Quran- The Word Of God?


The Qur’an, (Koran) meaning recitation, is the sacred book of Islam. According to Muslim tradition, it was revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad in separate revelations over the major portion of his life at Mecca and at Medina. The Qur’an was probably compiled as a single volume under the third caliph, Uthman, who appointed a committee (651-52). The internal organization of the Qur’an is somewhat ad hoc. Revelations consisted of verses (ayat) grouped into 114 chapters (surah, plural – suwar).

This is what Qur’an says in its English Translation’s introduction, lets see how much words in Quran is from Allah, because as per Muslim’s claim each and every word between the two covers of the Quran is verbatim word of God (Allah). This question is beyond any doubt and Qur’an itself proves that some verse contained in it is from Muhammad, and if Qur’an contains a single alphabet of Muhammador anyone except Allah, it means it has to rejected entirely as it is altered by a mere man.

Quran itself claims that it is pure word of Allah, and it has no discrepancies or errors. Now it’s not my fault if I find even a single error, discrepancy or pseudo-science in Quran, and reject it, because Quran asks me to do so. Read the verse:

(Quran 4:82)
Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)?
Had it been from other than Allah, they would
surely have found therein much discrepancy.

According to the Muslims the Quran contains the words of God. Quran is to be read as if God himself had spoken these words stated in it. It is important to emphasize this point because if Quran is the word of God then it should not contain any human words or errors and it should hold true for all times.

However, such is not the case. First, we will see how some of the verses in the Quran itself show clearly that some of the verses were obviously spoken by Muhammad and Not God (Allah).

(Quran 1:1-7)
In the name of the Merciful and Compassionate God.
Praise belongs to God, The Lord of the worlds, the merciful, the compassionate, the ruler of the day of the day of judgement! Thee we serve and Thee we ask for aid. Guide us in the right path,the path of those Thou art gracious to; not to those Thou art wroth with, nor of those who err.

Someone need not be a rocket-scientist to comprehend that these words are clearly addressed to God, in the form of a prayer. They are Muhammad’s words of praise to God, asking for God’s help and guidance. Some Muslim compilers conveniently add the imperative “say” in the English translation of the Quran at the beginning of the surah (chapter) to remove this difficulty. This imperative form of the word “say” occurs at least 350 times in the Quran, and its obvious that this word has, in fact, been inserted by later compilers of the Quran to remove countless similarly embarrassing difficulties. Thus, we have direct evidence that the Quran starts out with the words of Muhammad.

Very similar comment Swami Dayanand Saraswati gave in his book “The Light of Truth” on the very first verse of Quran, he said:

The Mohammedans claim that this Q’uran is the Word of God, but it appears from the above passage that the author of this book was some person other than God, since had it been God himself, He would not have said: “(I begin this book) in the name of God etc.” He would have, instead, said: “I write this book for the instruction of mankind.” If it be said that by beginning His book in this fashion He means to teach men as to what they should say when about to do a thing, it cannot be true, since some men will do even sinful deeds in the name of God and thereby bring disgrace on Him.

So it can be said that at least the very first chapter of Quran is without a shadow of doubt not from Allah, but either by Muhammad himself or some of the later compiler. Quran in many other places gives us evidence that it is not the God’s word, but of somebody else, like read Quran 6:104, which says:

(Quran 6:104)
Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (To open your eyes): If any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; If any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) To watch over your doings.

In this verse the speaker of the line “I am not to watch over your doings”– is clearly Muhammad’s word. In fact N J Dawood in his translation adds a footnote that the “I” refers to Mohammed here. Apart from this Al-Jalalayan in his explanation to this verse writes:

And I am not a keeper, a watcher, over you, of your deeds: I am but a Warner.

The case is crystal clear that Muhammad considered himself to be the warner, and a messenger. So this verse must have been revealed by Muhammad himself to frighten people of Mecca from the wrath of Allah, so that people embrace Islam in fear. The are loads of similar verse, in which Muhammad speaks in 1st person. Let’s see them too.

(Quran 27:91)
For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this city, Him Who has sanctified it and to whom (Belong)  things; and I am commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to Allah’s Will

Again, the speaker here is clearly Muhammad who is trying to justify killing of innocent Meccans who were not willing to follow Muhammad’s version of God. Dawood and Pickthall both interpolate “say” at the beginning of the sentence which is lacking in the original Arabic version of the verse.

If we use word to word translation dictionary, it makes more clear that this verse is Muhammad’s own creation, instead of Allah’s. The actual verse in Arabic says:

innamā- “Only

umir’tu – I am commanded

an – that

aʿbuda – I worship

rabba- (the) Lord

hādhihil-baldati – (of) this city

By my wildest imagination also, I can’t understand why God commands himself to worship the lord. Or else the verse is by Muhammad or somebody else. In other places in Quran, the creator of world, the lord of Islam, starts swearing on his own creation. We have observed and seen, that people mostly swear on things or people very superior to them, like mother, father, god, holy books etc. We would have hardly noticed people, swearing seriously on their bikes, cars, or wallets, but never mind Allah does if he has revealed the verse (Quran 81:15) himself. The verse says:

(Quran 81:15)
So verily I call To witness the planets that recede… 

Ibn Kathir explains the verse by quoting a Sahih Hadith which says:

Muslim recorded in his Sahih, and An-Nasa’i in his Book of Tafsir, in explaining this Ayah, from `Amr bin Hurayth that he said, “I prayed the Morning prayer behind the Prophet , and I heard him reciting, (But nay! I swear by Al-Khunnas, Al-Jawar Al-Kunnas, and by the night when it `As`as, and by the day when it Tanaffas.)” Ibn Jarir recorded from Khalid bin `Ar`arah that he heard `Ali being asked about the Ayah; (لَا أُقْسِمُ بِالْخُنَّسِ. الْجَوَارِ الْكُنَّسِ) (Nay! I swear by Al-Khunnas, Al-Jawar Al-Kunnas.) and he said, “These are the stars that withdraw (disappear) during the day and sweep across the sky (appear) at night.”

Do we have any more doubt regarding the verse? Obviously its Muhammad, who swore on planets and stars. We find very similar verse in CH 84:16-19 too, which says:

(Quran 84:16-19)
I swear by the afterglow of sunset, and by the night, and by the moon when she is at the full.

Once again it is Muhammad and NOT God. He is unable to disguise his pagan heritage. He swears again in the name of the Sun and Moon, both of which were considered as holy deities by Pre-Islamic Arabs. We have got enough evidences to prove that Quran contains Muhammad’s own word, but this is not all, we are left with many of Muhammad’s verse, for example read Quran 6:114, which says:

(Quran 6:114)
Should I seek other judge than God, when
it is He who has sent down to you, the
distinguishing book (Koran)?

Any sane person can comprehend that those words are not spoken by God but Muhammad himself. Yusuf Ali in his translation adds at the beginning of the sentence “say”, which is not there in the original Arabic and he does so without comment or footnote. The Arabic verse starts with the word “afaghayra l-lahi” which means “Then is (it) other than Allah”. Any Muslim who reads Quran in Arabic can check this fact.

Now let’s come back to Muslims claim, that the book Quran is a verbatim word of Allah, and contains no human verses or letters or even an alphabet. But as per my knowledge and study of Quran, I have shown half a dozen verses of Muhammad, or else later compiler of Quran. Now would they reject Quran as word of God, or they will stick to their blind belief depends on them?

Interestingly I haven’t touched the errors and pseudo-science portion yet, which Allah has challenged us to find in Quran. Which will be done in next part of this article.

 

 

11 thoughts on “Quran- The Word Of God?

  1. I don’t need someone’s certificate to be known as a Muslim. I believe in whatever is needed to be known as a Muslim so I’m a Muslim. I’m a Muslim and I’m proud to be one. If someone wants to know why I’m a Muslim or why I consider Islam as the best religion in the world, he can debate. 🙂 If he wants to speak rubbish, he may get lost. 😀

