of real Muslims – those that are obeying their “God and Prophet” – as they have been in the past. The West previously insulated by distance and oceans are no longer safe and have become the relatively new targets of expansionist Islam. For all the cries against Zionism by Muslims, it is in truth Islam that has the most aggressive ambitions and designs on other peoples and lands.

    “Will you listen to me O Meccans? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter.” (Muhammad, some of the earliest words spoken in Mecca, shortly after his first visit by “Gabriel”, to people who rejected his claim to prophethood). “The Life of Muhammad”, by A. Guillaume, page 131.

    “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle (Muhammad) have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.”

    We see that Muhammad had many people murdered. By request, by command, by implication, Muhammad had many killed, some while they slept. There were no trials, no judgments, and no dialog. If you insulted Muhammad, if you doubted his credibility, or if you spoke out, you were killed. Men and women, young and old, all were killed because of Muhammad’s intolerance, anger, hatred, and disdain towards those who spoke out against him. Today, Fatwas continue to be issued demanding that faithful kill any perceived to insult the prophet or discredit his divinity. One wonders if the thin skin and short temper of Islam is due to insecurity stemming from the inherent weaknesses of its doctrine. The fact remains that challenging the doctrine of Islam or hearsay against the prophet carries the penalty of death to this day. The intellectually insincere individual full of hatred will certainly not benefit from this article; rather he will undoubtedly be greatly offended by the facts outlined herein. As the saying goes,

    “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still”.

    A closed mind will forever be unable to draw correct inferences from a set of facts plainly laid out before him.

    Make no mistake about it: By any standard of any age, Muhammad deployed murderous tactics that can only be described as terrorist in nature. Muhammad, indeed, taught his followers to oppress or kill non-Muslims. Today’s Muslim terrorists are following his actions literally, … like prophet, like followers.

    Today’s Muhammedan terrorists commit their acts with full understanding and belief that they are based upon what Muhammad said and did, and what he expects of them. Based upon Muhammad’s actions and teachings, large parts of Islam continues to practice, justify, support, finance, or tolerate terrorism against non-Muslims today. The life of Muhammad is and will continue to be used by militants as justification to attack and murder those who differ from them.

    Muhammad taught his followers that Islam is the final and universal religion. Where Islamic law has been instituted, no other religion is tolerated, unless it agrees to submit to Islamic rule. Today, more than forty nations have a majority population of Muslims, and Muslim leaders have spoken of their goal to spread Islam in the West, until Islam becomes a dominant, global power. That global agenda is in keeping with Muhammad’s final clear orders: convert… pay with submission … or die.

    Muslims who Leave Islam:

    Under Islamic law [the Sharia is based on the Qur’an, the example of Muhammad (sunna) and the consensus (ijmaa)], anyone falling away from faith in Islam commits an “unforgivable sin”. Such “apostates” must be taken into custody by force, and called on to repent. Anyone so confronted and who does not immediately repent and turn back to Islam has forfeited his life, and is to be put to death by the state. While this is not carried out on a regular basis in the many Islamic lands practicing Sharia, the threat is ever present. One of Islam’s most respected theologians and prolific writers in the last century, Pakistani Abu’l Ala Mawdudi, insists that both Qur’an and Hadith demand an apostate’s execution. He quotes the Qur’an (9:11-12) and the canonized Hadith: “Any person, i.e. Muslim, who has changed his religion, kill him” (Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 45). The Islamic scholar, Majid Khadduri, agrees that Qur’anic commentaries say a believer who turns back from his religion must be killed if he persists in disbelief (p. 150). Today “Islamic jihad” draws on religious texts whose interpretations, some genuinely peaceful Muslims dispute. They challenge this interpretation of jihad because they wish to live in peace with non-Muslim peoples and nations, and as a result, their lives are also threatened. Muhammad was not content to conquer by force, or kill those that merely opposed him verbally. Muhammad also taught that Muslims who leave the Islamic faith are to be murdered as well. Here are some quotes from Bukhari’s collection of Hadith. Remember, Bukhari’s Hadith is the second most important writing in Islam, following the Quran.