    • YO HO HO MO, “I’m a Muslim and I’m proud to be one”. YOU’RE PROUD TO FOLLOW THIS EVIL, PSYCHOPATHIC THUG? MOHAMMED WAS A MURDERING, RAPING, CHILD MOLESTING, ENSLAVING, THIEVING ARABIAN THUG! Muhammad: A Mass Murderer There were three Jewish tribes living in and around Yathrib, the Banu Qainuqa’, the Ban Nadir and the Banu Quraiza. Once Muhammad realized that they are not going to accept him as their new prophet, he turned against them. He banished the first two, after confiscating their properties and wealth and massacred the last one. Genocide of Banu Quraiza: (From Understanding Muhammad) The last Jewish tribe of Yathrib to fall victim to Muhammad’s vindictiveness was the Banu Quraiza. Soon after the Battle of the Trench (Khandaq) was over, the Meccans, fed up with Muhammad’s constant raids on their caravans, came to the gates of Medina to punish him. Advised by a Persian believer, they dug trenches around the city making it difficult for Muhammad’s enemies (The Confederates) to enter, causing their retreat. Muhammad set his eyes on the Banu Quraiza. He claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him “asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them. Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts,” [1] writes Al-Mubarakpouri. Al-Mubarakpouri continues: “the Messenger of Allâh immediately summoned the prayer caller and ordered him to announce fresh hostilities against Banu Quraiza,” [2] It is important, in studying Islam, to note that the call to prayer was also the call to war. Muslim’s riots and hooliganism always initiate from the mosques after they offer their prayers. They are most vicious during the holy month of Ramadan and on Fridays. In a sermon commemorating the Birthday of Muhammad, in 1981, the Ayatollah Khomeini said: Mehrab (Mosque) means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed. Just as all the wars of Islam proceeded out of the mehrabs. The prophet had sword to kill people. Our Holy Imams were quite militants. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords. They used to kill people. We need a Caliph who would chop hands, cut throats, stone people. In the same way that the messenger of Allâh used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people. [3] Muhammad headed an army of three thousand infantry men and thirty horsemen of Ansar (Helpers) and Muhajireen (Emigrants). The Banu Quraiza was accused of conspiring against the Muslims with the Quraish. In reality, these Muslim historians deny this charge and say the Meccans withdrew without fighting because they did not receive support from the Banu Quraiza. When Muhammad made his intentions known, Ali, his cousin and staunch supporter, swore he would not stop until he either stormed their garrisons or was killed. This siege lasted 25 days. Finally the Banu Quraiza surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad ordered the men to be handcuffed, while the women and children were confined in isolation. Thereupon the Aws tribe, who were allies of the Banu Quraiza, interceded, begging Muhammad to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a ruffian among them who had been fatally wounded by an arrow, give a verdict on the Jews. Sa’d was a former ally of the Banu Quraiza, but since his conversion to Islam he had a change of heart against them. He also blamed them for the fatal wound he received when a Meccan threw an arrow during the Battle of Trench. Muhammad knew how Sa’d felt about the Banu Quraiza. He was, after all, his bodyguard and slept in the mosque. Sa’d’s verdict was that “all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters.” Muhammad became pleased with this cruel verdict and said that “Sa‘d (had) adjudged by the Command of Allâh.” [4] He often credited Allâh for his own decisions. This time he chose Sa’d to verbalize his whims. Al-Mubarakpouri adds that “In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harbored against Islam, and the large arsenal they had amassed, which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armors and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims.” What Al-Mubarakpouri forgets to mention is that the Banu-Quraiza had loaned their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench and defend themselves. Muslims will never be grateful to those who help them. They will take your help and will stab you in the back the moment they no longer need you. We shall see in the next chapter the psychology of this pathology. Muslim historians have been quick to accuse the Banu Quraiza of the usual baseless charges to justify their massacre. They accused them of being mischievous, causing sedition, being treacherous and plotting against Islam. However no specifics exist as to the nature of those sins to warrant such a severe punishment and their total genocide. Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Medina and between 600 to 900 men were beheaded and their bodies dumped in them. Huyai Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whose married daughter, Safiya, Muhammad took as his share of the booty when he invaded Khaibar, was among the captives. He was brought to the victor with his hands tied from behind. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred death to submission to this brute man. He was ordered to kneel and was beheaded on the spot. To determine who should be killed, the youngsters were examined. Those who had grown pubic hair were bundled with the men and beheaded. Atiyyah al-Quriaz, a Jew who had survived this massacre later recounted: “I was among the captives of Banu Quraiza. They (the Muslims) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.” [5] Muhammad killed and banished several Jewish tribes, among them are B. Qainuqa’, B. Nadir, B. Quraiza, B. Mustaliq, B. Jaun and the Jews of Khaibar. On his deathbed, he instructed his followers to cleanse the Arabian Peninsula of all non-believers, [6] an order that Omar, the second Caliph carried out later. He exterminated the Jews, the Christians and the pagans, forcing them to convert, leave or put them to death. Now, enriched with the loot, Muhammad could be even generous to those who believed in him. Anas narrated: “People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Banu Quraiza and Banu An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.” [7] There is a verse in the Qur’an that speaks about the massacre of the Banu Quraiza approving Muhammad’s butcheries of their men and taking women and children as prisoners. He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraish) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner. (Q. 33: 26) WAS MUHAMMAD A RAPIST? Introduction Many critics accuse Muhammad of being a rapist by citing certain sex incidents of his from the hadiths and Sira, but Muslims reject such accusations by claiming that those incidents do not qualify to be rape. In this article, I discuss the issue of Prophet Muhammad being a rapist. To keep the article brief, I will cite the cases of three women whom Muhammad had captured and used for sex. I do invite the reader to look objectively at the evidence before calling me a “bigot”, “Islamophobe”, or any other imagined attributes that Muslims give to anyone who criticizes Islam or show Muhammad in a bad light. This work is divided into the following sections: 1. Definition of a rapist 2. Existing evidence about Muhammad’s rapes 3. Bani Al Mustaliq raid and Juwairiyyah – Who was Juwairiyyah? 4. Safiyah of Khayber 5. Rayhana of Bani Qurayza 6. Conclusion 7. Supplementary Hadiths 1. Definition of a Rapist Varieties of dictionary definitions of rape make one theme obvious: A rapist is someone who forces another person to have sexual intercourse. Rape is the crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse, amounts to committing rape. I would also add that rape includes having sex with minors or mentally disabled persons. For instance, Muhammad had married Ayesha when she was six years old and had sex with her when she was nine years old. The linguistic definition of a rape does not include such a situation to call rape, even though, in my view, it is. An adult having sex with a nine year old is a rape, children at such tender age are not emotionally and psychologically mature enough to have sex. So, Muhammad’s having sex with young Ayesha qualifies as rape. However, I am not going to defend this position here. I will deal only with Muhammad’s sex act with adults that clearly qualify as rape. 2. Evidence about Muhammad’s rapes We do have enough information from authentic Islamic sources about Muhammad and his life’s events that is considered by Muslims as truthful – namely the Qur’an, the six Sahih Hadeeths, and the Sirat. I will be using those resources to investigate whether or not Muhammad was a Rapist. 3. Bani al-Mutaliq Raid and Juwairiyya In his 6th hijri year in Medina (627 A.D) and during the 8th month of Sha’ban, Muhammad attacked Bani Al-Mustaliq unprovoked: Bukhari 1. Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army. (Book #46, Hadith #717) 2. Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.” (Book#46, Hadith #718) The above Hadiths show that Muhammad and the Muslims attacked Bani Al-Mustaliq suddenly and unprovoked. After the attack, Muhammad got Juwairiya; one of the female captives (I assume he did not get her so she can teach him how to play Chess!). The second Hadith shows that the Muslim men captured female captives too and had sex with them. But since they wanted to sell such women, and a pregnant woman sells cheaper than a non-pregnant one, they practiced coitus interruptus (pulling out the male part before ejaculation). The Muslim warriors wondered if this practice was good or not. So, who is better than prophet Muhammad to ask him about such a delicate issue. Muhammad gives an ignorant answer, and the idea that those men were raping the women does not come to his mind. Be it Muhammad or any of his warriors, Rape was not on their mind when they had sex with those women. But the fact is this is still rape. I do not know of any woman who will have sex with you willingly if you had just killed her husband and almost all the adult male relatives she had. The women may not fight you because you are in a power position. This is still rape. The Bani Mustaliq information we have about the attack shows that Muhammad was a rapist. He also gave the stamp of approval to the Muslim warriors to rape the women. Who was Juwairiyah? A hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud explains to us why Muhammad desired her: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith ibn al-mustaliq, fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, or to her cousin. She entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman, most attractive to the eye. Aisha said: She then came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) asking him for the purchase of her freedom. When she was standing at the door, I looked at her with disapproval. I realised that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) would look at her in the same way that I had looked. She said: Apostle of Allah, I am Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith, and something has happened to me, which is not hidden from you. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, and I have entered into an agreement to purchase of my freedom. I have come to you to seek assistance for the purchase of my freedom. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Are you inclined to that which is better? She asked: What is that, Apostle of Allah? He replied: I shall pay the price of your freedom on your behalf, and I shall marry you. She said: I shall do this. She (Aisha) said: The people then heard that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) had married Juwayriyyah. They released the captives in their possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) by marriage. We did not see any woman greater than Juwayriyyah who brought blessings to her people. One hundred families of Banu al-mustaliq were set free on account of her. (Book #29, Hadith #3920) Juwayriyyah was the daughter of the chief of Bani Al Mustaliq. Her husband, Mustafa Bin Safwan, has just been killed during the battle with the Muslims. She was twenty years old at the time. Muhammad was fifty eight years old at the time. Juwayriyyah was, also, a very beautiful young woman. Muhammad had an eye for good looking young ones. So, he offered to marry her and did.The fact is this is rape. What choices did this young lady have? Or did she have any choices when she accepted Muhammad’s offer of marriage? He had just killed her husband and most of her adult male relatives. Her bad fortunes came through Muhammad’s attack against her tribe. She was in no position to negotiate any matter except trying to free herself of her predicament, on being a slave, in the best way she knows how. Opportunity came to her through her looks, and she tried to make the best of it. She had no other options really. What else can she do, and where will she go? Her tribe had been destroyed by the evil attack of the Muslims. This is rape, plain and simple. Muslims who will deny this fact will need to show that a woman will willingly have sex with you after you had just killed her husband and most of her family’s adult males. 4. Safiyya of Khayber Safiyya is another fine looking woman whose bad fortunes delivered her to Muhammad when he attacked and took over Khayber (628 A. D). Bukhari Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said to Abu Talha, “Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar.” So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah’s Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men.” Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,’ where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah’s Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah’s Apostle and safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah’s Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, “This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us.” Then he looked at Medina and said, “O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina’s) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures).” (Book #52, Hadith #143) Safiyya was a daughter of the Khaybar Jewish leader Huyay Bin Al Akhtab. She was very pretty seventeen year old lady. So, Muhammad with an eye that appreciated pretty young ones desired her and married her. Muhammad was about fifty eight years old at the time. Safiyyah’s husband, Kinana Ibn Al-Rabi’ has just been killed by the Muslims, and her bad fortune delivered her to Muhammad who appreciated beauty and had to have her. History tells us she married Muhammad and stayed with him until his death. Again, this is rape. Muhammad raped this woman time and again. No woman would willingly marry the killer of her husband, and most of her adult male relatives. 5. Rayhana of Bani Qurayza Another of Muhammad’s rapes is that of Rayhana Rayhana was of Bani Nadir and was married to a man of Bani Qurayza. When Muhammad commited his genocide of Bani Qurayza, Rayhana was amongst the captive women and children left. The Sirat narrates the following about her: The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana b. ‘Amr b. Khunafa, one of the women of B. ‘Amr b. Qurayza and she remained with him until she died, in his power. He apostle had proposed to marry her and put the veil on her, but she said:’Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.’ So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. [Source: W. Muir, The Life of Muhammad, (Edinburg 1923, Page466]. Rayhana was a pretty fifteen years old girl when prophet Muhammad wanted to marry her. He had just beheaded around 800 adult men of her tribe. Now it was time for him to have some fun! 6. Conclusion The evidence is very strong that Muhammad was a certified and licensed rapist. He did not feel the pains that those women were going through. He could not process the grieve they had to endure. In the peak of those women’s grief, Muhammad wanted to solace himself with sexual favors with those poor women. If this is not Rape, I do not know what is. ——————————————————————————- 7. Supplementary Hadiths Bukhari 1. Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.” (Book #59, Hadith #459) 2. Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.” (Book #93, Hadith #506) 3. Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned.” The people came out into the streets saying, “Muhammad and his army.” Allah’s Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. safiyawas taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah’s Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. (Book #14, Hadith #68) Narrated Anas: Amongst the captives was safiya. First she was given to Dihya Al-Kalbi and then to the Prophet. (Book #34, Hadith #431) Muslim 1. Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Book #008, Hadith#3371) 1. Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m”. ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops. (Book #019, Hadith #4292) Malik’s Muwatta’ • Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, “I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, ‘We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, ‘Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?’ We asked him about that and he said, ‘You don’t have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.\'” (Book #29, Hadith #29.32.95) WAS MUHAMMAD A CHILD MOLESTER/SEX MANIAC Muhammad had sex with just about anyone he pleased, thanks to Allah’s extraordinary interest in his personal sex life, as immortalized in the Qur’an. Although the Qur’an didn’t appear to have enough space for topics like universal love and brotherhood (which Muslims sometimes insist are there, but aren’t), the list of sexual partners that Muhammad was entitled to is detailed more than once, sometimes in categories and sometimes in reference to specific persons (ie. Zaynab and Mary). Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He had sex with a 9-year-old girl and married his adopted son’s wife (after arranging a quick divorce). On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex – sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army. So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world’s most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history. The Qur’an: Allah managed to hand down quite a few “revelations” that sanctioned Muhammad’s personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the Qur’an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance. Qur’an (33:37) – “But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah’s command shall be performed.” No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur’an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a “revelation” of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, – a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse “commands” Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband’s gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God…? Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her– specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; ” This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this “revelation” was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad’s hedonism. Qur’an (33:51) – “You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased” This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad’s wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain… as revealed in Allah’s literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims. Qur’an (66:1-5) – “O Prophet! Why ban thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?…” Another remarkable verse of sexual convenience concerns an episode in which Muhammad’s wives were jealous of the attention that he was giving to a Christian slave girl. But, as he pointed out to them, to neglect the sexual availability of his slaves was against Allah’s will for him! Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle. From the Hadith: Muslim (8:3309) – Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given. Bukhari (62:18) – Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions. Muslim (8:3311) – The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad’s house (something to play with when the “prophet” was not having sex with her). Bukhari (6:298) – Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her. Muslim (8:3460) – “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead of opting to fondle a child. Bukhari (4:232) – Muhammad’s wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it’s a wonder he found the time to slay pagans. Bukhari (6:300) – Muhammad’s wives had to be available for the prophet’s fondling even when they were having their menstrual period. Bukhari (93:639) – The Prophet of Islam would recite the ‘Holy Qur’an’ with his head in Aisha’s lap, when she was menstruating. Bukhari (62:6) – “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally – and it isn’t hard to guess why. Bukhari (5:268) – “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.’ ” Bukhari (60:311) – “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given ‘Allah’s permission’ to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly). Muslim (8:3424) – One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become “unlawful” to her – meaning that they can live under the same roof together. Tabari IX:137 – “Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty.” Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God’s gift to him. Tabari VIII:117 – “Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself… the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.” He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself. Tabari IX:139 – “You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer.” Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had ‘offered’ herself to Muhammad (he accepted). Additional Notes: Muhammad’s sexual antics are an embarrassment to those Muslims who are aware of them. This is particularly so for their prophet’s consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years of age. The thought of a 53-year-old man sleeping and bathing with a young girl is intensely unpleasant and it reflects the disgusting character of a sexual glutton rather than a holy man. Critics even allege that Muhammad was a pedophile. Some Muslims respond by denying the hadith itself, which is a mistake. The accounts of Muhammad sleeping with a 9-year-old are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of tradition and did not become controversial until social mores began to change with the modern age. The charge of pedophilia may or may not be true, depending on how it is defined. Technically, Muhammad did have a sexual relationship with a child, but Aisha was also the youngest of his twelve wives. Zaynab was in her 30’s when she attracted the unquenchable lust of the prophet. We don’t know the age of Muhammad’s sex slaves. They may or may not have been as young as Aisha, but there is no point in speculating. Prior to the medical advances of the last century, marriage occurred at a much younger age across all societies. When life expectancy was in the mid 20’s (or lower), it made no sense to wait until 19 to start having children; otherwise, one ran the risk of not being around to raise them. In short, childhood as we know it was abbreviated by the reality of the times. Another strong piece of evidence against Muhammad being a pedophile is that, according to the same Hadith, he waited from the time Aisha was six (when the marriage ceremony took place) until she turned nine to consummate the relationship. Although the text doesn’t say why, in all probability it was because he was waiting for her to begin menstrual cycles – thus entering into “womanhood.” It is unlikely that a pedophile would be concerned about this. On the other hand, Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur’an (65:4) relates rules for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is established to determine that the woman is not pregnant. But the same rule applies to “those too who have not had their courses,” meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate. (In our opinion, this would have been a great time for Allah to have said something else instead like, “a real man is one who marries an actual, grown woman”… but that’s just us). Thanks to Muhammad’s extremely poor judgment (at best) and explicit approval of pedophilia, sex with children became deeply ingrained in the Islamic tradition. For many centuries, Muslim armies would purge Christian and Hindu peasant villages of their menfolk and send the women and children to harems and the thriving child sex slave markets deep in the Islamic world. When it comes to child marriage, contemporary clerics warn fellow Muslims against succumbing to the disapproval of the Christian West: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.” The Ayatollah Khomeini, who married a 12-year-old girl, even gave his consent to using infants for sexual pleasure (although warning against full penetration until the baby is a few years older). In April, 2010, a 13-year-old Yemeni girl died from injuries suffered to her womb during “intercourse”. Some clerics show relative mercy on underage girls by advocating a process known as “thighing” (also known as child molestation in the West). According to a recent fatwa (number 23672), an imam answers this question: “My parents married me to a young girl who hasn’t yet reached puberty. How can I enjoy her sexually?” by telling the ‘man’ that he may “hug her, kiss her, and ejaculate between her legs.” A prominent member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council said in 2012 that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle,” then went on to explain that intercourse may occur whenever “they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the man.” Muhammad’s penchant for girls so much younger than him was such that at least two of his father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Omar, the first two Caliphs) were actually younger than him as well. This disappointing pattern is very much at odds with the sort of sexual discipline that one might expect of a true “prophet of God.” Muhammad’s pursuit of Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son is almost as tough for Muslims to explain. This is because it not only raises a similar question of moral character, but also casts suspicion on whether his so-called prophecies were really divine revelation or dictates of personal convenience. According to one biographer, even Aisha appears to be somewhat doubtful of Muhammad’s claim that Allah commanded him to marry Zaynab, wryly remarking, “Truly Allah seems to be very quick in fulfilling your prayers.” So controversial was Muhammad’s desire to marry his adopted son’s wife that he had to justify it with a stern pronouncement from Allah on the very institution of adoption, which has had tragic consequences to this day. Verses 33:4-5 are widely interpreted to imply that Islam is against adoption, meaning that an untold number of children in the Islamic world have been needlessly orphaned – all because Muhammad’s lustful desires for a married woman went beyond even what the other six wives that he possessed at the time and a multitude of slaves could satisfy. Some Muslims deny that Muhammad was married to more than four women at a time, merely on the basis that the Qur’an only gives permission for marrying four. Unfortunately, Muslims historians disagree. Only one of Muhammad’s last eleven wives died before him (Zaynab bint Khuzayma). The rest outlived him by many years. Muhammad forbade his ten widows from remarrying, even making sure that this “divine” order was forever preserved in the eternal word of Allah – Qur’an (33:53). To add insult to injury, they were all summarily disinherited from Muhammad’s estate by his successor (courtesy of another divine order “given” to Abu Bakr from Allah). In summary, Islam’s holiest texts portray Muhammad not as a perfect man, but as a sexual hedonist. Not only did he become fat from indulging in food, but his pursuit of sex was no less gluttonous. On top of it all, he used personal “revelations” from Allah to justify his debauchery to the gullible masses which, to this day, continue to be venerated and memorized as if they are the holiest of utterances. WAS MUHAMMAD A SLAVE TRADER & OWNER OF SLAVES? Slavery and Sex Slavery Question: Does Islam condone slavery? Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves? Summary Answer: Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice. Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur’an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day. The Qur’an: Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee” This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad – in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Others are restrained to four wives, but may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear: Qur’an (23:5-6) – “..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur’an (70:29-30). Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Even sex with married slaves is permissible. Qur’an (8:69) – “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.” Qur’an (24:32) – “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…” Breeding slaves based on fitness. Qur’an (2:178) – “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man’s). Qur’an (16:75) – “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.” Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves – those whom the god of Islam has not favored). From the Hadith: Bukhari (80:753) – “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.\'” Bukhari (52:255) – The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven. Bukhari (41.598) – Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt. Bukhari (62:137) – An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval. Bukhari (34:432) – Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus. Bukhari (47.765) – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave). Bukhari (34:351) – Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader. Bukhari (72:734) – Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent. Muslim 3901 – Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave. Muslim 4112 – A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free. Bukhari (47:743) – Muhammad’s own pulpit – from which he preached Islam – was built with slave labor on his command. Bukhari (59:637) – “The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.\'” Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives,” since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living. Abu Dawud (2150) – “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur’an 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.\'” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur’an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14) Abu Dawud 1814 – “…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement. Ibn Ishaq (734) – A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it. Abu Dawud 38:4458 – Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (“those whom your right hand possesses”). Ibn Ishaq (693) – “Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight). Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) – According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled. Additional Notes: Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam’s supremacist doctrine. Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Qur’an, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin, and limits the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are “good.” This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through the taking and ransoming of hostages, which began under Muhammad. A tiny verse in one of the earliest chapters, 90:13, does say that freeing a slave is good, however, this was “revealed” at a time when the Muslim community was miniscule and several of their new and potential recruits were either actual slaves or newly freed slaves. Many of these same people, and Muhammad himself, later went on to become owners and traders of slaves, both male and female, as they acquired the power to do so (there is not record of Muhammad owning slaves prior to starting Islam). The language of the Qur’an changed to accommodate slavery, which is why this early verse has had negligible impact on slavery in the Islamic world. Contrary to popular belief, converting to Islam does not automatically earn a slave his freedom, although doing so is said to increase a slave master’s heavenly reward (Muslim slaves are implied in Qur’an (4:92)). As far as the Islamic courts are concerned, a master may treat his slaves however he chooses without fear of punishment. By contrast, Christianity was a major impetus in the movement to abolish the age-old institution of slavery. Yet, abolition had to be imposed on the Islamic world by the European West. Given that there have never been abolitionary movement within the Islamic world, it is astonishing to see contemporary Muslims write their religion into the history of abolition. The lie – that the eradication of slavery had something to do with Islam – has been repeated so often that those who parrot are blissfully ignorant of its lack of factual foundation. There was no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islam. As mentioned, Muhammad, the most revered figure in the religion, practiced and approved of slavery. Even his own pulpit was built with slave labor. The second caliph, a companion of the prophet, was stabbed to death by a slave whose liberty he refused to grant. Caliphs since have had harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu and African lands to serve Islam’s religious equivalent of the pope in the most demeaning fashion. Modern day apologists, in defending slavery under Islam, generally ignore the basic fact that reducing people to property is dehumanizing. Instead, they distract from this by comparing the theoretical treatment of slaves under Sharia with the worst examples of abuse from the era of European slavery. The first problem with this rosy scenario is that the actual practice of Muslim slavery was often remarkably at odds with the relatively humane treatment prescribed by Sharia. For example, according to the Ghanan scholar John Azumah, nearly three times as many captured Africans died in harsh circumstances related to their transport to Muslim lands than were ever even enslaved by Europeans. A more insurmountable problem for the Muslim apologist who insists that slavery is “different” under Islam is presented by the many examples of Muhammad and his companions selling captured slaves to non-Muslim traders for material goods. The welfare of the slave was obviously of no consequence. Another myth about Islamic slavery is that it was not race-based. In fact it was. Muhammad’s father-in-law, Umar, in his role as caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves and even had all Arab slaves freed on his deathbed. This helped propel the vast Islamic campaign to capture slaves in Africa, Europe and Asia for importing into the Middle East. The greatest slave rebellion in human history took place in Basra, Iraq beginning in 869. A half-million African slaves staged a courageous uprising against their Arab-Islamic masters that lasted fifteen years before being brutally suppressed. (See Zanj Rebellion) Literally millions of Christians were captured into slavery during the many centuries of Jihad. So pervasive were the incursions by the Turks into Eastern Europe, that the English word for slave is based on Slav. Muslim slave raiders even operated as far north as England. In 1631, a French cleric in Algiers observed the sale of nearly 300 men, women and children, taken from a peaceful English fishing village: “It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market…Women were separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers…on one side a husband was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope that they’d ever see each other again.” (from the book, White Gold, which also details the story of English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was beaten, starved and tortured into embracing Islam). The Indian and Persian people suffered mightily as well – as did Africans. At least 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were brought out of Africa by Islamic traders – far more than the 11 million that were taken by the Europeans. However, these were only the survivors. As many as 85 million other Africans were thought to have died en route. Most telling, perhaps, is that slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, Niger, Mauritania and a few other corners of the Muslim world – and you won’t see any of those Muslim apologists (who shamelessly repeat the lie that Islam abolished slavery) doing or saying anything about it! In fact, a fatwa was recently issued from a mainstream Islamic source reminding Muslim males of their divine right to rape female slaves and “discipline” resisters in “whatever manner he thinks is appropriate”. Not one peep of protest from Islamic apologists was recorded. In 2013, the same site prominently proclaimed that “there is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one’s slave woman, because Allah says so.” In 2011, what passes for a women’s rights activist in Kuwait suggested that Russian women be taken captive in battle and turned into sex slaves in order to keep Muslim husbands from committing adultery. (Other calls for turning non-Muslim women into sex slaves can be found here). Since Muhammad was a slave owner and slavery is permitted by the Qur’an, the Muslim world has never apologized for this dehumanizing practice. Even Muslims in the West will often try to justify slavery under Islam, since it is a part of the Qur’an. WAS MUHAMMAD A THIEVING ARABIAN THUG? Muhammad Raided Meccan Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property After his eviction by the Meccans, Muhammad and his Muslims found refuge many miles away in Medina where they were not being bothered by their former adversaries. Despite this, Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one, whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time: [A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, “They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424) The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers. However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to: [The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425) According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months: The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir) Faced with losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his hut and later emerged with a convenient and timely revelation “from Allah” that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use): They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter (Qur’an 2:217) Notice that the Qur’an does not say that the Meccans were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were “persecuting” them by preventing them from the ‘sacred mosque’ (the Kaaba). The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries. This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense. For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply “taking back” what was theirs – rather than exacting revenge and stealing. Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town. (The 1976 movie, “The Message,” explicitly perpetuates this misconception as well). Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as the paragon of forgiveness), nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft. This is the least of their problems, however, since not only is there no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were “taking back what was theirs” but it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record. The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad’s biographer, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham, but nowhere does he mention the contents of the caravan as being Muslim property. In fact Ishaq explicitly describes the goods as belonging to the Meccans: A caravan of Quraish carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish passed by…” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424) Note also that the cargo plundered from the caravan specifically included raisins, which would have long since perished had they been from grapes grown and dried by the Muslim before they left Mecca nearly a full year earlier. A fifth of the loot was also given to Muhammad as war booty, which would not have been the case if it rightfully belonged to another Muslim (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425). Most of the Muslims living in Mecca had few assets to begin with, having been drawn largely from the lower rungs of the social ladder, but those who did would have had several years to liquidate their assets or transport them to a new location. As the instigator of the discord, Muhammad was the only Muslim literally forced to flee Mecca in the dead of night, but even his business affairs were sewn up on his behalf by Ali, his son-in-law: Ali stayed in Mecca for three days and nights until he had restored the deposits which the apostle held. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 335) So, if the Muslims at Medina weren’t trying to recover stolen goods, why then were they plundering Meccan caravans? Muhammad provides the real reason for the looting and the killing: “If you have killed in the sacred month, they have kept you back from the way of Allah with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people. This is a more serious matter with Allah then the killing of those of them whom you have slain. ‘And seduction is worse than killing.’ They used to seduce the Muslim in his religion until they made him return to unbelief after believing, and that is worse with Allah than killing.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426) Thus, the justification for killing the Meccans and stealing their goods is purely religious. The only thing stolen from the Muslims was the ability to enter the sacred mosque (ie. complete the Haj ritual at the Kaaba). The innocent caravan drivers were therefore fair game for Muhammad’s deadly raids simply because Muslims felt “kept back from the way of Allah” by the “unbelief” of the Meccan leadership. This is all the more apparent by the next major episode in which Muhammad sent his men to plunder caravans, which precipitated the Battle of Badr: When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428) In this case the Meccans were returning to Mecca from a business trip to Syria. Any goods they were carrying would have been purchased from the Syrians. Over the next nine years, the principle source of income for Muslims was wealth forcibly extracted from others. The targets of misfortune expanded well beyond the Meccans. By the time Muhammad died, his men were finding excuse to raid and steal from many other Arab tribes, Jews and even Christians. Like the mafia, a protection racket gradually evolved where other tribes were allowed to live peacefully provided they paid tribute to Muslim rulers.
      • Pardon me, sir. I don’t follow any evil, psychopathic thug. I don’t follow a man as stupid as you. 😀 That’s someone else. I don’t believe that Bukhari or Muslim are 100% authentic. I don’t believe that Tabari or Waqadi wrote nothing but truth. Your study of Islam is incomplete. Please complete it. Bring me a hadith that shows Islam is evil. We’ll discuss it. Does it satisfy you? If I win, you’ll stop criticizing Islam. If you win, I’ll leave my faith. OK? If you think I follow an evil psychopathic thug, prove unto me. 🙂 I think this’s quite fair. So bring a hadith and begin the debate, mister.