    Bukhari, volume 9, #17

    “Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

    Bukhari volume 9, #57

    Narrated Ikrima, “Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, “Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).” I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

    Bukhari volume 9, #64

    Narrated Ali, “Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s messenger saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

    Not only did Muhammad teach that Muslims are to murder those that have left Islam, “wherever you find them”, he further taught that a Muslim who commits this type of murder of fellow Muslims will also be doing God’s service and will be rewarded. It is in this spirit and understanding that many ‘honour’ killings occur in Muslim communities.


    Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, a chief of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadi, was a victim of Muhammad’s rise to power which personifies the prophet’s moral failings. Once Muhammad gained political power and the ability for force his will on others, some of the Jewish tribes around him grew mistrustful and opposed both his message and his rising influence. Muhammad ordered Ka’b bin al-Ashraf’s murder, and authorized deception in the process.

    Muhammad was driven by power; however he tried to disguise it or sublimate it by his invocation of Allah, and the Jews who lived in the town of Yathrib and elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula who would not submit to his iron rule simply got in the way. The Jew that got in the way, that opposed the will or whim of this vicious man who covered his worldly ambitions with Allah’s mantle, was promptly dispatched to Sheol.

    The Fifth Commandment, if Muhammad knew it expressly at all, did not apply to Muhammad in his view. He doubtfully read Exodus, since he was supposed to be illiterate. Perhaps it might have done him some good had he read, “Thou shalt not MURDER. (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy. 5:17) It would also have done him well to have heard Jesus’ angle on that commandment. (Matthew. 5:21-22). He certainly seems not to have been open to the divine injunction that prohibited murder that was contained in the recesses of his heart, i.e., the natural law.

    But in Muhammad’s view, there was no need to read the Scriptures prior to his supposed revelations; they were corrupted on Muhammad’s account (See Qur’an 5:13, 41.). And whatever was therein contained was of no moment since, by the supposed revelations of Allah which came to us through the mouth of Muhammad, whatever Muhammad did was perfect. If the Fifth Commandment has to take a back seat to Muhammad’s “perfect” desires, and if the unwritten law of God in the heart of every man that says one should not MURDER an innocent man had to be squelched, then so be it: Allah and his messenger know best.

    Unlike the God of the Jews, Allah did not say, “Thou shalt not MURDER.” Rather, Allah said, “Thou shalt MURDER.” Or so Muhammad would have it where it was to his political advantage.

    Though Muhammad had ostensibly entered into an informal treaty with the Jewish tribes in the town of Yathrib (which later was known as Medina), there was tension between Muhammad’s followers and the Jewish tribes, including the Banu Nadi. (This seems to be a chronic feature of Islam’s relationship with its neighbours, even to this day.)

    Al-Ashraf, it may be conceded, was an opponent of Muhammad, believed Muhammad a false prophet, and opposed himself to Muhammad’s worrisome rise.

    After Muhammad’s victory at the battle of Badr, al-Ashraf grew particularly concerned.


    It was from Muhammad’s vantage point. In Muhammad’s eyes, opposition to him and his doctrine and will was anathema: nay, it was more than that; it was a virtual death sentence.

    “He [al-Ashraf] inveighed against the apostle,” wrote a plaintive poem at the loss by the Quraysh tribe defeated at Badr, and “composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women,” Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Ishaq tells us.

    This was the extent of his alleged crimes.

    The enmity between al-Ashraf and Muhammad and Muhammad’s response to it is found in several sources, including Sahih al-Bukhari 3.45.687 and 5.59.369. The second hadith is particularly long, so only parts will be quoted here. The hadith begins:

    “Allah’s messenger said ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?’

    Thereupon Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s messenger! Would you like that I kill him?’
    The prophet said, ‘Yes.’

    Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e., to deceive Ka’b).’ The prophet said, ‘You may say it.'”