        • YO HO HO MO, ONCE MORE, YOU MORONIC, NEANDERTHAL SHIA KUFER, MOHAMMED WAS A MURDERING, RAPING, CHILD MOLESTING, ENSLAVING, THIEVING ARABIAN THUG! AND HERE IS THE PROOF, FROM MOHAMMEDAN SOURCES: MUHAMMAD: A MASS MURDERER There were three Jewish tribes living in and around Yathrib, the Banu Qainuqa’, the Ban Nadir and the Banu Quraiza. Once Muhammad realized that they are not going to accept him as their new prophet, he turned against them. He banished the first two, after confiscating their properties and wealth and massacred the last one. Genocide of Banu Quraiza: (From Understanding Muhammad) The last Jewish tribe of Yathrib to fall victim to Muhammad’s vindictiveness was the Banu Quraiza. Soon after the Battle of the Trench (Khandaq) was over, the Meccans, fed up with Muhammad’s constant raids on their caravans, came to the gates of Medina to punish him. Advised by a Persian believer, they dug trenches around the city making it difficult for Muhammad’s enemies (The Confederates) to enter, causing their retreat. Muhammad set his eyes on the Banu Quraiza. He claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him “asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them. Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts,” [1] writes Al-Mubarakpouri. Al-Mubarakpouri continues: “the Messenger of Allâh immediately summoned the prayer caller and ordered him to announce fresh hostilities against Banu Quraiza,” [2] It is important, in studying Islam, to note that the call to prayer was also the call to war. Muslim’s riots and hooliganism always initiate from the mosques after they offer their prayers. They are most vicious during the holy month of Ramadan and on Fridays. In a sermon commemorating the Birthday of Muhammad, in 1981, the Ayatollah Khomeini said: Mehrab (Mosque) means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed. Just as all the wars of Islam proceeded out of the mehrabs. The prophet had sword to kill people. Our Holy Imams were quite militants. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords. They used to kill people. We need a Caliph who would chop hands, cut throats, stone people. In the same way that the messenger of Allâh used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people. [3] Muhammad headed an army of three thousand infantry men and thirty horsemen of Ansar (Helpers) and Muhajireen (Emigrants). The Banu Quraiza was accused of conspiring against the Muslims with the Quraish. In reality, these Muslim historians deny this charge and say the Meccans withdrew without fighting because they did not receive support from the Banu Quraiza. When Muhammad made his intentions known, Ali, his cousin and staunch supporter, swore he would not stop until he either stormed their garrisons or was killed. This siege lasted 25 days. Finally the Banu Quraiza surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad ordered the men to be handcuffed, while the women and children were confined in isolation. Thereupon the Aws tribe, who were allies of the Banu Quraiza, interceded, begging Muhammad to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a ruffian among them who had been fatally wounded by an arrow, give a verdict on the Jews. Sa’d was a former ally of the Banu Quraiza, but since his conversion to Islam he had a change of heart against them. He also blamed them for the fatal wound he received when a Meccan threw an arrow during the Battle of Trench. Muhammad knew how Sa’d felt about the Banu Quraiza. He was, after all, his bodyguard and slept in the mosque. Sa’d’s verdict was that “all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters.” Muhammad became pleased with this cruel verdict and said that “Sa‘d (had) adjudged by the Command of Allâh.” [4] He often credited Allâh for his own decisions. This time he chose Sa’d to verbalize his whims. Al-Mubarakpouri adds that “In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harbored against Islam, and the large arsenal they had amassed, which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armors and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims.” What Al-Mubarakpouri forgets to mention is that the Banu-Quraiza had loaned their weapons as well as their shovels and picks to Muslims so they could dig the trench and defend themselves. Muslims will never be grateful to those who help them. They will take your help and will stab you in the back the moment they no longer need you. We shall see in the next chapter the psychology of this pathology. Muslim historians have been quick to accuse the Banu Quraiza of the usual baseless charges to justify their massacre. They accused them of being mischievous, causing sedition, being treacherous and plotting against Islam. However no specifics exist as to the nature of those sins to warrant such a severe punishment and their total genocide. Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Medina and between 600 to 900 men were beheaded and their bodies dumped in them. Huyai Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir whose married daughter, Safiya, Muhammad took as his share of the booty when he invaded Khaibar, was among the captives. He was brought to the victor with his hands tied from behind. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred death to submission to this brute man. He was ordered to kneel and was beheaded on the spot. To determine who should be killed, the youngsters were examined. Those who had grown pubic hair were bundled with the men and beheaded. Atiyyah al-Quriaz, a Jew who had survived this massacre later recounted: “I was among the captives of Banu Quraiza. They (the Muslims) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.” [5] Muhammad killed and banished several Jewish tribes, among them are B. Qainuqa’, B. Nadir, B. Quraiza, B. Mustaliq, B. Jaun and the Jews of Khaibar. On his deathbed, he instructed his followers to cleanse the Arabian Peninsula of all non-believers, [6] an order that Omar, the second Caliph carried out later. He exterminated the Jews, the Christians and the pagans, forcing them to convert, leave or put them to death. Now, enriched with the loot, Muhammad could be even generous to those who believed in him. Anas narrated: “People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Banu Quraiza and Banu An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.” [7] There is a verse in the Qur’an that speaks about the massacre of the Banu Quraiza approving Muhammad’s butcheries of their men and taking women and children as prisoners. He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraish) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner. (Q. 33: 26) WAS MUHAMMAD A RAPIST? Introduction Many critics accuse Muhammad of being a rapist by citing certain sex incidents of his from the hadiths and Sira, but Muslims reject such accusations by claiming that those incidents do not qualify to be rape. In this article, I discuss the issue of Prophet Muhammad being a rapist. To keep the article brief, I will cite the cases of three women whom Muhammad had captured and used for sex. I do invite the reader to look objectively at the evidence before calling me a “bigot”, “Islamophobe”, or any other imagined attributes that Muslims give to anyone who criticizes Islam or show Muhammad in a bad light. This work is divided into the following sections: 1. Definition of a rapist 2. Existing evidence about Muhammad’s rapes 3. Bani Al Mustaliq raid and Juwairiyyah – Who was Juwairiyyah? 4. Safiyah of Khayber 5. Rayhana of Bani Qurayza 6. Conclusion 7. Supplementary Hadiths 1. Definition of a Rapist Varieties of dictionary definitions of rape make one theme obvious: A rapist is someone who forces another person to have sexual intercourse. Rape is the crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse, amounts to committing rape. I would also add that rape includes having sex with minors or mentally disabled persons. For instance, Muhammad had married Ayesha when she was six years old and had sex with her when she was nine years old. The linguistic definition of a rape does not include such a situation to call rape, even though, in my view, it is. An adult having sex with a nine year old is a rape, children at such tender age are not emotionally and psychologically mature enough to have sex. So, Muhammad’s having sex with young Ayesha qualifies as rape. However, I am not going to defend this position here. I will deal only with Muhammad’s sex act with adults that clearly qualify as rape. 2. Evidence about Muhammad’s rapes We do have enough information from authentic Islamic sources about Muhammad and his life’s events that is considered by Muslims as truthful – namely the Qur’an, the six Sahih Hadeeths, and the Sirat. I will be using those resources to investigate whether or not Muhammad was a Rapist. 3. Bani al-Mutaliq Raid and Juwairiyya In his 6th hijri year in Medina (627 A.D) and during the 8th month of Sha’ban, Muhammad attacked Bani Al-Mustaliq unprovoked: Bukhari 1. Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army. (Book #46, Hadith #717) 2. Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.” (Book#46, Hadith #718) The above Hadiths show that Muhammad and the Muslims attacked Bani Al-Mustaliq suddenly and unprovoked. After the attack, Muhammad got Juwairiya; one of the female captives (I assume he did not get her so she can teach him how to play Chess!). The second Hadith shows that the Muslim men captured female captives too and had sex with them. But since they wanted to sell such women, and a pregnant woman sells cheaper than a non-pregnant one, they practiced coitus interruptus (pulling out the male part before ejaculation). The Muslim warriors wondered if this practice was good or not. So, who is better than prophet Muhammad to ask him about such a delicate issue. Muhammad gives an ignorant answer, and the idea that those men were raping the women does not come to his mind. Be it Muhammad or any of his warriors, Rape was not on their mind when they had sex with those women. But the fact is this is still rape. I do not know of any woman who will have sex with you willingly if you had just killed her husband and almost all the adult male relatives she had. The women may not fight you because you are in a power position. This is still rape. The Bani Mustaliq information we have about the attack shows that Muhammad was a rapist. He also gave the stamp of approval to the Muslim warriors to rape the women. Who was Juwairiyah? A hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud explains to us why Muhammad desired her: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith ibn al-mustaliq, fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, or to her cousin. She entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman, most attractive to the eye. Aisha said: She then came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) asking him for the purchase of her freedom. When she was standing at the door, I looked at her with disapproval. I realised that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) would look at her in the same way that I had looked. She said: Apostle of Allah, I am Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith, and something has happened to me, which is not hidden from you. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, and I have entered into an agreement to purchase of my freedom. I have come to you to seek assistance for the purchase of my freedom. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Are you inclined to that which is better? She asked: What is that, Apostle of Allah? He replied: I shall pay the price of your freedom on your behalf, and I shall marry you. She said: I shall do this. She (Aisha) said: The people then heard that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) had married Juwayriyyah. They released the captives in their possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) by marriage. We did not see any woman greater than Juwayriyyah who brought blessings to her people. One hundred families of Banu al-mustaliq were set free on account of her. (Book #29, Hadith #3920) Juwayriyyah was the daughter of the chief of Bani Al Mustaliq. Her husband, Mustafa Bin Safwan, has just been killed during the battle with the Muslims. She was twenty years old at the time. Muhammad was fifty eight years old at the time. Juwayriyyah was, also, a very beautiful young woman. Muhammad had an eye for good looking young ones. So, he offered to marry her and did.The fact is this is rape. What choices did this young lady have? Or did she have any choices when she accepted Muhammad’s offer of marriage? He had just killed her husband and most of her adult male relatives. Her bad fortunes came through Muhammad’s attack against her tribe. She was in no position to negotiate any matter except trying to free herself of her predicament, on being a slave, in the best way she knows how. Opportunity came to her through her looks, and she tried to make the best of it. She had no other options really. What else can she do, and where will she go? Her tribe had been destroyed by the evil attack of the Muslims. This is rape, plain and simple. Muslims who will deny this fact will need to show that a woman will willingly have sex with you after you had just killed her husband and most of her family’s adult males. 4. Safiyya of Khayber Safiyya is another fine looking woman whose bad fortunes delivered her to Muhammad when he attacked and took over Khayber (628 A. D). Bukhari Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said to Abu Talha, “Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar.” So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah’s Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men.” Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,’ where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah’s Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah’s Apostle and safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah’s Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, “This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us.” Then he looked at Medina and said, “O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina’s) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures).” (Book #52, Hadith #143) Safiyya was a daughter of the Khaybar Jewish leader Huyay Bin Al Akhtab. She was very pretty seventeen year old lady. So, Muhammad with an eye that appreciated pretty young ones desired her and married her. Muhammad was about fifty eight years old at the time. Safiyyah’s husband, Kinana Ibn Al-Rabi’ has just been killed by the Muslims, and her bad fortune delivered her to Muhammad who appreciated beauty and had to have her. History tells us she married Muhammad and stayed with him until his death. Again, this is rape. Muhammad raped this woman time and again. No woman would willingly marry the killer of her husband, and most of her adult male relatives. 5. Rayhana of Bani Qurayza Another of Muhammad’s rapes is that of Rayhana Rayhana was of Bani Nadir and was married to a man of Bani Qurayza. When Muhammad commited his genocide of Bani Qurayza, Rayhana was amongst the captive women and children left. The Sirat narrates the following about her: The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana b. ‘Amr b. Khunafa, one of the women of B. ‘Amr b. Qurayza and she remained with him until she died, in his power. He apostle had proposed to marry her and put the veil on her, but she said:’Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.’ So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. [Source: W. Muir, The Life of Muhammad, (Edinburg 1923, Page466]. Rayhana was a pretty fifteen years old girl when prophet Muhammad wanted to marry her. He had just beheaded around 800 adult men of her tribe. Now it was time for him to have some fun! 6. Conclusion The evidence is very strong that Muhammad was a certified and licensed rapist. He did not feel the pains that those women were going through. He could not process the grieve they had to endure. In the peak of those women’s grief, Muhammad wanted to solace himself with sexual favors with those poor women. If this is not Rape, I do not know what is. ——————————————————————————- 7. Supplementary Hadiths Bukhari 1. Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.” (Book #59, Hadith #459) 2. Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.” (Book #93, Hadith #506) 3. Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned.” The people came out into the streets saying, “Muhammad and his army.” Allah’s Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. safiyawas taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah’s Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission. (Book #14, Hadith #68) Narrated Anas: Amongst the captives was safiya. First she was given to Dihya Al-Kalbi and then to the Prophet. (Book #34, Hadith #431) Muslim 1. Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Book #008, Hadith#3371) 1. Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m”. ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops. (Book #019, Hadith #4292) Malik’s Muwatta’ • Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, “I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, ‘We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, ‘Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?’ We asked him about that and he said, ‘You don’t have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.\'” (Book #29, Hadith #29.32.95) WAS MUHAMMAD A CHILD MOLESTER/SEX MANIAC Muhammad had sex with just about anyone he pleased, thanks to Allah’s extraordinary interest in his personal sex life, as immortalized in the Qur’an. Although the Qur’an didn’t appear to have enough space for topics like universal love and brotherhood (which Muslims sometimes insist are there, but aren’t), the list of sexual partners that Muhammad was entitled to is detailed more than once, sometimes in categories and sometimes in reference to specific persons (ie. Zaynab and Mary). Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He had sex with a 9-year-old girl and married his adopted son’s wife (after arranging a quick divorce). On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex – sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army. So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world’s most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history. The Qur’an: Allah managed to hand down quite a few “revelations” that sanctioned Muhammad’s personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the Qur’an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance. Qur’an (33:37) – “But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah’s command shall be performed.” No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur’an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a “revelation” of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, – a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse “commands” Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband’s gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God…? Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her– specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; ” This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this “revelation” was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad’s hedonism. Qur’an (33:51) – “You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased” This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad’s wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain… as revealed in Allah’s literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims. Qur’an (66:1-5) – “O Prophet! Why ban thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?…” Another remarkable verse of sexual convenience concerns an episode in which Muhammad’s wives were jealous of the attention that he was giving to a Christian slave girl. But, as he pointed out to them, to neglect the sexual availability of his slaves was against Allah’s will for him! Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle. From the Hadith: Muslim (8:3309) – Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given. Bukhari (62:18) – Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions. Muslim (8:3311) – The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad’s house (something to play with when the “prophet” was not having sex with her). Bukhari (6:298) – Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her. Muslim (8:3460) – “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead of opting to fondle a child. Bukhari (4:232) – Muhammad’s wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it’s a wonder he found the time to slay pagans. Bukhari (6:300) – Muhammad’s wives had to be available for the prophet’s fondling even when they were having their menstrual period. Bukhari (93:639) – The Prophet of Islam would recite the ‘Holy Qur’an’ with his head in Aisha’s lap, when she was menstruating. Bukhari (62:6) – “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally – and it isn’t hard to guess why. Bukhari (5:268) – “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.’ ” Bukhari (60:311) – “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given ‘Allah’s permission’ to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly). Muslim (8:3424) – One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become “unlawful” to her – meaning that they can live under the same roof together. Tabari IX:137 – “Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty.” Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God’s gift to him. Tabari VIII:117 – “Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself… the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.” He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself. Tabari IX:139 – “You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer.” Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had ‘offered’ herself to Muhammad (he accepted). Additional Notes: Muhammad’s sexual antics are an embarrassment to those Muslims who are aware of them. This is particularly so for their prophet’s consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years of age. The thought of a 53-year-old man sleeping and bathing with a young girl is intensely unpleasant and it reflects the disgusting character of a sexual glutton rather than a holy man. Critics even allege that Muhammad was a pedophile. Some Muslims respond by denying the hadith itself, which is a mistake. The accounts of Muhammad sleeping with a 9-year-old are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of tradition and did not become controversial until social mores began to change with the modern age. The charge of pedophilia may or may not be true, depending on how it is defined. Technically, Muhammad did have a sexual relationship with a child, but Aisha was also the youngest of his twelve wives. Zaynab was in her 30’s when she attracted the unquenchable lust of the prophet. We don’t know the age of Muhammad’s sex slaves. They may or may not have been as young as Aisha, but there is no point in speculating. Prior to the medical advances of the last century, marriage occurred at a much younger age across all societies. When life expectancy was in the mid 20’s (or lower), it made no sense to wait until 19 to start having children; otherwise, one ran the risk of not being around to raise them. In short, childhood as we know it was abbreviated by the reality of the times. Another strong piece of evidence against Muhammad being a pedophile is that, according to the same Hadith, he waited from the time Aisha was six (when the marriage ceremony took place) until she turned nine to consummate the relationship. Although the text doesn’t say why, in all probability it was because he was waiting for her to begin menstrual cycles – thus entering into “womanhood.” It is unlikely that a pedophile would be concerned about this. On the other hand, Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur’an (65:4) relates rules for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is established to determine that the woman is not pregnant. But the same rule applies to “those too who have not had their courses,” meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate. (In our opinion, this would have been a great time for Allah to have said something else instead like, “a real man is one who marries an actual, grown woman”… but that’s just us). Thanks to Muhammad’s extremely poor judgment (at best) and explicit approval of pedophilia, sex with children became deeply ingrained in the Islamic tradition. For many centuries, Muslim armies would purge Christian and Hindu peasant villages of their menfolk and send the women and children to harems and the thriving child sex slave markets deep in the Islamic world. When it comes to child marriage, contemporary clerics warn fellow Muslims against succumbing to the disapproval of the Christian West: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.” The Ayatollah Khomeini, who married a 12-year-old girl, even gave his consent to using infants for sexual pleasure (although warning against full penetration until the baby is a few years older). In April, 2010, a 13-year-old Yemeni girl died from injuries suffered to her womb during “intercourse”. Some clerics show relative mercy on underage girls by advocating a process known as “thighing” (also known as child molestation in the West). According to a recent fatwa (number 23672), an imam answers this question: “My parents married me to a young girl who hasn’t yet reached puberty. How can I enjoy her sexually?” by telling the ‘man’ that he may “hug her, kiss her, and ejaculate between her legs.” A prominent member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council said in 2012 that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle,” then went on to explain that intercourse may occur whenever “they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the man.” Muhammad’s penchant for girls so much younger than him was such that at least two of his father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Omar, the first two Caliphs) were actually younger than him as well. This disappointing pattern is very much at odds with the sort of sexual discipline that one might expect of a true “prophet of God.” Muhammad’s pursuit of Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son is almost as tough for Muslims to explain. This is because it not only raises a similar question of moral character, but also casts suspicion on whether his so-called prophecies were really divine revelation or dictates of personal convenience. According to one biographer, even Aisha appears to be somewhat doubtful of Muhammad’s claim that Allah commanded him to marry Zaynab, wryly remarking, “Truly Allah seems to be very quick in fulfilling your prayers.” So controversial was Muhammad’s desire to marry his adopted son’s wife that he had to justify it with a stern pronouncement from Allah on the very institution of adoption, which has had tragic consequences to this day. Verses 33:4-5 are widely interpreted to imply that Islam is against adoption, meaning that an untold number of children in the Islamic world have been needlessly orphaned – all because Muhammad’s lustful desires for a married woman went beyond even what the other six wives that he possessed at the time and a multitude of slaves could satisfy. Some Muslims deny that Muhammad was married to more than four women at a time, merely on the basis that the Qur’an only gives permission for marrying four. Unfortunately, Muslims historians disagree. Only one of Muhammad’s last eleven wives died before him (Zaynab bint Khuzayma). The rest outlived him by many years. Muhammad forbade his ten widows from remarrying, even making sure that this “divine” order was forever preserved in the eternal word of Allah – Qur’an (33:53). To add insult to injury, they were all summarily disinherited from Muhammad’s estate by his successor (courtesy of another divine order “given” to Abu Bakr from Allah). In summary, Islam’s holiest texts portray Muhammad not as a perfect man, but as a sexual hedonist. Not only did he become fat from indulging in food, but his pursuit of sex was no less gluttonous. On top of it all, he used personal “revelations” from Allah to justify his debauchery to the gullible masses which, to this day, continue to be venerated and memorized as if they are the holiest of utterances. WAS MUHAMMAD A SLAVE TRADER & OWNER OF SLAVES? Slavery and Sex Slavery Question: Does Islam condone slavery? Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves? Summary Answer: Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice. Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur’an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day. The Qur’an: Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee” This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad – in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Others are restrained to four wives, but may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear: Qur’an (23:5-6) – “..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur’an (70:29-30). Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Even sex with married slaves is permissible. Qur’an (8:69) – “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.” Qur’an (24:32) – “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…” Breeding slaves based on fitness. Qur’an (2:178) – “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man’s). Qur’an (16:75) – “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.” Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves – those whom the god of Islam has not favored). From the Hadith: Bukhari (80:753) – “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.\'” Bukhari (52:255) – The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven. Bukhari (41.598) – Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt. Bukhari (62:137) – An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval. Bukhari (34:432) – Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus. Bukhari (47.765) – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave). Bukhari (34:351) – Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader. Bukhari (72:734) – Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent. Muslim 3901 – Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave. Muslim 4112 – A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free. Bukhari (47:743) – Muhammad’s own pulpit – from which he preached Islam – was built with slave labor on his command. Bukhari (59:637) – “The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.\'” Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives,” since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living. Abu Dawud (2150) – “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur’an 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.\'” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur’an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14) Abu Dawud 1814 – “…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement. Ibn Ishaq (734) – A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it. Abu Dawud 38:4458 – Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (“those whom your right hand possesses”). Ibn Ishaq (693) – “Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight). Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) – According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled. Additional Notes: Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam’s supremacist doctrine. Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Qur’an, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin, and limits the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are “good.” This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through the taking and ransoming of hostages, which began under Muhammad. A tiny verse in one of the earliest chapters, 90:13, does say that freeing a slave is good, however, this was “revealed” at a time when the Muslim community was miniscule and several of their new and potential recruits were either actual slaves or newly freed slaves. Many of these same people, and Muhammad himself, later went on to become owners and traders of slaves, both male and female, as they acquired the power to do so (there is not record of Muhammad owning slaves prior to starting Islam). The language of the Qur’an changed to accommodate slavery, which is why this early verse has had negligible impact on slavery in the Islamic world. Contrary to popular belief, converting to Islam does not automatically earn a slave his freedom, although doing so is said to increase a slave master’s heavenly reward (Muslim slaves are implied in Qur’an (4:92)). As far as the Islamic courts are concerned, a master may treat his slaves however he chooses without fear of punishment. By contrast, Christianity was a major impetus in the movement to abolish the age-old institution of slavery. Yet, abolition had to be imposed on the Islamic world by the European West. Given that there have never been abolitionary movement within the Islamic world, it is astonishing to see contemporary Muslims write their religion into the history of abolition. The lie – that the eradication of slavery had something to do with Islam – has been repeated so often that those who parrot are blissfully ignorant of its lack of factual foundation. There was no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islam. As mentioned, Muhammad, the most revered figure in the religion, practiced and approved of slavery. Even his own pulpit was built with slave labor. The second caliph, a companion of the prophet, was stabbed to death by a slave whose liberty he refused to grant. Caliphs since have had harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu and African lands to serve Islam’s religious equivalent of the pope in the most demeaning fashion. Modern day apologists, in defending slavery under Islam, generally ignore the basic fact that reducing people to property is dehumanizing. Instead, they distract from this by comparing the theoretical treatment of slaves under Sharia with the worst examples of abuse from the era of European slavery. The first problem with this rosy scenario is that the actual practice of Muslim slavery was often remarkably at odds with the relatively humane treatment prescribed by Sharia. For example, according to the Ghanan scholar John Azumah, nearly three times as many captured Africans died in harsh circumstances related to their transport to Muslim lands than were ever even enslaved by Europeans. A more insurmountable problem for the Muslim apologist who insists that slavery is “different” under Islam is presented by the many examples of Muhammad and his companions selling captured slaves to non-Muslim traders for material goods. The welfare of the slave was obviously of no consequence. Another myth about Islamic slavery is that it was not race-based. In fact it was. Muhammad’s father-in-law, Umar, in his role as caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves and even had all Arab slaves freed on his deathbed. This helped propel the vast Islamic campaign to capture slaves in Africa, Europe and Asia for importing into the Middle East. The greatest slave rebellion in human history took place in Basra, Iraq beginning in 869. A half-million African slaves staged a courageous uprising against their Arab-Islamic masters that lasted fifteen years before being brutally suppressed. (See Zanj Rebellion) Literally millions of Christians were captured into slavery during the many centuries of Jihad. So pervasive were the incursions by the Turks into Eastern Europe, that the English word for slave is based on Slav. Muslim slave raiders even operated as far north as England. In 1631, a French cleric in Algiers observed the sale of nearly 300 men, women and children, taken from a peaceful English fishing village: “It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market…Women were separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers…on one side a husband was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope that they’d ever see each other again.” (from the book, White Gold, which also details the story of English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was beaten, starved and tortured into embracing Islam). The Indian and Persian people suffered mightily as well – as did Africans. At least 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were brought out of Africa by Islamic traders – far more than the 11 million that were taken by the Europeans. However, these were only the survivors. As many as 85 million other Africans were thought to have died en route. Most telling, perhaps, is that slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, Niger, Mauritania and a few other corners of the Muslim world – and you won’t see any of those Muslim apologists (who shamelessly repeat the lie that Islam abolished slavery) doing or saying anything about it! In fact, a fatwa was recently issued from a mainstream Islamic source reminding Muslim males of their divine right to rape female slaves and “discipline” resisters in “whatever manner he thinks is appropriate”. Not one peep of protest from Islamic apologists was recorded. In 2013, the same site prominently proclaimed that “there is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one’s slave woman, because Allah says so.” In 2011, what passes for a women’s rights activist in Kuwait suggested that Russian women be taken captive in battle and turned into sex slaves in order to keep Muslim husbands from committing adultery. (Other calls for turning non-Muslim women into sex slaves can be found here). Since Muhammad was a slave owner and slavery is permitted by the Qur’an, the Muslim world has never apologized for this dehumanizing practice. Even Muslims in the West will often try to justify slavery under Islam, since it is a part of the Qur’an. WAS MUHAMMAD A THIEVING ARABIAN THUG? Muhammad Raided Meccan Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property After his eviction by the Meccans, Muhammad and his Muslims found refuge many miles away in Medina where they were not being bothered by their former adversaries. Despite this, Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one, whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time: [A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, “They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424) The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers. However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to: [The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425) According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months: The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir) Faced with losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his hut and later emerged with a convenient and timely revelation “from Allah” that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use): They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter (Qur’an 2:217) Notice that the Qur’an does not say that the Meccans were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were “persecuting” them by preventing them from the ‘sacred mosque’ (the Kaaba). The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries. This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense. For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply “taking back” what was theirs – rather than exacting revenge and stealing. Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town. (The 1976 movie, “The Message,” explicitly perpetuates this misconception as well). Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as the paragon of forgiveness), nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft. This is the least of their problems, however, since not only is there no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were “taking back what was theirs” but it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record. The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad’s biographer, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham, but nowhere does he mention the contents of the caravan as being Muslim property. In fact Ishaq explicitly describes the goods as belonging to the Meccans: A caravan of Quraish carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish passed by…” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424) Note also that the cargo plundered from the caravan specifically included raisins, which would have long since perished had they been from grapes grown and dried by the Muslim before they left Mecca nearly a full year earlier. A fifth of the loot was also given to Muhammad as war booty, which would not have been the case if it rightfully belonged to another Muslim (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425). Most of the Muslims living in Mecca had few assets to begin with, having been drawn largely from the lower rungs of the social ladder, but those who did would have had several years to liquidate their assets or transport them to a new location. As the instigator of the discord, Muhammad was the only Muslim literally forced to flee Mecca in the dead of night, but even his business affairs were sewn up on his behalf by Ali, his son-in-law: Ali stayed in Mecca for three days and nights until he had restored the deposits which the apostle held. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 335) So, if the Muslims at Medina weren’t trying to recover stolen goods, why then were they plundering Meccan caravans? Muhammad provides the real reason for the looting and the killing: “If you have killed in the sacred month, they have kept you back from the way of Allah with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people. This is a more serious matter with Allah then the killing of those of them whom you have slain. ‘And seduction is worse than killing.’ They used to seduce the Muslim in his religion until they made him return to unbelief after believing, and that is worse with Allah than killing.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426) Thus, the justification for killing the Meccans and stealing their goods is purely religious. The only thing stolen from the Muslims was the ability to enter the sacred mosque (ie. complete the Haj ritual at the Kaaba). The innocent caravan drivers were therefore fair game for Muhammad’s deadly raids simply because Muslims felt “kept back from the way of Allah” by the “unbelief” of the Meccan leadership. This is all the more apparent by the next major episode in which Muhammad sent his men to plunder caravans, which precipitated the Battle of Badr: When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428) In this case the Meccans were returning to Mecca from a business trip to Syria. Any goods they were carrying would have been purchased from the Syrians. Over the next nine years, the principle source of income for Muslims was wealth forcibly extracted from others. The targets of misfortune expanded well beyond the Meccans. By the time Muhammad died, his men were finding excuse to raid and steal from many other Arab tribes, Jews and even Christians. Like the mafia, a protection racket gradually evolved where other tribes were allowed to live peacefully provided they paid tribute to Muslim rulers.
          • Again you made a lengthy comment. In other words, you don’t wanna talk. This shows how mentally unhealthy you are. You’re afraid of truth. You know you’re a devil. If you think Islam is a false religion, debate and contend. Prove unto me that Islam is a false religion. Bring a verse or a hadith. I can also make so lengthy comments. You only know how to copy/paste. Believe me, dude; you’re a non-Muslim terrorist. 😀 I’m ready for debates and discussions. You avoid debates and discussions. People can see for themselves who has a better stance.

          • YO HO HO MO,

            EDUCATING MOHAMMEDANS:

            Copyright © 2008 – 2014
            Discovering Islam
            All rights reserved
            http://www.DiscoveringIslam.org
            Last modified: Saturday December 28, 2013

            ALLAH

            Allah is God, the one and only Creator & Sustainer of the universe. Allah creates human beings, animals, plants, mountains, rivers, oceans, etc. Allah judges the deeds (actions) of human beings, punishes individuals for their bad deeds and rewards them for their good deeds, both in their life on Earth and on the Day of Judgement.
            Allah (God) sent prophets (such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad, peace be upon them) to call people to follow God’s religion. The Quran prescribes for Muslims to regard all prophets of God as equally worthy of respect.
            Some Christians think that Mohammad is Allah or that Muslims worship Mohammad (p). This is 100% false. This erroneous belief of Christians stems from the fact that Christians worship Jesus, so they falsely presume that Muslims worship Mohammad (p).
            Mohammad (p) was simply a human prophet. He never claimed to be God. Muslims do not worship prophet Mohammad, directly or indirectly. Islam is a strictly Monotheistic religion. Islam highly emphasizes that there is only one God. No human being has divine attributes. God’s prophets are not divine, but they are assigned a mission by God to call people to follow God’s religion.
            Muslims refer to God as Allah, Ellah, or Allahom (meaning “the God” in Arabic). The word “Allah” in Arabic means “the god” or “God”. In Arabic, the word Allah is derived from of a contraction/ abbreviation of two words: (1) “Al” (also can be pronounced as El) which mean “The”, and (2) “Elah” which means “god”.

            Islam did not invent or introduce the word Allah to the World:

            – The Arabic Bible that has been used by Arab Christians, for the past 2000 years since the time Jesus, refers to God as Allah.

            – The Hebrew Bible refers to God as Elohim which is similar to Allah/ Ellah/ Allahom used by Muslims.
            – The word that corresponds to Allah in Aramaic language (the mother tongue of Jesus), and used in the Aramaic Bible, is “Elaha”.

            – The word that corresponds to Allah in Syriac language, and used in the Syriac Bible, is “Alaha”.
            Father Dr. Labib Kobti, an Arab Christian priest, in one his articles titled The Christian Arab Heritage (available through this link http://www.al-bushra.org/arbhrtg/arbxtn04.htm ) says: “Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archaeologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Fourth Century, we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :”Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim” that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam.”
            What this Christian priest is revealing is extremely important for the following reasons:
            (1) This Arabic phrase “Bism El-Lah al-Rahman al-Rahim” ( بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ) that the priest says has been discovered in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century is the same phrase that most Suras (Chapters) of the Quran start with. This phrase can be translated as “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”.
            (2) The fact that this phrase was found in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century, meaning three centuries before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad. This indicates that the beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims. In other words, early Christians did not believe in the Trinity: “In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, instead they used the Quranic phrase “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”. This is proof that Jesus was a Muslim and he preached Islam, and early followers of Jesus were Muslims.

            WERE THERE MUSLIMS BEFORE ISLAM?
            WERE THERE PEOPLE SUBMITTED TO GOD BEFORE ISLAM?
            RECENT DISCOVERIES

            Father Dr. Labib Kobti, an Arab Christian priest, in one his articles titled The Christian Arab Heritage (available on his web site at: http://www.al-bushra.org/arbhrtg/arbxtn04.htm ) says:
            “Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archaeologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Fourth Century, we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :”Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim” that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam.”
            What this Christian priest is revealing is extremely important for the following reasons:
            (1) This Arabic phrase “Bism El-Lah al-Rahman al-Rahim” ( بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ) that the priest says has been discovered in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century is the same phrase that most Suras (Chapters) of the Quran start with. This phrase can be translated as “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”.
            (2) The fact that this phrase was found in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century, meaning three centuries before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad. This indicates that the beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims. In other early Christians did not believe in the Trinity: “In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit”, instead they the Muslims phrase “In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful”. This is proof that Jesus was a Muslim and he preached Islam, and early followers of Jesus were Muslims.
            Jesus using the word “Muslim” in Luke 6:40
            Luke 6:40 (N.I.V. Bible)
            “A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.”
            Luke 6:40 (King James Version)
            40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
            Luke 6:40 (American Standard Version)
            40 The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.
            Let us look at what Jesus said in Luke 6:40 in Aramaic language translated into Hebrew as shown below:

            “Ein talmeed na’leh ‘al rabbo; shekken kal adam she’MUSHLAM yihyeh k’rabbo.”

            Note: Aramaic and Hebrew are read from right to left, which is opposite to English.

            Translation in English: “No student can be above his teacher, but everyone who is a MUSLIM can be as his teacher.”

            THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH
            SERMON ON THE MOUNT
            MATTHEW 5
            The Beatitudes
            1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
            3″Blessed are the poor in spirit,
            For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
            4Blessed are those who mourn,
            For they shall be comforted.
            5Blessed are the meek,
            For they shall inherit the earth.
            6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
            For they shall be filled.
            7Blessed are the merciful,
            For they shall obtain mercy.
            8Blessed are the pure in heart,
            For they shall see God.
            9Blessed are the peacemakers,
            For they shall be called sons of God.
            10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
            For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
            11″Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
            Believers Are Salt and Light
            13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
            14″You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
            Christ Fulfills the Law
            17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
            Murder Begins in the Heart
            21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
            26Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
            Adultery in the Heart
            27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not commit adultery.’
            28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
            Marriage Is Sacred and Binding
            31 “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
            Jesus Forbids Oaths
            33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37But let your “Yes’ be “Yes,’ and your “No,’ “No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
            Go the Second Mile
            38 “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
            Love Your Enemies
            43 “You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
            44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
            Matthew 6
            Do Good to Please God
            1″Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
            The Model Prayer
            5″And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
            8″Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9In this manner, therefore, pray:
            Our Father in heaven,
            Hallowed be Your name.
            10Your kingdom come.
            Your will be done
            On earth as it is in heaven.
            11Give us this day our daily bread.
            12And forgive us our debts,
            As we forgive our debtors.
            13And do not lead us into temptation,
            But deliver us from the evil one.
            For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
            14″For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
            Fasting to Be Seen Only by God
            16 “Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
            Lay Up Treasures in Heaven
            19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
            The Lamp of the Body
            22 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
            You Cannot Serve God and Riches
            24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
            Do Not Worry
            25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
            27Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
            28″So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
            31″Therefore do not worry, saying, “What shall we eat?’ or “What shall we drink?’ or “What shall we wear?’ 32For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
            Matthew 7

            Do Not Judge
            1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
            4Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
            6″Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
            Keep Asking, Seeking, Knocking
            7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
            The Narrow Way
            13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
            You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
            15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
            19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
            I Never Knew You
            21 “Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
            Build on the Rock
            24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
            26″But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
            28And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

            EXPOSING A LYING MOHAMMEDAN:

            Que, have a look here at Osama’s article about Allah under this title “Most Recent Discoveries”
            http://www.answering-christianity.com/allah.htm
            He wrote…
            Most Recent Discoveries:
            Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archiologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Forth Century we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :”Bism Allah al Rahman al Rahim” which showed that Christians were the first to use this name, Allah for GOD Almighty, which proves that the name of GOD Almighty in the Noble Quran, “Allah” is the correct one. This also proves to us that the Bible is not all found. There are still missing pieces in it that disprove trinity.
            And then have a look at this Arabic Catholic site: –
            http://www.al-bushra.org/arbhrtg/arbxtn04.htm

            Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archiologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Forth Century we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscriptionin Arabic :”Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim” that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam.