    So here we have two moral lapses by Muhammad to the Realpolitik of the day. The first: a willingness to put a political opponent to death–political murder. The second: a willingness to use all manners of deceit to advance the political murder–lying. Here we find an instance of the questionable doctrine of taqiyya, or dissimulation, approved by the alleged prophet of Allah, the Arab war idol and transformed moon god who–unlike Jesus Christ who says, “I am the truth” (John 14:6)—Allah says of himself that he is the “best of deceivers,” Allahu khayru al-makirina, (Qur’an 3:54).

    Based on the pretence that, as an opponent of Muhammad, he wanted to borrow a camel load or two of food, Maslama visited al-Ashraf at night and, together with his foster brother Abu Naila, was invited into Maslama’s fort. The plan among the conspiring assassins was to compliment al-Ashraf on his perfumed hair, and, when he was distracted, to cut off his head.

    The plan worked, and together Maslama and Abu Naila cut of Muhammad’s enemy’s head.

    According to the Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq, the Muslim poet Ka’b bin Malik (who should be distinguished from the murdered Jewish poet and political enemy of Muhammad, Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf) said:

    “Sword in hand we cut [Ka’b] down.
    By Muhammad’s order when he sent secretly by night Ka’b’s brother to go to Ka’b.
    He beguiled him and brought him down with guile.
    Mahmoud [bin Maslama] was trustworthy, bold.”

    Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat records Muhammad’s delight at the successful murder of his political opponent:

    “Then they cut his head and took it with them [and] . . . they cast his head before him [Muhammad]. He (the prophet) praised Allah on his being slain.”

    Allahu akhbar. The pseudo-prophet can rejoice at an innocent man’s death, just like many of his followers could rejoice at the countless attack, and the deaths of millions who did none of their killers wrong. This is what happens when you are the prosecutor, the alleged victim, and the judge. The defendant, even if innocent, has no voice. This is because, in Islam, Allah and his messenger know best, Allahu wa rasulluhu a’lam.

    This is the Muslim mantra that blinds him to the fact that his alleged prophet is a sinner, a violator of the natural law, and most certainly not an authentic prophet.




    “The Qur’an escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.”
    The present text of the Koran, which all Muslims accept as the only non-falsified holy book, was collected 15-20 years after the death of Muhammad in the time of the Caliph Uthman who ordered all previous collections to be burned.
    But you don’t have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn’t need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn’t deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does.

    Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn’t need a scholastic review of the Qur’anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely.
    Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so he had made no preparations for gathering his revelations. He left it up to his followers to sift through the conflicting versions.

    There is not a SINGLE idea in the Quran that has not been plagiarized, pirated, plundered or perverted from the belief of others! The only new items in the Quran are the enormous amounts of hate, war, torture & Hellish verses that permeate through its pages.
    Mohammedanism is the Cult of Mohammed & both Quran & Hadithss instruct his followers to slavishly emulate his deeds, thoughts, manner & ideas. This is Cultism.

    Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq’s Sira, or Biography, stands alone—a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time.

    Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim.

    Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad’s words and example. They also explain the Qur’an—a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers. Their message is all that Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur’an are Islam.

    Bragging one day, Muhammad called his surahs a miracle:

    Bukhari:V6B61N504 “Muhammad said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed. But what I have been given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets.’”

    If the Qur’an was his only “miracle,” why would he leave it in such horrid condition? I believe the answer is clear.

    Muhammad knew his recitals had been nothing more than a figment of his less-than-admirable imagination, situational scriptures designed to satiate his cravings. Preserving these recitals would only serve to incriminate him, as this Hadith suggests.

    Muslim: C24B20N4609 “The Messenger said: ‘Do not take the Qur’an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it would fall into the hands of the enemy.’ Ayyub, one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters, said: ‘The enemy may seize it and may quarrel with you over it.’”
    A number of Bukhari Hadith suggest that Muhammad’s companions tried to remember what they could of what he had said, but there was a problem. Like today, those who knew the Qur’an were militants. So Abu Bakr feared that large portions would be forgotten. The best Muslims were dying on the battlefield subduing fellow Arabs. In one battle alone, most of the Qur’an’s most knowledgeable reciters were lost, and many Qur’anic passages along with them.