            Can you see it? Hint (about the Trinity)

            What Osama and Ysihan have constantly failed to see is that Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim is an Aramiac Basmallah:
            Bism El-l:ah al Rahman l Rahim
            In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost
            Father = Elah = Elooha /Elaha (Syric)
            Son = Rahman = Rahmano (Syric)
            Holy Spirit = Rahim = Rahemo (Syric)
            And that’s what I have told Ysihan long time ago. It’s a Christian Basmallah long before Islam and it’s an Aramaic style Basmmallah that reflect the Christian belief; in the name of the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT.
            What is interesting also about Osama is his “ugly” plagiarism…. and ….you know better the rest concerning the above!

            Faisal
            http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/2940.htm

            On this link Faisal exposed Osama Abdallah for intentionally lying about the archeological finds on the name Allah. This post is irrefutable evidence that Osama intentionally lies without conscience. However, Osama updated his link and eliminated this information. In his article dated January 17, 2001 Osama had this error where he changed the information to be “Allah” despite the fact that it was “Bism El-l:ah al Rahman l Rahim”, however Aug 3, 2001 he eliminated this information from his site since it was clearly shown to be inaccurate.

            WHO IS ALLAH?

            Hosea.4:6; Isaiah.2:6; Jeremiah.11:13; Zepeniah.1:4-5; Ezekiel.44:23; John.8:32; Hosea.2:16
            My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and clasp hands with pagans. The altars you have set up to burn incense to that shameful god Baal are as many as the streets of Jerusalem. I will cut off from this place every remnant of Baal, the names of the pagan and the idolatrous priests, those who bow down in the roofs to worship the starry hosts, those who bow down and swear by Molech… And they (the faithful priests) will teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. On that day, you will call me Ishi, not anymore Baali, says Yahweh.
            Biblical names and attributes, especially when they are used for the Creator and Author of the Scriptures, they are just coincidences but terms that have originally been very well and carefully selected to reveal to us the portray of Him in the most possibly accurate and clear statement….

            Presentation of the Situation

            When Christians started spreading toward the four corners of the earth and preaching the Gospel to various people, nations, and languages, one of the greatest challenges that faced them is the translation of God’s name, Yahweh Elohiym. In fact till this present day, the matter is still causing the Church many controversies and even division. One of those critical and hot cases is regarding the name Allah, the name widely used among the Arabs and the Muslims for the divine. Thus, the Christian Church has separated itself into three main approaches. Each approach has its own arguments to defend its position and also to discredit the others.

            The three main approaches:

            Approach-A, Liberals: Allah and the God of the Bible are basically the same, except that pagan Arabs and Muslims who followed him see the same divine but from a different perspective due to their traditions and belief system. The following are two types of general comments they usually use:
            1- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, R. Butin (Roman Catholics)

            Allah is the name of God in Arabic. It is a compound word from the article, ‘al, and ilah, divinity, and signifies “the-god” par excellence. This form of the divine name is in itself a sure proof that ilah was at one time an appellative, common to all the local and tribal gods. Gradually, with the addition of the article, it was restricted to one of them who took precedence of the others; finally, with the triumph of monotheism (Islam), He was recognized as the only true God… It is certain, however, that before the time of Mohammed, owing to their contact with Jews and Christians, the Arabs were generally monotheists. The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the exception of the Trinity (Q.112). Let it be noted that although Allah is an Arabic term, it is used by all Moslems, whatever be their language, as the name of God.

            2- Answering Islam.org, Jochen Katz (Ecumenical Evangelical)

            The God (Allah) the Qur’an talks about is the same. And Muslims do worship this one and only Creator God. The question is not whether Muslims and Christians have the same God [there is only one Creator after all]… This posting was only to make clear that the God of the Qur’an and of the Bible can be the same and obviously are the same, yet nevertheless it can be true that one is true revelation while the other is not. Hearing a different description of God by Christians and Muslims, some come to the conclusion you must be talking about different entities and that is understandable. Others come to the conclusion that the entity is the same [because there is only one Creator God – and both agree that there is only one and hence they talk about this same one] but because of the differences one of them must have false information. At least SOME false information even though much of it is the same and probably true information.
            This approach represents the majority of Christians, mainly the professing Christians, who belong to traditional churches, i.e. the Roman Catholics and also to the Ecumenical Evangelicals besides the Christian cults i.e. the New Age movement and the Masons. They emphasize the similarities between Allah and Yahweh, but they disregard the huge differences and dismiss the contradictions. From their prospective, as we have seen in the above arguments, Allah must be the true God since it is given attributes like creator, supreme, etc. They often do the same to other gods i.e. Buddha and Brahman.
            Approach-B, Moderates: The god of the Quran and the God of the Bible are totally two different gods, but both of them share in the same Arabic generic name, speculatively and based on assumptions, is the term Allah.

            Answering Islam.org, Sam Shamoun (Middle Eastern Evangelical Christian)

            A brief examination of Allah as presented in the Quran leads us to conclude that he cannot possibly be the same God worshiped by Abraham and as described in the Holy Bible. The contradictions in attributes and nature between Yahweh and Allah are too numerous to pass over, and cannot be reconciled. We are well aware that the name Allah is used by Arab speaking Christians for the God of the Bible… As such, the Holy Bible uses the term as just one of the many titles for Yahweh, the only true God. Yet the problem arises from the fact that Muslims insist that Allah is not a title, but the personal name of the God of Islam. This becomes problematic since according to the Holy Bible the name of the God of Abraham is Yahweh/Jehovah, not Allah: God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD (YHWH) and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty; BUT BY MY NAME, YHWH, I did not make myself known to them.” Exo.6:2-3. Therefore, Christians can use Allah as a title but not as the personal name for the God of the Bible.
            Many Evangelical Christians, especially those working among the Muslims and also the traditional Arab Christians, hold into this approach and use of the name Allah, thus only as a generic name for God. They insist in using the name because they believe that it was originally introduced to the Arabs by the Bible believers and long before Muhammad made it the official name of his god. Most of those Christians reject Muhammad’s version of Allah and consider and consider his god as a false one and an imitation.
            Approach-C, Conservatives: The name Allah originates from paganism and became the official name of the false god of Muhammad, therefore it should not be associated with the God of the Bible.
            Let Us Reason Ministries.org, (Conservative Evangelical group)

            Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. It was also the name of the chief god among the numerous idols in the Kaaba in Mecca. Many believe the word was derived from the middle eastern word “el” which in Ugaritic, Caananite and Hebrew can mean a true or false God. According to the encyclopedia of Religion, Allah corresponded to the Babylonian god Baal, and Arabs knew of him long before Mohammed worshipped him as the supreme. Allah was the god of the local Qurish tribe of whom was Mohammed’s tribe before he invented Islam to lead his people out of their polytheism. Allah was known as the Moon God, of which he had 3 daughters who were viewed as intercessors for the people into Allah. Their names were Al-Lat, Al-uzza, and Al-Manat, which were three goddesses. Hubal (Ba3l) was the chief God of the Kaaba among the other 360 deities. The Kaabah in Mecca is also named Beit-Allah (House of Allah). The Koran Tells us that Mohammed drove the other idols away; he made one God now the only god and he was its messenger. Mohammed used the name Allah, which was of a specific idol without ever distinguishing it from the idol the Meccans were already worshipping… These names show the devotion of Mohammed’s pagan roots, and also prove that Allah was part of a polythiestic system of worship before Allah was made the supreme and only god from the other God’s. This should be proof to the pre Islamic root of the name of Allah to the Muslim, remember they were pagans who use this name. The crescent moon was the symbol of the moon God Allah and is used as a symbol of Islam today. Today there is hardly a Muslim that knows it’s origin. It was an ancient pagan fertility symbol that is found throughout the middle east. Mohammed made Allah into a single being who unlike the Bible’s God has no son. This God has never revealed himself to man but revealed only his will. This God is so removed from man that it is impossible to know him in a personal way he relates to man only through his will and law. Muslims claim that the name Allah can be found in the Bible. Allah is not called Yahweh once in the Koran but neither is Yahweh called Allah in the Bible. So they can’t be the same God. Neither is the word Elohim which is applied to Yahweh over 2,500 times used in the Bible. Neither is he called I Am, which he said would be his name forever to Moses. God is called the God of the Jews an impossibility with Allah. Nowhere is the name of Allah to be found in the Old or New Testament. Because of Islam’s dominance Allah became the common name of God. The translators of the Bible gave in to the religious pressures and substituted Allah for Yahweh in the Arabic Bibles, but this is not the name of the God of the Hebrews nor of the creator who made heaven and earth because of its source in paganism.
            Only a minority of Christians and Churches have been firm enough to stand on this position and refuse to allow the name of Allah to circulate among them as a name for God. The Southern Baptist Church of Russia for instance refuses to use any Christian literature, which uses the word Allah for God. Converts from Islam and several conservative Christians from different denominations are starting to join this minority and challenging the rest to reconsider their views and to remove the name of Allah from among the body of Christ, the elect of the God of Israel.

            (INVESTIGATING ALLAH, by Al Gharib)

            THE CHRISTIAN ARAB HERITAGE
            By Dr. Fr.Labib Kobti

            What is the Christian Heritage| Who are the Arab Christian Fathers | A Conclusion
            1- Introduction:
            We are absolutely in need here in America to know about our Christian heritage. Al-Bushra will help you discover that “Heritage”.
            We all know that the Arabs existed before Islam. They were mentioned in history and in the Bible centuries before the coming of the Arab Prophet Muhamed.
            Kingdoms like the Gassanids and the Muntherites were Christian kingdoms (from the third century to the eight century) modeled after the Roman and the Byzantine Empires. Some Bedwin tribes were also Christians. They had a common language, the Arabic language.
            We know also that mainly the Christian tradition at that time was using the Aramean and Syriac languages in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine, the Chaldean and Assyrian languages in Iraq, the Coptic language in Egypt, the Arabic in those kingdoms mentioned above and between Arab bedwins. Those languages are used still now in the liturgy of the Eastern Churches. Greek and Latin were the languages of culture and philosophy. They were used every where in the Roman or the Greek Empire had their colonies or influence. Latin and Greek are used in the liturgy of the Latin Catholic Church (the Roman Catholic), Greek is used in the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church.
            2- What is the Arab Christian Heritage?
            The “Arab Christian Heritage” is mainly known in the period between 750-1350 A.D. At that time our Arab Christian Fathers started to use the Arabic language so as to defend their Christian faith and believes against the Muslims. They wrote in different issues: theology, philosophy, interpretation of scriptures, apologetics, liturgy, history of the church, and many other things that do not concern faith like medicine, history, chemistry, geography etc. They used their old languages: Aramean, Syriac, Chaldean, Assyrian, and Coptic and translated into Arabic a lot of their books on different issues.
            They translated from Greek and Latin as well what the Greek Fathers and Latin Fathers wrote. Then after the coming of Islam they started to write in Arabic to their people and to the Muslims in order to speak about their faith.
            Many Christians at that time, because of certain unfair treatment from the Muslin Caliphs or governors and under certain pressure became Muslims.
            The Arabic language was imposed first in Egypt in the year 780 (about 140 years after the coming of Islam). Then slowly and slowly other Arabic Countries of today started to use the Arabic language as an official Language, as in Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon etc.
            The “Arab Christian Heritage” is the heritage that covers mainly the period between the 8th century to the 14th. This heritage is the third heritage after the Greek and Latin.It is in some words the writings that we have in Arabic language, translated from other languages: Greek, Latin, Aramean, Syriac, Coptic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Persian, Armenian etc.) or produced properly in Arabic. The recent European Ianguages (Italian, French, German English etc) started at the14th century to become official languages, about 600 years after our Christian Heritage.
            It is the writings of the Christian Fathers. They gave us a full idea about their faith, believes, liturgy, way of life, traditions, history of the Church, apologetics etc. They wrote also on issues other than faith, like medicine, philosophy, geography, history, chemistry etc.
            “By “Arab Christian heritage” Arab means: the Arabic language known and spoken in the Arabian Peninsula and by the Arab kingdoms before Islam. It means also the regions that used the Arabic language since 8th century as their official language. Arabic covers also beside the language, the traditions, the culture the way of life, the food, the folklore, the civilizations etc. It covers today the “Arabic Countries”. They have in common those issues mentioned above.
            Arab does not mean Islam, even though Islam used the Arabic language since its origin. You can find today millions and millions of Muslims who do not relate to the Arabic language. They are Muslims but not Arabs, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Turkey, Iran etc.. It is known that the Arabic Northern characters used by the Quran were created by the Christian Missionaries of Hira, centuries before Islam, as says C. Rabin in art. “Arabiyya, in “Encyclopedie de l’Islam”, 2nd ed.,I (Leyde et Paris, 1960, pp.579a-622b).
            That the first Northern Arabic letters were found on the church doors in Zabad on the South East of Aleppo in Syria on 512 A.D. And an other in Ir. Haran on 568 A.D. In Mecca itself centuries before Islam the Arab people used the Northern Arabic letters. Christians there, had their schools and churches, they used Arabic in their liturgy poetry and in commerce.
            Prophet Mohamed, and after him the Caliphs used these characters to write the Quran as says Jawad Ali, in his book “The history of Arabs before Islam” volume 8 pp. 178-179, and Vol 6, page 689. We can find the sites of the churches, temples and houses of our ancestors everywhere in today Arabic Countries especially in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.
            Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archeologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Forth Century we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :”Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim” that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam.
            In different region of the actual Arabic Countries, Christians had Eparchies (dioceses and bishops). All over the actual Iraq, Syria Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia: (Mekka itself), Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Palestine etc you can find the sites of churches, convents and Christian centers and schools. Today, archeology tells us a lot about these monuments. Recently a convent was discovered in Karbala (Iraq) that returns to the 1st century of Christianity. The oldest one that was discovered ever since was in the Forth Century.
            We, Arab Christians of today, who live in the Middle East, are the real heirs of that “Heritage”. In our way of thinking, worshiping, doing things, we reflect what our ancestors had lived centuries before us. We are the heirs of the first Christians, the heirs of both Old and New Testaments. We are the first Communities of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria.
            3- Who are the Arab Christian Fathers?
            “Father” is a bishop, a priest, or a simple lay man who wrote in Arabic or translated to Arabic from the 8th to 14th Century what we call today the “Arab Christian Heritage”. A lot of those Fathers were martyred with their folk defending their Christian faith and traditions.
            Arab Christian means then these Christians who first came from the Syriac, Chaldean, Assyrian, Arabic, Coptic, Greek or Latin traditions, they are the first converted to Christianity, “the first Christians ever” and who spoke Arabic, wrote in Arabic, translated into Arabic and declared their faith in Arabic language later on between the 8th and 14th centuries.
            4- Conclusion
            “Al-Bushra” is willing to serve Christians all over the word and tell them about the Arab Christian Heritage. We would like also to serve the unity of the Church, as well as the dialogue with Muslims and Jews.
            We will try to give scientific studies about our “Arab Chistian Heritage”. We want you to be proud of our traditions.
            Some times because of events in our today’s Arabic Countries and because of a lot of misleading in the Media about the Arabs, and under an unfair claims against Arabic Countries or traditions, a lot of people do not know the truth about our Arabic language, tradition, history, Arab Christians, Islam, harmony between Muslims and Christians. Some young Arab generations feel ashamed of their Arab origin because of what the Media created in the mentality of people about Arabs.
            Al-Bushra will tell you about our Arab common heritage so as to serve the truth and serve the harmony between the five components of our Middle East society: Jews, Christians and Muslims, Israelis and Arabs.
            AI-Bushra calls everybody to know us more and to find in us friends, brothers and sisters of the same God, Allah, Yahweh, Adonai. It calls Arab Christians and Muslims, the blood brothers, to be proud of our Arab language, history and traditions. It calls Arabs and Israelis: the Semites, sons of Abraham to find peace of heart as a start of Justice and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, where Jews, Christians and Muslims, Israelis and Arabs should live in harmony, cooperation and love, when they recognize in the others their equal in duties and responsibilities.

  2. 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) –

    Sahih International

    Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.

    INTRODUCTION

    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 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 QUR’AN 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 ILLERATE 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!)

    INSPECTION

    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.

    ABDULLAH BIN MASUD’S KNOWLEDGE OF QUR’AN
    Abdullah bin Masud was one of the best reciters, of the Qur’an among the companions of Muhammad and understood it better than them all. He was therefore the most knowledgeable on the Shari’ah.
    Nothing can illustrate this better than the story of the man who came to Umar Ibn al-Khattab as he was standing on the plain of Arafat and said:
    ‘I have come, O Amir al-Mumineen, from Kufa where I left a man filling copies of the Qur’aan from memory.’ Umar became very angry and paced up and down beside his camel, fuming.
    ‘Who is he?’ he asked. ‘Abdullah Ibn Masood,’ replied the man. Umar’s anger evaporated and his composure returned.
    ‘By Allah, I don’t know of any person left who is more qualified in this matter than he is,’ exclaimed Umar.
    “One night the Messenger of Allah was having a very learned discussion with Abdullah Ibn Masood. I was with them. When the Prophet left, we left with him also and as we passed through the mosque, there was a man standing in Prayer whom we did not recognise. The Prophet stood and listened to him, then turned to us and said, “Whoever wants to read the Qur’aan as fresh as when it was revealed, then let him read according to the recitation of Abdullah Ibn Masood.”
    “I said to myself, I should go to Abdullah Ibn Masood straight away and tell him the good news of the Prophet’s ensuring acceptance of his supplications. I went and did so but found that Ahmed had gone before me and conveyed the good news to him already.”
    In another Hadith, the Prophet said, “Learn the Qur’aan from four people, Abdullah Ibn Masood, Salim Maula Abi Huzaifah, Ubayy Ibn Kaab and Muaz Ibn Jabal.” The Prophet has also said, “Read the Qur’aan in the same manner as Abdullah Ibn Masood teaches.”
    The most popular and widely read Qiraat is that of Imaam Hafs. He relates from Imaam Aasim Kufi and he in turn relates from Abu Abdur Rahman Abdullah Ibn Habib As-Sulmiyi, who relates from Uthman Ibn Affan, Ali Ibn Talib, Abdullah Ibn Masood, Ubayy Ibn Kaab and Zaid Ibn Thaabit. They all, in turn, relate directly from the Prophet.
    Abdullah Ibn Masood attained such a knowledge of the Qur’an that he would say, “By Him besides Whom there is no Allah, no verse of the book of Allah has been revealed without my knowing where it was revealed and the circumstances of its revelation. By Allah, if I know there was anyone who knew more of the Book of Allah, I will do whatever is in my power to be with him.
    Abdullah was not exaggerating in what he said about himself. Once Umar Ibn al-Khattab met a caravan on one of his journeys as caliph. It was pitch dark and the caravan could not be seen properly. Umar ordered someone to hail the caravan. It happened that Abdullah Ibn Masood was in it.
    Q: “From where do you come?” asked Umar. “From a deep valley,” came the reply from Abdullah Ibn Masood, concealed by the darkness of night. A: “And where are you going?” asked Umar. “To the ancient house,” came the reply, (a Qur’anic expression – al-bayt al-atiq.)
    “There is a learned person (alim) among them,” said Umar Ibn al-Khattab. He commanded that learned questions be asked of this alim, (Abdullah Ibn Masood):
    Q: “Which part of the Qur’aan is the greatest?” A: “Allah. There is no Deity except Him, the Living, the Self-subsisting. Neither slumber overtakes Him nor sleep,” replied the stranger with the caravan, quoting the Ayat al-Kursi (the verse of the Throne)”
    Q: “Which part of the Qur’aan is the most clear on justice?” A: “Allah commands what is just and fair, the feeding of relatives.”
    Q: “What it the most profound of the Qur’aan?” A: “Whoever does an atoms weight of good shall see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil shall see it.”
    Q: “Which part of the Qur’aan gives believers the greatest hope?” A: “Say, O my servants who have wasted their resources, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. He is the Forgiving, the Compassionate.”
    Thereupon Umar asked, “Is Abdullah Ibn Masood among you?”
    Yes, by Allah, the men in the caravan replied.
    The Prophet had always desired to make Ibn Masood a leader of men, as it is clear from the following words of the Prophet, “If I was to make anyone a leader over someone without consulting anyone, I would make Ibn Masood a leader.”
    Abdullah Ibn Masood