    Bukhari:V6B60N201 “Zaid bin Thabit, the Ansari said, ‘Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Muhammad’s Companions were killed). Umar was present with Bakr. “The people have suffered heavy casualties at Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among those who can recite the Qur’an on other battlefields. A large part of the Qur’an may be lost unless you collect it.” I replied to Umar, “How can I do something which Allah’s Apostle has not done?” Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal.’ Zaid bin Thabit added, ‘Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. “You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur’an and collect it (in one manuscript).” By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Qur’an. I said to both of them, “How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?”
    Zaid declared that collecting the Qur’an’s surahs would be an impossible task. He said that it would be easier to move mountains than to turn Muhammad’s string of oral recitals into a book. The reason for this rather troubling statement is obvious: Zaid’s search for Qur’anic passages forced him to rely upon carvings on the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark. But for the most part, he found nothing better than the fleeting memories of the prophet’s Companions, many of whom were dead or dying. In other words, the Qur’an, like the Hadith, is all hearsay.
    There were no Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur’an, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an, Zaid would only have had to write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from men who believed that they had memorized certain segments and then compare what he heard to the recollection of others. Therefore, even the official Islamic view of things, the one recorded in their scripture, is hardly reassuring.
    Worse still, the Muslim chosen for this impossible task was the one in the best position to plagiarize the Torah and Talmud. Moreover, it’s obvious he did. Remember:

    Tabari VII:167 “In this year, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, ‘I fear that they may change my Book.’”
    the worse it gets.

    Bukhari:V6B61N511 “Zaid bin Thabit said, ‘I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi but I could not find them with anyone other than him. They were: ‘Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves.’” [9:128]

    This is incriminating. The 9th surah was the second to last revealed. If only one person could remember it, there is no chance those revealed twenty-five years earlier were retained. Furthermore, this Tradition contradicts the most highly touted Islamic mantra: Most Muslims contend Uthman, not Bakr, ordered the collection of the Qur’an a decade later. And who knows what version they finally committed to paper, if in fact they ever did?

    Bukhari:V6B61N513: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel [whom Muhammad said had 600 wings] recited the Qur’an to me in one way. Then I requested him and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways.’”

    So there were at least seven Qur’ans.
    • In Bukhari’s Hadith we find a sea of disturbing and contradictory claims regarding the compilation of Allah’s book. There were differing versions, even in Muhammad’s day:

    Then Abdallah came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.” This is reasonably clear. The Hadith says that portions of the Qur’an were conflicting, changed, and cancelled.

    • Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif—Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them.

    Abu Bakr decided that it was time to gather what remained of the Qur’an in order to prevent more from being lost, and he appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to this task. After Zaid completed his codex around 634 AD, it remained in Abu Bakr’s possession until his death, when it was passed on to Caliph Umar. When Umar died, it was given to Hafsa, a widow of Muhammad. (For a fuller account see Sahih al-Bukhari 4986.)

    When Ibn Umar—son of the second Muslim caliph—heard people declaring that they knew the entire Qur’an, he said to them: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof’” (Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an).

    During Caliph Uthman’s reign, approximately 19 years after the death of Muhammad, disputes arose concerning the correct recitation of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered that Hafsa’s copy of the Qur’an, along with all known textual materials, should be gathered together so that an official version might be compiled. Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith worked diligently to construct a revised text of the Qur’an.

    Bukhari:V4B56N709 “Uthman called Zaid, Abdallah, Said, and Abd-Rahman. They wrote the manuscripts of the Qur’an in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, ‘If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur’an, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Qur’an was revealed in their language.’ So they acted accordingly.”

    Because there was such confusion, Uthman ordered competing versions to be burned. But by destroying the evidence, he destroyed the Qur’an’s credibility. Now all Muslims have is wishful thinking.
    When it was finished, “Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4987). The Qur’an we have today is descended from the Uthmanic codex.

    Muhammad once told his followers to “Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Masud—he started with him—Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3808). Interestingly, Ibn Masud (first on Muhammad’s list) held that the Qur’an should only have 111 chapters (today’s version has 114 chapters), and that chapters 1, 113, and 114 shouldn’t have been included in the Qur’an.

    Due to these disputes among Muhammad’s hand-picked reciters, Muslims are faced with a dilemma. If Muslims say that the Qur’an we have today has been perfectly preserved, they must say that Muhammad was horrible at choosing scholars, since he selected men who disagreed with today’s text. If, on the other hand, Muslims say that their prophet would know whom to pick regarding Islam’s holiest book, they must conclude that the Qur’an we have today is flawed!

    One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Musa, supported this claim when he said that the early Muslims forgot two surahs (chapters) due to laziness:
    Sahih Muslim 2286


    Aisha also tells us that individual verses of the Qur’an disappeared, sometimes in very interesting ways:
    Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep/goat came in and ate it.”
    The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult not in the Qur’an today.

    We know further that large sections of certain chapters came up missing. For instance, Muhammad’s wife Aisha said that roughly two-thirds of Surah 33 was lost:
    Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an—A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].”

    • Sahih al-Bukhari 5005—Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.”

    • But Ibn Masud wasn’t the only one of Muhammad’s trusted teachers who disagreed with Zaid’s Qur’an. Ubayy ibn Ka’b was Muhammad’s best reciter and one of the only Muslims to collect the materials of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime. Yet Ibn Ka’b believed that Zaid’s Qur’an was missing two chapters! Later Muslims were therefore forced to reject some of Ibn Ka’b’s recitation:

    • Ibn Masud advised Muslims to reject Zaid’s Qur’an and to keep their own versions—even to hide them so that they wouldn’t be confiscated by the government! He said:
    Jami at-Tirmidhi 3104—“O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.”

    • Because of this (along with hundreds of other textual differences), Ibn Masud went so far as to call the final edition of the Qur’an a deception! He said, “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444).


    And Allaah revealed other aayahs in a separate soorah, where He says:
    “Say (O Muhammad): “It has been revealed to me that a group (from three to ten in number) of jinn listened (to this Qur’aan). They said: ‘Verily, we have heard a wonderful Recitation (this Qur’aan)!” [al-Jinn 72:1]


    Even the Prophet had a shaytaan with him, his constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn, in the hadeeth which says that the Prophet said:
    “There is no one among you but he has with him a constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn and a constant companion from among the angels.” They said, “You too, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Me too, but Allaah has helped me against him (the devil-companion) and he has become Muslim.”

    The Koran is a book of myths, fables and fairy tales.
    Do your research! The Qur’an is a revised counterfeit of 6th century polytheism, composed of previously existing pagan beliefs, practices and fairy tales.

    For example: The Koran says men were turned into apes because they broke the Sabbath. This was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166).

    The Quran repeats fanciful Arabian fables as if they were true.
    “Arabic legends about the fabulous jinns fill its pages” (G.G. Pfander, Balance of Truth, pp. 283).

    “The story of the she-camel who leapt out of a rock and became a prophet was known long before Muhammad” (Suras 7:73-77,85; 91:14; 54:29).
    The story of an entire village of people who were turned into apes because they broke the sabbath by fishing was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166).

    The gushing 12 springs story found in Sura 2:60 comes from pre-Islamic legends.

    In what is called the “Rip Van Winkle” story, seven men and their animals slept for 309 years in a cave and then woke up perfectly fine (Sura 18:9-26)! This legend is found in Greek and Christian fables as well as Arabian lore.

    The fable of the pieces of four dead, cut-up birds getting up and flying was well known in Muhammad’s time (Sura 2:260).

    It is also clear that Muhammad used such pre-Islamic literature as the Saba Moallaqat of Imra’ul Cays in his composition of Suras 21:96; 29:31,46; 37:59; 54:1, and 93:1.

    Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works.

    This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954 (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, p. 229;

    Jomier, The Bible and the Quran — Henry Regency Co., Chicago, 1959, 59ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 163ff.; Guillaume, Islam, p. 13).

    The source of Sura 3:35-37 is the fanciful book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser.
    The source of Sura 87:19 is the Testament of Abraham.
    The source of Sura 27:17-44 is the Second Targum of Esther.

    The fantastic tale that God made a man “die for a hundred years” with no ill effects on his food, drink, or donkey was a Jewish fable (Sura 2:259ff.).