    Introduction
    Abdullah Ibn Masood was of the tribe of Banu Huzail and was also the sworn ally of Banu Zahra. When he was still a youth, not yet past the age of puberty, he used to roam the mountain trails of Makkah far away from people, tending the flocks of a Quraish chieftain, Uqbah Ibn Muayt. People called him ‘Ibn Umm Abd’, the son of the mother of a slave. His real name was Abdullah and his fathers name was Masood.
    The youth had heard the news of the Prophet whom had appeared among his people but he did not attach any importance to it both because of his age and because he was usually far away from Makkan society. It was his habit to leave with the flock of Uqbah early in the morning and not return until nightfall.
    One day while tending the flocks, Abdullah saw two men, middle-aged and of dignified bearing, coming towards him from a distance. They were obviously very thirsty and tired. They came up to him, greeted him and said, ‘Young man, milk one of these sheep for us that we may quench our thirst and recover our strength.’
    ‘I cannot,’ replied the young man. ‘The sheep are not mine. I am only responsible for looking after them.’
    The two men did not argue with him. In fact, despite their thirst, they were extremely pleased at his honest reply. The two men were the blessed Prophet himself and his companion, Abu Bakr Siddiq . They had gone out on that day to the mountains of Makkah to escape the violent persecution of the Quraish.
    The young man in turn was impressed with the Prophet and his companion and soon became quite attached to them.
    Acceptance Of Islam
    It was not long before Abdullah Ibn Masood became a Muslim and offered to be in the service of the Prophet . The Prophet agreed and from that day, the fortunate Abdullah Ibn Masood gave up tending sheep in exchange for looking after the needs of the blessed Prophet . He was the sixth man to accept Islam. Abdullah Ibn Masood remained closely attached to the Prophet . He would attend to his needs both inside and outside the house. He would accompany him on journeys and expeditions. He would wake him when he slept. He would shield him when he washed. He would carry his staff and his Siwak (toothbrush) and attend to his other personal needs. It was for these reasons that the Sahabah took to calling him Saheb-e-Siwak (bearer of the siwak), Saheb-e-Nalaen (bearer of the slippers), Saheb-e-Mutahara (bearer of the water) and also Saheb-e-Wisadah (bearer of the bedroll).
    The Prophet’s Appreciation
    Abdullah Ibn Masood received a unique training in the household of the Prophet . He was under the guidance of the Prophet , he adopted his manner and followed his every trait until it was said of him, ‘He was the closest to the Prophet in character.’ Abdullah was often mistaken as one of the Blessed Household. Abu Musa Ashari says, ‘When we came from Yemen, we thought for some time that Abdullah was a member of the Blessed Household, because Abdullah and his mother were constantly coming and going in the Prophet presence. Furthermore, the Prophet once said to Abdullah , “O Abdullah , you do not need permission to enter my house. You are always welcome.”
    Abdullah Ibn Masood’s Quraan
    Abdullah was the best at reciting the Qur’aan among the companions and he understood it better than them all. He was therefore the most knowledgeable on the Shari’ah. Nothing can illustrate this better than the story of the man who came to Umar Ibn al-Khattab as he was standing on the plain of Arafat and said: ‘I have come, O Amir al-Mumineen, from Kufa where I left a man filling copies of the Qur’aan from memory.’ Umar became very angry and paced up and down beside his camel, fuming. ‘Who is he?’ he asked. ‘Abdullah Ibn Masood ,’ replied the man. Umar’s anger subsided and he regained his composure. ‘Woe to you,’ he said to the man. ‘By Allah, I don’t know of any person left who is more qualified in this matter than he is. Let me tell you about this.’ Umar continued: ‘One night the Messenger of Allah was having a conversation with Abu Bakr about the situation of Muslims. I was with them. When the Prophet left, we left with him also and as we passed through the mosque, there was a man standing in Prayer whom we did not recognise. The Prophet stood and listened to him, then turned to us and said, “Whoever wants to read the Qur’aan as fresh as when it was revealed, then let him read according to the recitation of Ibn Umm Abd .”
    After the Prayer, as Abdullah sat making supplications, the Prophet said, “Ask and it will be given to you. Ask and it will be given to you.” I said to myself, I should go to Abdullah Ibn Masood straight away and tell him the good news of the Prophet’s ensuring acceptance of his supplications. I went and did so but found that Abu Bakr had gone before me and conveyed the good news to him. By Allah, I have never yet beaten Abu Bakr in the doing of any good.’ In another Hadith, the Prophet said, ‘Learn the Qur’aan from four people, Abdullah Ibn Masood, Salim Maula Abi Huzaifah, Ubayy Ibn Kaab and Muaz Ibn Jabal .’ The Prophet has also said, ‘Read the Qur’aan in the same manner as Abdullah Ibn Masood teaches.’
    Note: The most popular and widely read Qiraat is that of Imaam Hafs. He relates from Imaam Aasim Kufi and he in turn relates from Abu Abdur Rahman Abdullah Ibn Habib As-Sulmiyi, who relates from Uthman Ibn Affan, Ali Ibn Talib, Abdullah Ibn Masood, Ubayy Ibn Kaab and Zaid Ibn Thaabit . They all, in turn, relate directly from the Prophet .
    Abdullah Ibn Masood attained such a knowledge of the Qur’aan that he would say, ‘By Him besides Whom there is no Allah, no verse of the book of Allah has been revealed without my knowing where it was revealed and the circumstances of its revelation. By Allah, if I know there was anyone who knew more of the Book of Allah, I will do whatever is in my power to be with him.’
    Abdullah was not exaggerating in what he said about himself. Once Umar Ibn al-Khattab met a caravan on one of his journeys as caliph. It was pitch dark and the caravan could not be seen properly. Umar ordered someone to hail the caravan. It happened that Abdullah Ibn Masood was in it.
    ‘From where do you come?’ asked Umar . ‘From a deep valley,’ came the reply, using the Qur’aanic expression – fajj amiq.‘And where are you going?’ asked Umar .‘ To the ancient house,’ came the reply, using the Qur’aanic expression – al-bayt al-atiq. ‘There is a learned person (alim) among them,’ said Umar and he commanded someone to ask the person, ‘Which part of the Qur’aan is the greatest?’ ‘Allah. There is no Deity except Him, the Living, the Self-subsisting. Neither slumber overtakes Him nor sleep,’ replied the person answering, quoting the Ayat al-Kursi (the verse of the Throne). ‘Which part of the Qur’aan is the most clear on justice?’ ‘Allah commands what it just and fair, the feeding of relatives,’ ‘What it the most comprehensive statement of the Qur’aan?’ ‘Whoever does an atoms weight of good shall see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil shall see it.’ ‘Which part of the Qur’aan gives risk to the greatest hope?’
    ‘Say, O my servants who have wasted their resources, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. He is the Forgiving, the Compassionate.’ Thereupon Umar asked, ‘Is Abdullah Ibn Masood among you? ‘Yes, by Allah,’ the men in the caravan replied.
    The Prophet had always desired to make Ibn Masood a leader of men, as it is clear from the following words of the Prophet , ‘If I was to make anyone a leader over someone without consulting anyone, I would make Ibn Masood a leader.’
    Abdullah’s Knowledge
    Abdullah Ibn Masood would refrain from narrating Hadith in fear of mistakes. However when he did narrate a Hadith, he was very particular and precocious in what he attributed to the Prophet . He would turn pale and quake in fear whenever he accidentally attributed something to the Prophet , even though the Prophet has said, ‘Whatever Ibn Masood narrates to you, believe him.’ Whenever he gave a verdict, he would attribute it to himself, saying that it was his own opinion and that it was from Allah if it was correct and that it was from himself and Satan, if it was incorrect. For this reason, many Fatwahs have been attributed to Abdullah instead of the Prophet .

    Imaam Nisai writes in his Sunan: ‘A man married a woman, then he passed away before he could consummate his wedding or set a dowry for his wife. When the issue was placed before the Sahabah , they advised them to go to Abdullah . When they came to Abdullah , he tried to avoid them and told them to ask someone else. Finally he relented and said, “The woman will receive Mehr-e-Mithl. If the verdict is correct, it is of Allah. If it is incorrect, then it is of Satan and I. Neither Allah and the Prophet are responsible for it.” A Sahabi by the name of Maakal Ibn Al-Ashjai was also present and he said, “I swear by Allah, you have given the same verdict that the Prophet gave in the favour of Broan Bint Washile Al-Ashjai. Your verdict is in accordance with the Prophet .” On hearing this, Abdullah rejoiced as he had never rejoiced before. The majority of Fatwahs of Iraq and the Hanafi Fiqh are based upon the Fatwahs of Abdullah Ibn Masood His authority in Fiqh was such that the other Sahabah would refuse to give a Fatwah during while he was still alive. They would always refer any seeker to him. Students who wanted to enter his service and gain knowledge from him were always constantly petitioning him.
    Khatima Ibn Abu Subrah once went to Madinah and prayed for a pious companion. Hurraira was Allah’s reply. Abu Hurraira asked Khatima where he had come from. He replied that he had travelled for two days from Kufa. Abu Hurraira said to him, ‘Is not Saad Ibn Malik , who is Mustajab-ul-Dawat amongst you? Is not Ibn Masood , who was the bearer of the Prophet slippers and ablution water amongst you? Is not Huzaifah , who was privy to the Prophet thoughts amongst you? Is not Amar amongst you, who Allah granted refuge from Shaytaan through the Prophets tongue amongst you? Is not he who knows the two Divine Books (the Qur’aan and the New Testament), Salman Farsi amongst you?’ Coincidentally, all the Sahabah . who Hazrat Abu Hurraira mentioned were in Kufa at that time.
    Hazrat Saad narrates, ‘Once there were six of us in the service of the Prophet . Besides me were Abdullah Ibn Masood and Bilal Habshee . Some pagans of Makkah came before the Prophet and began to say, “Remove these people first, then we shall talk.” The Prophet was still considering whether sending us out would win over their hearts and make them more receptive to Islam, when the following verse was revealed: ‘Send not away those who call on their Lord, morning and evening, seeking His Face.’ (Q6:52)
    Saad proudly states, ‘This verse was revealed for us.’ Who can match the status of those who are praised by Allah? The whole point of the worship of Allah is the pleasure of Allah. These six attained the glad tidings of Allah in their lifetime that Allah
    was pleased with them.
    As anyone who has taken an in depth, study on the knowledge of the Sahabah will tell you, the knowledge of the Sahabah climaxed in two people, Ali and Abdullah .
    On one hand, we have Allah, the Prophet and his Sahabah who sing the praises of Abdullah Ibn Masood’s excellence in knowledge and character. On the other hand, we have a sect of narrow-minded and totally unqualified people who, ironically, call themselves Ahl-e-Hadith (the people of the Hadith), better known as the Ghair-Muqalids (the leaderless), saying that Abdullah Ibn Masood was uninformed regarding the Prophet Salaah. Wasn’t Abdullah Ibn Masood the one who the Sahabah would mistake as one of the Blessed Household? Wasn’t he the constant companion of the Prophet for thirty years? But then, according to the Ghair-Muqalids, Ali and Saad were also uninformed of the Prophet Salaah, and that all three of these great Sahabah were in reality, non-entities.
    Abdullah’s Bravery
    Abdullah Ibn Masood was the first man to recite aloud the words of the Qur’aan before a gathering of the Quraish. The companions of the Prophet were together one day in Makkah. They were still few in number, weak and oppressed. They said, ‘The Quraish have not yet heard the Qur’aan being recited openly and loudly. Who is the man who could recite it for them?’ ‘I shall recite it for them,’ volunteered Abdullah Ibn Masood . ‘We are afraid for you,’ they said. ‘We only want someone who has a clan who would protect him from their evil.’ ‘Let me,’ Abdullah Ibn Masood insisted, ‘Allah shall protect me and keep me away from their evil.’ He then went out to the mosque until he reached Maqam Ibrahim (a landmark situated a few meters from the Kabah). It was dawn and the Quraish were sitting around the Kabah. Abdullah began to recite Surah Rahman. The Quraish looked at him intently and some of them asked, ‘What is Ibn Umm Abd saying? Damn him! He is reciting some of what Muhammad brought!’
    They began to slap his face but he continued reciting. When he concluded his recital, his face was covered with welts and blood. ‘By Allah,’ said Abdullah , ‘the enemies of Allah are more uncomfortable than I am at this moment. If you wish, I shall return tomorrow and do the same.’ ‘You have done enough,’ they said. ‘You have made them hear what they dislike.’
    Abdullah’s Immigration
    Abdullah Ibn Masood did Hijrat three times, twice to Ethiopia and once to Madinah. He participated in every Gazwah. It was he who beheaded Abu Jahl in Badr. It was to him that the Prophet presented Abu Jahl’s sword as a share in the booty. The Caliph Umar sent Abdullah Ibn Masood to Kufa to educate the people and to take charge of the Bait-ul-Maal. When Umar fixed salaries for the Sahabah , he offered Abdullah a salary too. Abdullah refused and said, ‘Why do you try to turn me to the world.’
    Abdullah’s Death
    Abdullah Ibn Masood lived to the time of Caliph Uthman . It was during this era that he retired from his post and returned to Madinah. When he was sick and on his death-bed, Uthman came to visit him and said, ‘What is your ailment?’ ‘My sins.’ ‘And what do you desire?’ ‘The mercy of my Lord.’ ‘Shall I not give you your stipend which you have refused to take for years now?’ ‘I have no need of it.’ ‘Let it be for your daughters after you.’ ‘Do you fear poverty for my children? I have commanded them to read Surah al-Waqiah every night for I have heard the Prophet saying, “Whoever reads Al-Waqiah every night shall not be afflicted by poverty ever.”
    That night, in either 33 or 34 A.H, Abdullah passed away to the company of his Lord, his tongue moist with the remembrance of Allah and with the recitation of the verses of His Book.
    PRESERVING THE QUR’AN 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. 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 (70) 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?

    MUSLIMS SAY:
    QUR’AN HAS NO EARTHLY SOURCES

    According to the Islamic religion, the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran came STRAIGHT FROM HEAVEN and cannot have any earthly source. Yet Western scholarship easily shows that ALL of Islam is based on the customs and fables of pre-Islamic Arabia and misinterpretation of the Bible by Muhammad.
    Even the word, “Islam” wasn’t new with Muhammad. It originally meant,

    Defiance of death, heroism, to die in battle.
    Today, it is supposed to mean Submission.

    Now given all the terrorism from the Middle East and fighting between the Shiite and Sunnis which definition better fits Islam? “to die in battle” or “submission”? The Quran commands Muslims to convert everyone to Islam or else kill them.

    “Islam” existed before Muhammad came on the scene so there is an earthly source.

    Also, the Quran is not written in a heavenly language, it is written the Quraish dialect (Hadith vol. 6, no. 507) which was Muhammad’s tribe. On top of that it is easily translated. It didn’t fall out of heaven as they claim. Neither is it non-translatable as Muslims are taught that it is.

    Let’s move on. Even the word “Allah” was not invented by Muhammad. It was already well known. Allah is a purely Arabic word al = the ilah = god. It is not taken from the Hebrew or Greek word for God. It is not even the Arabic word for God. It is the name of a peculiar deity–Allah, the moon god. The Encyclopedia of Islam says:

    The Arabs, BEFORE the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called allah. (ed. Houtsma)

    Allah was known to the PRE-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities. (ed. Gibb)
    Ilah…appears in PRE-Islamic poetry…By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry. (ed. Lewis)

    “Allah” does not mean “God” in Arabic.

    The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says this:

    The origin of this (Allah) goes back to PRE-Muslim times. Allah is NOT a common name meaning “God” (or a “god”), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity.

    Allah was a pre-existing god. He was well known to Muhammad’s Quraysh tribe. Scholars quickly point out that Allah was one of the names used for the MOON god who was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called “the daughters of Allah. Their names were Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. These were considered high gods–at the top of the plethora of Arabian deities. Muhammad’s father’s literal Arabic name was Abd-Allah. His uncle’s name was Obied-Allah. His family was devoted to the moon god for at least two generations before Muhammad. The Arabian pagans prayed towards Mecca because that is where their idols/gods were sitting. Since Allah was one of the idols in the Kabah it only made sense to turn toward their god and pray. Praying toward Mecca continues to this day.

    Allah is an Arabian idol that sat in the Kabaa with a bunch of other idols. The pagans prayed in the direction of Mecca because that is where their gods (including Allah) resided heaped on top of each other in the Kabaa. This is not news to educated Muslims, they generally understand this point. Allah is the moon god, that’s probably why there is the crescent moon and star on the Muslim flag.

    In conclusion, the Quran took Allah from the existing Arabic paganism and superimposed it on top of the God of the Jews and Christians. A dumb idol that can neither hear, nor speak, nor think.

    “Well,” you might say, “what about Arabic Bibles that say, ‘Allah’ for the word God?”

    “Well,” I would say, “the missionaries got intimidated by Arabs to use Allah instead of the Arabic word of God.” I also might say, “Many missionaries are turning to dynamic equivalency which means that they do not translate word for word but rather look for similar ideas to convey meaning.

    ABOUT MUHAMMAD

    Muhammad is the “prophet” of Islam. At age 40 he claimed that he was a prophet and apostle (he took these terms from the Bible. They had no history in Arabian religion). The Quran gives four conflicting accounts of how he was called to be a prophet-

    (1) In Qur’an, Suras 53:2-18 and 81:19-24, Allah personally appeared.

    (2) In Qur’an, Suras 16:102 and 26:192-194 he was called by “the Holy Spirit”.

    (3) In Qur’an, Sura 15:8 the angels announced his prophetic ministry; and

    (4) The angel Gabriel told him of his ministry and hands him the Quran.

    Who were Muhammad’s first supposed converts? Jinies! Yes, Muhammad supposedly preached to and converted Jinnies in Qur’an, Suras 46:29-35; 72:1-28. How convenient that there was no one around to confirm his prophethood

    MUHAMMAD WAS A VIOLENT THUG

    Muhammad killed and plundered many people. During the Nakhla Raid, he sent some of his thugs to loot a caravan killing one man and enslaving others. This was his first battle. Do you wonder why so many terrorists are Muslims? The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.