    The idea that Moses was resurrected and other material came from the Jewish Talmud (Sura 2:55, 56, 67).

    • The story in Sura 5:30,31 can also be found in pre-Islamic works from Pirke Rabbi Eleazer, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah and the Targum of Jerusalem.

    The tale of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod’s fire came from the Midrash Rabbah (see Suras 21:51-71; 29:16, 17; 37:97,98). It must be also pointed out that Nimrod and Abraham did not live at the same time.

    Muhammad was always mixing people together in the Quran who did not live at the same time.

    The non-biblical details of the visit of the Queen of Sheba (Saba) in Sura 27:20-44 came from the Second Targum of the Book of Esther.

    The source of Sura 2:102 is no doubt the Midrash Yalkut (chapter 44).

    The story found in Sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law came from the Jewish book Abodah Sarah.

    The making of the golden calf in the wilderness, in which the image jumped out of the fire fully formed and actually mooed (Suras 7:148; 20:88), came from Pirke Rabbi Eleazer.

    The seven heavens and hells described in the Quran came from the Zohar and the Hagigah.

    Muhammad utilized the Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or hell (Suras 42:17; 101:6-9).

    • KAABA

    Kaabah construction DATE was after 4th century AD by “Abu Karb Asa’d” was the first to consecrate Kaabah which reveals that he was the builder of Kaabah.The two Rukuns or stones which were the main elements of worship in the temple were of Yemeni origin. The date on which the Black Stone first appeared in Mecca was at the time of Mohammed’s grandfather between 495 and 520 AD. Islamic tradition was aware of these facts, people invented “Unreliable Quran LIED stories!” to fill the historical gaps.

    Evidence from Sana’a manuscripts found in Yemen in 1972 are the oldest existent version of the Quran.The palimpsest ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’ has been proven to actually contain “4” different Qurans: A complete primary and secondary text, both showing later corrections. Therefore we are not just dealing with one Quran but 4 ‘bad copies’“4 different Qurans” within the “First” Islamic century.If the Uthmanic text had “NOT yet reach” in the mosque upon what correction texts were made for “4 different Qurans”?

    Islam retains much from pre-Islamic Arabia including Allah, the name for Pagan God. The concept of monotheism did exist in the jahiliyya – even the pagans conceived of a supreme God that ruled over all the others. There are hints that some idolatry would remain the Satanic verses. The Ka’ba was the masjid of many tribes as early as 60 BC, and the pagans first had the tradition of kissing the black stone. From Sabaa Mu’allaqat of Imra’ul Qays in Quran (S. 54:1, 29:31&46, 37:69, 21:96, 93:1).

    The Quran Was Not Preserved
    “We have sent down the Quran and surely We will protect” – The Quran 15:9
    Surat Al-Ĥijr (The Rocky Tract) – سورة الحجر

    Sahih International
    Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.
    Most Muslims are familiar with the above verse from the Quran, which they consider as the concrete proof that the Quran is perfectly preserved. The verse is clear; Allah pledges to protect his book from corruption, which provides Muslims with a much needed assurance that their holy book is reliable. Such assurance was necessary to Muslims whose confidence in the divine scriptures was shaken after the Quran’s repeated accusations to other nations of tampering with their own scriptures.
    Muslims are taught that preservation of the Quran is an accepted fact that distinguishes Islam from the rest. The claim aims to make the Quran stand out as the only true divine book in the procession of mankind today. The Muslims’ claim is a big lie that has proved to be a very successful selling point to converts who often refer to the Quran in that sense.
    It is not advisable to question the authenticity of the Quran with Muslims unless you are sure of their relative tolerance. The Muslims clouded minds quickly moves into circular logic such as: ”Of course, every word in the the Quran is preserved as Allah revealed it to his prophet, this is an absolute fact because Allah vowed to protect his book from any corruption” It would be a struggle to try to point out that a statement in the Quran can not be accepted as a proof of its authenticity.
    From a scientific point of view, the Quran and Islam wouldn’t stand a chance if subjected to proper historical scrutiny (1). Mohammed’s birth and life, the Quran and the beginning of Islam are all shrouded with a thick coat of vagueness and obscurity. But this article discredits the islamic claim on the basis of the accepted Islamic history.
    How the Quran was preserved
    As all Muslims know, the Quran was not Allah’s first book; a few others were revealed centuries before the Quran. None of those scriptures survived to our day because they were tampered with by the very people to whom they were revealed. Fourteen hundreds years ago, Allah decided conclusively to reveal a scripture, once and for all, which He called the Quran, and vowed to protect it from corruption.
    We do not know the reasons why people tampered with the earlier scriptures. Did they gain anything by deliberately making changes to Allah’s words? Why they did not fear Allah, especially with all the stories in those scriptures, about Allah’s punishments to those who dared to disobey Him. We also do not know why Allah allowed his books to be tampered with. Even human writers do not allow any changes to their works.
    As Allah pledges to protect the Quran, one would think that He would create the ideal conditions for His revelation along with man-proof measures to safeguard the Quran. Well, it doesn’t look to us that way. On the contrary, it looks as if Allah made every effort to make the Quran disappear, even before its revelation was completed.
    Let us examine the circumstances of the Quranic revelation:
    The Nation
    The Quran was revealed in the seventh century to the Arabs, one of the most illiterate nations of the time. It was the Arabs first ever book. Before the Quran the Arabs never authored a book and had no idea how books look like or how to handle them. Revealing the Quran to the Arabs sets the scene for mistakes of all kinds.
    The Timing
    The Quran was revealed before the Arabic script was fully developed. The Arabic script was not yet suitable for writing anything with significance because many letters shared the same appearance. The script problem was only solved, decades after Mohammed’s death, by adding dots to the script. It is only fair to wonder why Allah rushed the Quran before the Arabic script was well developed.
    It looks strange that the Arabs used the same script for multiple letters. But before the Quran, the Arabs only managed to write a few pieces of poetry. Reading the script served as a reminder for the reader of what they already knew by heart. As a matter of fact, the Arabic script still suffers of a similar problem in our time.
    There are many Arabic words (not letters) that share exactly the same appearance, even after adding the dots. It is usually left for the reader to work out, from the context, the proper pronunciation of a particular word. To distinguish those words from each other, printing has to include the diacritical marks ( like fat-ha, kasra, and damma ), which the Arabs started to use more than a century after Mohammed’s death. Although used in the Quran, the diacritical marks are rarely used in every day printing of ordinary books or newspapers because they make the words cluttered and printing more demanding.
    The Illiterate Receiver
    At the time of the Quranic revelations, there were some Arabs who were educated enough to be able to read and write. Out of all the Arabs, Allah appointed Mohammed, an illiterate person, to be in charge of the Quran. This is like appointing an illiterate person to be in charge of editing an important newspaper..
    The Scribes
    Mohammed had some scribes working for him in Medina. After a revelation, Mohammed would ask whoever was available of those scribes to write the revealed verse/verses. The scribe service was not available to Mohammed when he was still a weak person with only a handful of followers in Mecca. Therefore, it is fair to assume that the Meccan verses, over one third of the Quran, were not written immediately by scribes.
    Being an illiterate person, Mohammed had no means to check the work of the scribes for errors that could have been made accidentally or on purpose. Being trustworthy himself is meaningless if Mohammed had to leave the work to be completed by ordinary people without supervision.