    The “prophet” Muhammad did not even foresee his own death in 632 A.D. As a result, he left no instructions for his successors. Soon there were warring sects in Islam such as the Shiites and Sunnis who fight to this day. So not only are Muslims fighting infidels like Christians and Jews, they are fighting each other!

    WHY MUSLIMS ARE SO VIOLENT:

    Sure, here in the west, they’ve tried to “Christianize” their beliefs and many of us gullibly believe that Muslims are a peace-loving people–but historically, Muhammad, terrorism, and Jihad tell a different story. It is written in their law that Muslims must kill those that don’t convert. Their leader, Muhammad made his fortune plundering and killing. Don’t think it happens today? Look at Algeria. Look at worldwide terrorism. Look at Khadafy, the Clerics of Iran, Sadaam Hussein, Arafat’s Palestine, etc. The word “assassin” came from a secret sect of Muslims who killed folks while supposedly high on hashish. Violence and Islam are good friends.

    Why does it seem like they are always fighting and terrorizing people? Why is Islam so militant and overbearing? If we make a simple analysis of the foundation of this religion, the answers will become very apparent. It all begins and ends with a man named Mohammad. The Hadiths (other “holy” books of Islam) says that Jihad, or holy war, is the second best thing to believing in Allah and his apostle (Muhammad).

    Allah’s apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and his Apostle.” The questioner then asked, “What is the next?” He replied, “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s cause.” (Hadith vol. 1, no. 25).

    The Hadith also says that Murderous Muslims could take the property of people they killed during a Jihad (there are different types of Jihad). In addition to killing infidels like Christians and Jews, Muslims are also commanded to kill anyone who leaves Islam (Hadith vol. 4, no. 260).

    THE QUR’AN DEMANDS VIOLENCE:

    Qur’an, Sura 9:5 says,

    “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war”.

    Sura 5:33 records what is done to infidels who resist Islam:

    Their punishment is…execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.

    Muhammad also burned out eyes with hot irons (Hadith vol. 1, no. 234) and deprived people of water until they died (vol. 8, no. 796).

    In Islamic countries you can be incarcerated and tortured without due process–this was all part of 7th century Arabia. The dictator could do whatever he wanted to. I read article in the Washington Post about Sadaam Hussein’s son. They said that he a violent thug. One night he raped a woman and when she complained, he killed her. He did stuff like that all the time and one night he got shot up getting out of his car and was paralyzed.

    MUHAMMAD OF MECCA OR JESUS OF NAZARETH?

    The coming of Muhammad was not foretold. Muhammad came on the scene claiming that he converted Jinnies that nobody seen. And now a whole host of people worship this man and his fake god that is no god. Muhammad did many treacherous evil things including robbing and plundering for his own tribes wealth. He also commanded his followers to kill all that would not submit to Muhammad’s made-up religion.

    Today in Africa and around the world, Muslims are killing anyone who will not submit to Islam.

    Of late, Muslims are trying to say that Muhammad was sinless, but Muhammad admitted that he is a sinner.

    “Muhammad replied…”O Allah, set me apart from my sins…”
    Hadith vol. 1, no. 711

    In Qur’an, Sura 18:10,

    Allah tells Muhammad: Say, I am but a man like you.

  3. You’ve repeated the same boring and absurd arguments in your damn article. Your first argument that Qur’an makes God the third person, has been refuted many times. Then you depended upon that bloody swine known as Dayanand Saraswati whose notorious book has been already refuted by Muslims. That bloody swine should had read his Vedas first.

    ‘I Laud Agni, the Chosen Priest, God, Minister of Sacrifice, the hotar, Lavishest of wealth.’ (Rig Veda 1:1:1)

    These are the reasons why God used the third person for Himself:
    http://www.islamhinduism.com/responses/satyarth-prakash/6-responding-to-the-objection-that-bismillah-disproves-quran-to-be-allahs-word

    Moreover, ‘It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun ‘nahnu’ (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ‘ana’ (I) indicating one person or the third person ‘huwa’ (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an where God addresses the Arabs in their own tongue.’ (Fatawa al Lajnah al Da’imah volume #4, page #143).

    As for Q. 6:104 so that verse directs the Prophet (peace be upon him and his descendants) to preach in that way. That verse directs the Prophet to say ‘I’m not (here) to watch over your doings.’ Qur’an being word of God means that Qur’an was revealed by God. When God calls Himself ‘we’, He means to show How great He is. There are many prayers in Qur’an in which God is the second/third person; God wants us to pray like that. When the Prophet is the first person, it means that God wants the Prophet to preach like that.

    In Q. 81:15, God is the first person. The hadith you referred to shows how fucking dumb you are, you asshole! The Prophet recited it. Even I can recite Q. 81:15. Does that man whoever recites that verse, becomes the first person in that verse? The Prophet recited it in prayers. If a person recites وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا وَإِيَّايَ فَاتَّقُونِ ‘And do not exchange My signs for a small price and fear (only) Me’ (Q. 2:41), will it make him God? Same goes for Q. 84:16-19. As for Q. 6:114 so that’s, once again, what God wanted His beloved Prophet to speak. Please refer to its Sahih International Translation. http://tanzil.net/#6:114

    Dude, you’re a stupid dickhead. You think you’re a threat to Islam. You’re nothing, pal, nothing. Your claims have been checked and refuted zillions of times. People like you deserve our abuses and nothing else. You’re a jerk, Raj. These arguments are dead meatballs. Come with stronger proofs.

    يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّـهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّـهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ
    ‘They want to extinguish the light of God with their mouths but God will perfect His light although the disbelievers dislike it.’ (Q. 61:8)

    • You’ve repeated the same boring and absurd arguments in your damn article. Your first argument that Qur’an makes God the third person, has been refuted many times. Then you depended upon that bloody swine known as Dayanand Saraswati whose notorious book has been already refuted by Muslims. That bloody swine should had read his Vedas first.

      ‘I Laud Agni, the Chosen Priest, God, Minister of Sacrifice, the hotar, Lavishest of wealth.’ (Rig Veda 1:1:1)

      These are the reasons why God used the third person for Himself:
      http://www.islamhinduism.com/responses/satyarth-prakash/6-responding-to-the-objection-that-bismillah-disproves-quran-to-be-allahs-word

      Moreover, ‘It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun ‘nahnu’ (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ‘ana’ (I) indicating one person or the third person ‘huwa’ (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an where God addresses the Arabs in their own tongue.’ (Fatawa al Lajnah al Da’imah volume #4, page #143).

      As for Q. 6:104 so that verse directs the Prophet (peace be upon him and his descendants) to preach in that way. That verse directs the Prophet to say ‘I’m not (here) to watch over your doings.’ Qur’an being word of God means that Qur’an was revealed by God. When God calls Himself ‘we’, He means to show How great He is. There are many prayers in Qur’an in which God is the second/third person; God wants us to pray like that. When the Prophet is the first person, it means that God wants the Prophet to preach like that.

      In Q. 81:15, God is the first person. The hadith you referred to shows how fucking dumb you are, you asshole! The Prophet recited it. Even I can recite Q. 81:15. Does that man whoever recites that verse, becomes the first person in that verse? The Prophet recited it in prayers. If a person recites وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا وَإِيَّايَ فَاتَّقُونِ ‘And do not exchange My signs for a small price and fear (only) Me’ (Q. 2:41), will it make him God? Same goes for Q. 84:16-19. As for Q. 6:114 so that’s, once again, what God wanted His beloved Prophet to speak. Please refer to its Sahih International Translation.

      يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّـهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّـهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ
      ‘They want to extinguish the light of God with their mouths but God will perfect His light although the disbelievers dislike it.’ (Q. 61:8)

      • YO HO HO MO,

        FIRSTLY, YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM!

        95% OF MUSLIMS SAY YOU ARE A SHIA KUFER!

        SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO DEFEND A CULT THAT YOU DON’T BELONG TO?

        YOU ARE A MORONIC, NEANDERTHAL SHIA KUFER!

        DEAR EDITOR,

        “TO ARGUE WITH A SHIA KUFER, WHO HAS RENOUNCED THE USE OF REASON, IS LIKE ADMINISTERING MEDICINE TO THE DEAD”!

        WHY DO MOHAMMEDANS HAVE TO PRAY 5 TIMES A DAY?

        Although Mohammed obviously knew of the destruction of the Second Temple, it seems he believed that it had been rebuilt like the first one. The fact that he first chose Jerusalem as his qiblah before turning to the masjidul-haram in Mecca adds considerable weight to this suggestion for he would hardly have chosen the former if he had known that no masjidul-aqsa stood on the site at that time, where the mosque of this name now stands, but only a compost heap.

        It seems appropriate to conclude that the experience Muhammad had was really only a dream which characterized his illusions about Jerusalem, and that the whole story of the Mi’raj is accordingly nothing more than a mythical fantasy imaginatively built upon it.

        A Literal Event or a Mystical Experience?

        Orthodox Mohammedans hold that the Mi’raj was a literal, bodily ascent to heaven, but others have suggested that it was purely a mystical experience. The distinction goes back to the early days of Islam and is summarized in the following quote:

        The belief in the Ascension of the Prophet is general in Islam. Whilst the Asha’ri and the patristic sects believe that the Prophet was bodily carried up from earth to heaven, the Rationalists hold that it was a spiritual exaltation, that it represented the uplifting of the soul by stages until it was brought into absolute communion with the Universal Soul. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 447).

        To this day those who believe that Muhammad actually went up to heaven and back remain overwhelmingly in the majority and the event is commemorated once a year during the lailatul-mi’raj, “the night of the ascension”, which falls on the 27th night of the Islamic month of Rajab. In more recent times, however, prominent Muslim authors have rejected the possibility of a physical ascent and have offered an assortment of alternative spiritual interpretations.

        Now, it is agreed by all that Muhammad’s Ascension was a matter of seconds or minutes instead of being days, months or years, and the words used for it by all biographers is Miraj, the same as used by God for the ascension of the angels or spirits who have no bodies . . . The Miraj is nothing but Inspiration or Revelation raised in degrees. (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, pp. 119, 122).

        Since “faith” is an abstract concept, it is obvious that the Prophet himself regarded this prelude to the Ascension (the cleansing of his heart) – and therefore the Ascension itself and, ipso facto, the Night Journey to Jerusalem – as purely spiritual experiences. But whereas there is no cogent reason to believe in a “bodily” Night Journey and Ascension, there is, on the other hand, no reason to doubt the objective reality of this event. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 997).

        MUHAMMAD’S NIGHT JOURNEY

        No Muslim can deny the importance of Mohammed’s night journey in Islam, because this trip determined the Islamic rituals of praying five times a day, and performing ablution – or washing before prayer. In other words Mohammed’s night journey should impact the lives of 1.5 billion Muslims all over the world – five times – each and every day.

        Qur’an, sura 17.1

        “Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)”.

        Mohammed’s alleged overnight trip covered the 1,000 miles from Mecca to Jerusalem, a trip to heaven 38 million miles, and a return to Mecca by morning, and is described in part as follows:

        Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0309:
        It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I was brought al-Buraq Who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak’ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk.

        So Mohammed flew on al-Buraq to the temple in Jerusalem, tied it up to a ring “the prophets” had used in the past, and went on in to the Temple to pray. Because of the fantastic nature of Mohammed’s claims, some 21st century Muslims try to suggest that this was a vision or dream, but according to perhaps the most highly regarded historian of Islam:

        Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 228:
        Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
        The sights which Allah’s Apostle was shown on the Night Journey when he was taken to Bait-ul-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) were actual sights, (not dreams). And the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Quran is the tree of Zaqqum (itself).

        Additionally, the rock enshrined in the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish Temple Mount, is supposed to be where Mohammed and Baraq launched from, for the leg of the trip to heaven. So it would be untenable to suggest that Mohammed’s journey was a dream or vision, while at the same time claiming that he launched from a very much physical and tangible rock, on the Temple Mount.

        Doubtless there were many skeptics when Mohammed recounted the details of his trip the morning after his night journey on the flying animal. As Dr. Rafat Amari points out in the introduction to “Islam: In Light of History”, Abu Bakar (the first assistant of Mohammed who became his first Caliph) confirmed Mohammed’s descriptions of the Temple he had visited, because Abu Baker claimed he had once taken a journey to Jerusalem and had seen the Temple himself, and remembered it to be just as Mohammed had described it.

        There is, however, a little difficulty with their accounts.

        The Temple had been torn down over 500 years before their claims of personal visits to it. Indeed if Mohammed had actually hitched his flying animal anywhere near where the Temple had been, as he claimed “the prophets” had hitched theirs, at the time in history that his night flight is supposed to have occurred, he would have found that the Temple mount was being used as a garbage dump. The Muslim’s own Caliph Omar would have observed this when he marched into Jerusalem in 639 AD, not very many years after Mohammed offered his account detailed above.

        While Mohammed and Abu Bakr didn’t need to be concerned about their largely illiterate followers traveling the 1,000 miles from Mecca to Jerusalem, to scrutinize their accounts, what excuse do today’s Mohammedans have in this 21st century information age?

        “In light of all this, we ask the following questions:

        * What Temple did Mohammad visit, enter and pray at before ascending to heaven?

        * Seeing that the Quran mentions a journey to a Mosque that did not exist during the lifetime of Mohammad, how can you consider the Quran to be 100% the word of God?

        * In light of the fact that both the Quran and the Islamic traditions contain this historical error, how can you trust either source to provide you with reliable information on the life of Mohammad and the first Mohammedans?

        * Does not the fact that the Quran mentions a Mosque which was only erected in AD 691 prove that there were Mohammedans who unashamedly and deceitfully added stories to the Quranic text and passed them off as revelation from God?

        * If you cannot find an answer to this historical problem within the Quran, why do you still remain a Mohammedan?”

        FLYING ANIMALS

        Flying camels, or baraqs, were nothing new to Islamic tradition. It was how they explained away the transportation impossibilities that resulted from the fictional history the Islamic “historians” had created.

        For example it was one of these mythical flying camels that enabled Abraham to pay visits to his son Ishmael in Mecca, a 1000 miles away. Islamic tradition also holds that it was a Baraq that enabled Ishmael to attend his father Abraham’s funeral in Hebron.

        Are we beginning to get the picture?

        Any time the thousand miles between Mecca and Israel presented the obvious geographical impossibility, of any suggestion of Abraham or Ishmael ever having been in Mecca, simply break out the flying camel! Hmmm

        But then the flying camel wasn’t invented by Mohammedan historians but had been in mythology from long before. It was utilized in Persian Zoroastrian mythology.

        QUOTING DR AMARI:

        “The Pahlavi Texts of the book of Dinkard are Zoroastrian canonical comments on the Avesta, considered part of the Zoroastrian scriptures. It mentioned KaiKhusrois, a mythological prophet who transformed Vae, the god of the air, into the shape of a camel. He then mounted him and went where the immortal mythological Persians dwelt.”

        Indeed, when combined with the “Mecca” page, what we learn is that every Mohammedan on earth, bows toward and is supposed to travel to and circumambulate, the very same BLACK STONE MOON IDOL, that the pagans bowed toward and circumambulated before Mohammed. Now we learn that the reason that Mohammedans bow toward that BLACK STONE IDOL five times a day, and wash before doing so, is because Mohammed claimed to have taken a trip on a FLYING ANIMAL. Beyond the obvious questions about flying animals, that even an 8 year old might ask, Mohammed’s visit to and prayer in a Temple, is also shown to be a physical impossibility. Some suggest it was a reference to the mosque that was built on the Temple Mount, but no “prophets” ever tied camels up to that mosque, let alone that it wasn’t built until 685 AD, long after Mohammed was dead and buried.

        The real reason Mohammedans pray five times a day and perform ablution, is likely because Mohammed became deeply involved in the second century occult Cult of the Sabians, by way of four of his relatives. This CULT apparently had so much influence over Mohammed’s daily life, that some in his own tribe referred to him as “the Sabian”. In the Quran Mohammed lists Sabians right alongside Christians and Jews.

        Qur’an, surah 2:62

        “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day…”

        Qur’an, surah 5:69

        “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the sabians and the Christians…”

        And guess what?

        The occult Sabian cult prayed five times a day and performed ablution.

        Excerpt from “Occultism in the family of Mohammed”

        “Waraqa was one of the founders of the group called Ahnaf. In the first narration of the life of Mohammed, written by Ibn Hisham in the 8th century A.D we read:

        “The Honafa’, or Ahnaf, was a small group started when four Sabians at Mecca agreed. Those four were Zayd bin Amru bin Nafil, Waraqa bin Naufal, Ubaydullah bin Jahsh, and Uthman Bin al-Huwayrith.[xxxi][31]

        The four founders of Ahnaf were all related to Mohammed. They were descendants of Loayy, one of Mohammed’s ancestors. Furthermore, Waraqa bin Naufal and Uthman Bin al-Huwayrith were cousins of Khadijah. We know this from Mohammed’s genealogy presented by Ibn Hisham.[xxxii][32] Ubaydullah Bin Jahsh was a maternal cousin to Mohammed. Mohammed married his widow, Um Habibeh. All this reveals the close connection between Mohammed and the founders of the group.”

        Before fundamental, Quran and Hadith following – true Mohammedans – received Western financing through oil purchase to expand their murder of innocent non-Muslims all around the world – with 2 million killed in the Sudan alone by the Islamic beast during this Islamic Second Jihad – the only thing I would have likely recalled knowing about Arabia would have been what I learned. This would include stories like Aladdin’s lamp from which a genie emerged when it was rubbed, and Ali Baba and his magic flying carpet.

        Interesting now in adulthood to learn about Mohammed’s night flight that 1.5 billion people are not only expected to believe, but also to follow, five times a day.

        WHAT A STUPID JOKE!

        THE NATURE OF MUHAMMAD’S PROPHETIC EXPERIENCE

        AL-MI’RAJ: THE ALLEGED ASCENT TO HEAVEN.

        1. The Story of the Mi’raj in the Hadith.
        One of the most famous Islamic monuments in the world is the Dome of the Rock which stands on the site of the original Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. It is the third-holiest in the Muslim world after the Ka’aba in Mecca and Prophet’s Mosque in Medina and commemorates the alleged occasion of Muhammad’s ascent through the seven heavens to the very presence of Allah. It stands above the rock from which Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven. The narrative of this ascent is recorded in all the major works of Hadith in some detail, but there is only one verse in the Qur’an openly refer ring to the incident and in a limited context at that.

        The traditions basically report that Muhammad was asleep one night towards the end of his prophetic course in Mecca when he was wakened by the angel Gabriel who cleansed his heart before bidding him alight on a strange angelic beast named Buraq. Muhammad is alleged to have said:

        I was brought al-Burg who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait-ul Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 101).