    The story of Ibn Abu Al Sarh:
    This is a very important and very little known story about the Quran. Muslim scholars make every effort to tuck it away and keep it out of sight of ordinary Muslims.
    In short: Abdulla Ibn Abu Al Sarh was one of the scribes in Medina. Once Mohammed dictated to him a verse, that has one of the common endings like aleem khabeer or hakeem aleem. When Ibn Abu Al Sarh reached the end of the verse he double checked with Mohammed: “Oh prophet of Allah, is it hakeem aleem?” to which Mohammed said ‘yes, it is’. Ibn Abu Al Sarh became suspicious because he thought it was aleem khabeer. Ibn Abu Al Sarh decided to test Mohammed in future verses and noticed that Mohammed accepts his suggestions of aleem khabeer or hakeem aleem or other endings that do not distort the meaning.
    Ibn Abu Al Sarh concluded that Mohammed was not a prophet but an impostor. He denounced Islam and defected to Mecca and told the Quraysh of what happened. Mohammed became very angry and vowed to kill him once he conquers Mecca, which he was preparing for. When Mohammed conquered Mecca, Ibn Abu Al Sarh was arrested but was saved from the death sentence by Uthman, his brother in breast feeding. Ibn Abu Al Sarh survived and had a successful career under the Umayad dynasty, which speaks volumes of the faith of the Umayads!
    We do not know which verses were scribed by Ibn Abu Al Sarh, but we know that at least those verses were not accurate!
    The materials
    The technology necessary for writing was not well developed in Arabia. The scribes used primitive ink and perishable material to accomplish their work. Consequently, by the time Mohammed died, some verses were unreadable or completely missing from the Quran. According to Aysha, Mohammed’s wife, she used to keep the stoning verse under her bed, but it was eaten by a ‘dajen’ (chicken or domestic animal!)
    Until Mohammed’s death, nobody inspected the work of the scribes, which was left to gather dust until after Mohammed’s death. The moment of truth came about two decades later when Caliph Uthman appointed a committee to start the project of collecting the Quran. Only then the discrepancies in the various writings came to light. Uthman’s solution was to burn all existing copies and keep only the formal five copies which were produced by his committee. Many leading Muslims refused to recognize Uthman’s copies and refused to surrender their own to be destroyed because they believed theirs were the accurate ones. Ibn Massoud, a sahabi whose knowledge of the Quran was renowned and commended by Mohammed, was one of those Muslims who refused to recognize Uthman’s copies and refused to surrender his personal, presumably accurate, collection.
    Preserving the Quran in the Muslims’ chests
    Some Muslim scholars claim that all of the above is irrelevant because the Quran was preserved in the Muslims’ chests as well. (Yes, the Quran associates the heart with intelligence, not a word about the brain, and the Muslims believed it). This claim is coupled to a belief that the early Muslims were humans with extra ordinary intelligence. Of course this is completely unfounded and still doesn’t explain the discrepancies between the various collections of the Quran.
    Mohammed could and should have done more to safeguard the Quran, if he really believed it was Allah’ words and the most important document on earth. He had the resources and the authority, as a leader in Medina, to order a supervised writing and proper collection of the Quran. He should have stamped that authenticated copy (Mohammed had a stamp) and devised a system to take care of it after him. But he didn’t because he was busy fighting wars; over seventy of them in a space of ten years. Besides he didn’t really feel the Quran was that important. He probably found the chaotic situation useful, as it gave him the freedom to contradict the earlier verses without being noticed.
    Many Muslims believe that two of Uthman’s copies still exist today and they seem to be sure about it. They do so because they believe their scholars who propagate this lie with apparent confidence, which is not unusual for Muslim scholars.
    Caliph Uthman sent four of his copies to the governors of the newly conquered states and kept one with him in Medina. Those copies were supposed to have been well looked after but there is no trace of them. How can Muslims afford to lose such important divine documents? This is difficult to fathom considering the way today’s Muslims treat the Quran. Muslims are usually reluctant to dispose of their old copies of the Quran because it is not a straight forward matter; it should be burnt and not mixed with the general waste.
    Until the discovery of the Quran of Sanaa, the oldest two copies of the Quran were thought to be the ones in Tashkent and Istanbul. Both copies are partial, not the full Quran and both were dated to some two hundred years after Mohammed’s death. Therefore they are not Uthman’s copies.
    In the 1970s, manuscripts of the Quran were found in Sanaa, Yemen, and were dated to about hundred years after Mohammed’s death. They are believed to be the oldest copy of the Quran. The Yemini authorities stopped the German researchers from completing their work once they noticed the differences between the manuscripts and the existing Quran. It is also interesting to note that independent researchers have no access to do proper studies on the copies in Tahkent and Istanbul.
    Are they hiding something?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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