        Some traditions hold that the creature had a horse’s body and angel’s head and that it also had a peacock’s tail. It is thus represented in most Islamic paintings of the event. The journey from Mecca to Jerusalem is known as al-Isra, “the night journey”. At Jerusalem Muhammad was tested in the following way by Gabriel (some traditions place this test during the ascent itself):

        Allah’s Apostle was presented with two cups, one containing wine and the other milk on the night of his night journey at Jerusalem. He looked at it and took the milk. Gabriel said, “Thanks to Allah Who guided you to the Fitra (i.e. Islam); if you had taken the wine, your followers would have gone astray”. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 196).

        After this began al-Mi’raj, “the ascent”. Muhammad passed the sea of kawthar, literally the sea of “abundance” (the word is found only once in the Qur’an in Surah 108.1), and then met various prophets, from Adam to Abraham, as well as a variety of angels as he passed through the seven heavens. After this Gabriel took him to the heavenly lote-tree on the boundary of the heavens before the throne of Allah.

        Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the lote-tree of the utmost boundary). Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said, “This is the lote-tree of the utmost boundary”. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 147).
        This famous tree, as-sidratul-muntaha, is also mentioned twice in the passage in Surah 53 describing the second vision Muhammad had of Gabriel (Surah 53.14,16) where he also saw the angel ‘inda sidrah, “near the lote-tree”. Gabriel and Buraq could go no further but Muhammad went on to the presence of Allah where he was commanded to order the Muslims to pray fifty times a day:

        Then Allah enjoined fifty prayers on my followers. When I returned with this order of Allah, I passed by Moses who asked me, “What has Allah enjoined on your followers?” I replied, “He has enjoined fifty prayers on them”. Moses said “Go back to your Lord (and appeal for reduction) for your followers will not be able to bear it”. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p. 213).

        Muhammad allegedly went back and forth between Allah and Moses till the prayers were reduced to five per day. Moses then told him to seek yet a further reduction but Muhammad stopped at this point and answered Moses:

        I replied that I had been back to my Lord and asked him to reduce the number until I was ashamed, and I would not do it again. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 187).

        Allah then said whoever observed the five times of prayer daily would receive the reward of fifty prayers. Muhammad then saw some of the delights of paradise as he returned to Gabriel and Buraq and then beheld the torments of the damned before going back to his bed in Mecca that same night. This, briefly, is the narrative of the ascent.

        2. The Night Journey in the Qur’an.

        As said already, the Qur’an has only one direct reference to this whole episode and it is found in this verse:

        Glory to (God) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose precincts We did bless, – in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). Surah 17.1

        The “Sacred Mosque” (al-masjidul-haram) is interpreted to be the Ka’aba at Mecca and the “Farthest Mosque” (al-masjidul- aqsa) the Temple at Jerusalem (also referred to as al-baitul- muqaddas – the “holy house”). The great mosque which presently stands next to the Dome of the Rock is accordingly known today as the “al-Aqsa” mosque.

        The verse is somewhat vague as it refers only to “signs” that Allah would show him. What is important, however, is the fact that the verse refers purely to the “journey by night” (asra), from Mecca to Jerusalem, and makes no mention of the ascent through the heavens (mi’raj) at all. Indeed the Qur’an nowhere directly refers to nor outlines the supposed ascent – a striking omission if it was a genuine experience. Some Muslim commentators have sought allusions to it elsewhere in the Qur’an but the passages quoted are too weak to be relied on with any certainty.

        Those who know how large a part the Miraj, or miraculous journey on the Borak, bears in popular conceptions of Mohammedanism will learn with surprise, if they have not gone much into the matter, that there is only one passage in the Koran which can be tortured into an allusion to the journey to heaven. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 186).

        There are some who say that the vision referred to in Surah 53.6-18 refers to the Mi’raj, but we know that Muhammad recited this very Surah at the time of the first emigration to Abyssinia, and the passage must therefore refer to one of the very early visions as the Mi’raj is only said to have taken place some years later just before the Hijrah. Another hadith supports this conclusion by identifying this passage more clearly:

        Masruq reported: I said to Aisha: What about the words of Allah: Then he drew nigh and came down, so he was at a distance of two bows or closer still . . . (53.8-10)? She said: It implies Gabriel. He used to come to him in the shape of men; but he came at this time in his true form and blocked up the horizon of the sky. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 112).

        The occasion Aisha records is plainly identified as one of those where Muhammad had a vision of the approaching angel in the sky rather than a manifestation of the angel during their ascent through the heavens. If the verse had referred to the Mi’raj, Aisha would have surely mentioned the fact, but it patently refers to an independent occasion.

        Furthermore the narratives in the Hadith expose a glaring anachronism. After proclaiming that he had been to Jerusalem Muhammad was allegedly asked to describe the Temple. He is said to have replied:
        I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: How many doors are there in that mosque? I had not counted them so I began to look at it and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 248).
        Another tradition states that when the Qurayah disbelieved him, Muhammad answered “Allah lifted me before Bait-ul-Maqdis and I began to narrate to them (the Quraish of Mecca) its signs while I was in fact looking at it” (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 109).

        There is a real problem here for the structure had been destroyed more than five hundred years earlier and the site at that time had become a rubbish-dump and was so discovered by Umar when he conquered Jerusalem some years later. It cannot be said that Muhammad saw a vision of the Temple as it had been before it was destroyed for the Quraysh were asking him to describe contemporary Jerusalem as he saw it that very night. How could he have counted the doors of a building that no longer existed?

        The whole story of the Mi’raj as found in the Hadith may well be a pure fiction, a conclusion that will be reinforced through a study of its sources shortly. Here let it be said that it is not at all certain that Muhammad ever claimed that he actually ascended to heaven. It is possible that he merely related a striking dream, which he took as a vision, in which he imagined his journey to Jerusalem. Al-Hasan reported:

        One of Abu Bakr’s family told me that Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, used to say: “The apostle’s body remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night”. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 183).
        These words clearly teach that Muhammad never left his apartment the whole night. Furthermore the Qur’an plainly restricts the journey to the Isra as we have seen. It is probable, that what was originally nothing more than a dream of a journey to Jerusalem has been transformed into an actual physical event which was followed by an ascent through the heavens to the throne of Allah himself.

        The suggestion that even the Isra was only a dream is strengthened by the fact that the anachronism appearing in the Hadith is also found in the Qur’an for the latter also states that Muhammad was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem in Surah 17.1 quoted above. Although the Qur’an does not refer to the baitul-muqaddas but only to the masjidul-aqsa, it is clear that the same shrine is intended as the Qur’an in the same way describes the baitullah, the Ka’aba in Mecca, as the masjidul-haram. Furthermore the context establishes this interpretation for, only a few verses later, the Qur’an actually records the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem and here simply describes it as al-masjid (Surah 17.7 – the word today is only used of a Mohammedan mosque but in the Qur’an it is commonly used for any holy sanctuary).
        Although Muhammad obviously knew of the destruction of the Second Temple, it seems he believed that it had been rebuilt like the first one. The fact that he first chose Jerusalem as his qiblah before turning to the masjidul-haram in Mecca adds considerable weight to this suggestion for he would hardly have chosen the former if he had known that no masjidul-aqsa stood on the site at that time, where the mosque of this name now stands, but only a compost heap.

        It seems appropriate to conclude that the experience Muhammad had was really only a dream which characterized his illusions about Jerusalem, and that the whole story of the Mi’raj is accordingly nothing more than a mythical fantasy imaginatively built upon it.

        3. A Literal Event or a Mystical Experience?

        Orthodox Mohammedans hold that the Mi’raj was a literal, bodily ascent to heaven, but others have suggested that it was purely a mystical experience. The distinction goes back to the early days of Islam and is summarized in the following quote:

        The belief in the Ascension of the Prophet is general in Islam. Whilst the Asha’ri and the patristic sects believe that the Prophet was bodily carried up from earth to heaven, the Rationalists hold that it was a spiritual exaltation, that it represented the uplifting of the soul by stages until it was brought into absolute communion with the Universal Soul. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 447).

        To this day those who believe that Muhammad actually went up to heaven and back remain overwhelmingly in the majority and the event is commemorated once a year during the lailatul-mi’raj, “the night of the ascension”, which falls on the 27th night of the Islamic month of Rajab. In more recent times, however, prominent Muslim authors have rejected the possibility of a physical ascent and have offered an assortment of alternative spiritual interpretations.

        Now, it is agreed by all that Muhammad’s Ascension was a matter of seconds or minutes instead of being days, months or years, and the words used for it by all biographers is Miraj, the same as used by God for the ascension of the angels or spirits who have no bodies . . . The Miraj is nothing but Inspiration or Revelation raised in degrees. (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, pp. 119, 122).

        Since “faith” is an abstract concept, it is obvious that the Prophet himself regarded this prelude to the Ascension (the cleansing of his heart) – and therefore the Ascension itself and, ipso facto, the Night Journey to Jerusalem – as purely spiritual experiences. But whereas there is no cogent reason to believe in a “bodily” Night Journey and Ascension, there is, on the other hand, no reason to doubt the objective reality of this event. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 997).

        Haykal has a novel view – he alleges that the discoveries of modern science, e.g. the reproduction of images on television and voices on radios, etc., proves that forces of nature can be transferred from one place to another, and so concludes:

        “In our modern age, science confirms the possibility of a spiritual Isra’ and Mi’raj . . . Strong and powerful spirits such as Muhammad’s are perfectly capable of being carried in one night from Makkah to Jerusalem and of being shown God’s signs” (The Life of Muhammad, p. 146).

        Quite what is meant by the latter statement, only the author can know. Nevertheless his interpretation is typical of modern attempts to cast the ascension into a mystical mould, reminiscent of the rationalistic interpretations of the “free-thinking” age of early Islam when similar attempts to explain the Mi’raj in rationalistic terms were made.

        In fact Haykal returns to the standpoint of the Mu’tazila, who also rejected the realistic understanding and denied that the ascent into heaven had occurred in the body. (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 84).

        The fanciful nature of the traditional story of the Mi’raj has made more educated Muslims realize that the orthodox interpretation is perhaps more consistent with the marvelous tales of the Arabian Nights than the world of reality. Even the early biographer Ibn Ishaq had his doubts about the narrative. In his introduction to the Sirat Rasulullah, Guillaume states:

        “In his account of the night journey to Jerusalem and the ascent into heaven he allows us to see the working of his mind. The story is everywhere hedged with reservations and terms suggesting caution to the reader” (p. xix).

        A famous biographer perhaps gets to the heart of the matter by suggesting that, as Muhammad was already looking northwards towards Medina for the future of his ministry and had decided to adopt Jerusalem as the qiblah, the imaginations of his mind by day probably became the fantasies of a dream by night: “The musings of the day reappeared in the slumbers of the night” (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 117).

        At this stage we are bound to ask on what authority it may be suggested that the story of the Mi’raj, as recorded in all its details in the traditions, was purely a mythical adaptation of a simple dream. Did later scribes put it all together as a pious figment of their fertile imaginations? Not at all. Another modern Muslim author gives us a clear indication as to why much of it is an acute problem to recent scholars.
        The doctrine of a locomotive mi’raj or ‘Ascension’ developed by the orthodox (chiefly on the pattern of the Ascension of Jesus) and backed by Hadith is no more than a historical fiction whose material comea from various aourcea. (Rahman, Islam, p. 14).

        Let us now, in closing, examine these sources on which early traditionists relied for their details of the story.

        4. The Sources of the Alleged Ascent.

        Stories strikingly similar to the Mi’raj are found in various religious works predating the time of Muhammad and it is virtually certain that later scribes borrowed elements from these to create the story found in the Hadith.

        In these later narratives of the Mi’raj we find mythology unrestrained by any regard for reason or truth. We must now inquire what was the source from which the idea of this night journey of Muhammad was derived. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 225).

        Stobart refers to Surah 17.1 as Muhammad’s “simple account of what was probably only a dream prompted by his waking thoughts” and relieves him of responsibility for the fanciful narratives found in the Hadith:

        For the details of this revelation, with all its later embellishment of curious and extravagant fiction, drawn from the legends of the Haggidah, and the dreams of the Midrash and the Talmud, the prophet cannot, in fairness, be made responsible. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 141).

        Stobart refers to Jewish works where accounts similar to that of the Mi’raj are found, but perhaps the real origins of the Islamic account of Muhammad’s ascent to heaven are those stories found in Zoroastrian works which are strikingly parallel to the Mi’raj. Tisdall states that “The story may have incorporated elements from many quarters, but it seems to have been in the main based upon the account of the ascension of Arta Viraf contained in a Pahlavi book called ‘The Book of Arta Viraf”‘ (The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 226), where we find remarkable coincidences. Arta Viraf was a saintly priest who had a mi’raj of his own some four hundred years before the Hijrah:

        It is related that; when this young Arta Viraf was in a trance, his spirit ascended into the heavens under the guidance of an archangel named Sarosh, and passed from one storey to another, gradually ascending until he reached the presence of Ormazd himself. When Arta Viraf had thus beheld everything in the heavens and seen the happy state of their inhabitants, Ormazd commanded him to return to the earth as His messenger and to tell the Zoroastrians what he had seen. All his visions are fully related in the book which bears his name. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 227).
        There are numerous details in the narrative which correspond to those in the Hadith. Just as Gabriel guided Muhammad through the heavens, so Sarosh, one of the great Zoroastrian archangels, guided Arta Viraf. Likewise he came into the presence of Ormazd and visited paradise and hell as well.
        It is unnecessary to point out how great is the resemblance between all this and the Mohammedan legend of Muhammad’s Mi’raj. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 229).

        The Zoroastrians also teach that there is, in paradise, a marvelous tree called humaya in Pahlavi which corresponds closely to the sidrah, the lote-tree of Islam. Indeed the Zoroastrians even relate that their founder also passed through the heavens and visited hell.

        In the fabulous Zerdashtnama there is also an account of Zoroaster having ages before ascended to the heavens, after having received permission to visit hell, where he found Ahriman (the devil). (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 80).

        In his other book St. Clair-Tisdall comments that Ahriman, the Satan of Zoroastrianism, “closely corresponds with the Iblis of the Qur’an” (The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 230). It certainly seems that the whole account of the Mi’raj is a subtle adaptation done by Mohammedan divines sometime after the subjugation of Zoroastrian Persia during the Arab conquests in the early days of Islam.

        We may conclude that tradition has nonchalantly adorned the story of Mohammad’s dream with marvelous records of an ascent through the heavens. It is highly probable that Mohammad himself declared no more than that which we find in the Qur’an – that he had a vision or a dream in which he was carried to Jerusalem and there saw various signs. The isra of the Qur’an has been transformed into the mi’raj of the Hadith. In a very subjective way the former may well have been a vision or, more probably, a strange dream, but the latter does truly seem to be no more than a PIOUS FICTION drawn from the fables of other religious records and works.

        THE QUESTION EVERY MOHAMMEDAN MUST ANSWER:

        DO MOHAMMEDANS BELIEVE IN SANTA?

        SANTA HAS HIS RUDOLPH & MUHAMMAD HAD HIS BURAQ

        AIR BURAQ

        Buraq The Red Nosed Donkey

        Buraq, the red-nosed Donkey
        had a very shiny nose
        and if you ever saw it
        you would even say it glows.

        All of the other Donkeys
        used to laugh and call him names
        They never let poor Buraq
        play in any Donkey games.

        Then one foggy Ramadan eve
        Muhammad came to say:
        “Buraq with your nose so bright,
        won’t you guide me to Heaven tonight?”

        Then all the Donkeys loved him
        as they shouted out with glee,
        Buraq the red-nosed Donkey,
        you’ll go down in history!

        BURAQ THE WONDER HORSE IS DEAD

        I read it in the paper just about a week ago
        It was on the back page and not many Muslims know
        Boy it made me feel bad when I picked it up and read,
        Buraq the wonder horse is dead

        Oh we rode the heavenly trails together at the Friday morning mosque show
        The heavenly trails’ are gone now but it hurts to hear it said
        Buraq the wonder horse is dead

        My memory goes back to when I was a little kid
        We believed in everything that Buraq ever did
        Will our kids have a hero half as brave or half as strong
        Buarq the wonder horse is gone

        Oh we rode the heavenly trails together…
        We believed that Buarq was the fastest horse alive
        If he outrun the wind itself we never were surprised
        In my childhood memory full of boys grow into men
        Buraq the wonder rides again

        Oh we rode the sandy trails together…
        Buraq the wonder horse is gone

  4. WHOEVER WROTE THE QURAN, WAS A SCHIOPHRENIC & KNEW NOTHING ABOUT LITERATURE.

    AS MOST ARABS COULDN’T READ OR WRITE, ITS CLEAR THAT MOHAMMED DICTATED TO A SCRIBE, WHAT HIS SCHIO-BRAIN PLAGIARIZED FROM WHAT HE HEARD FROM TALMUDIC JEW, PAGAN ARABS & HERETIC CHRISTIANS. AND ALL THOSE STORIES ARE SCREWED UP! NONE OF THEM ARE THE SAME AS THEIR SOURCE!

    THERE IS NO CHROLOGICAL ORDER TO THE QURAN & MUCH OF IT IS REPEATED AGAIN & AGAIN, LIKE SOMEONE HAD A STUTTERING PEN.

    ITS A JOKE!

    HARRY POTTER IS A BETTER READ!

    THE COSMIC JOKE

    YOU DON’T NEED TO KNOW ARABIC TO REALIZE THAT THE QURAN IS A “COSMIC” JOKE

    SO THIS IS ALLAH’S PERFECT BOOK?

    “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 7 QUR’ANS

    THE QU’RAN CHALLENGE!

    • 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.

    WHY QURAN WAS WRITTEN DOWN

    • 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.

    THE REMAINDER QURAN

    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.)

    THE “PERFECT” QURAN IS MISSING

    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).

    UTHMAN’S QURAN

    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.

    WHO BURNT THE FIRST QURANS?

    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.

    ZAID’S QURAN REJECTED

    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.

    FLAWED QURAN

    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!

    2 CHAPTERS MISSING FROM THE “PERFECT” QURAN

    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

    THE PART THE GOAT EAT

    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.

    MISSING PASSAGES

    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).

    THE BOOK FROM HELL:

    DEMONS LOVE LISTENING TO THE QURAN

    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]

    MUHAMMAD HAD A DEVIL COMPANION WHO BECAME A MUSLIM

    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.”

    MUHAMMAD CREATED THE QURAN

    The Quran was created by Muhammad, a conquering warlord, as a manual for oppressing his enemies. He knew that religion could be used as a powerful psychological tool, both to gain followers and to oppress enemies. But if you read the many, many explicitly violent passages in the Quran, you will see that it was not written by a holy man:

    Quran (5:33) — “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
    Qur’an (22:19-22) — “These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.”
    Qur’an (33:61) — “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

    And that’s just a few examples!

    Here are a few more examples:

    Quran (8:12) — “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

    Quran (2:191-193) — “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

    Quran (4:89) — “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize

    IMPERFECT QURAN

    Another reason why the Qur’an fails the criteria as “the word of a perfect God” is because of the imperfections within the Qur’an. The Qur’an is riddled with literary contradictions, scientific errors, and historical inaccuracies.

    An imperfect literary style is used in the Qur’an.

    On the whole, while many parts of the Qur’an undoubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance. …let us look at some of the more extended narratives. It has already been noticed how vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who learned them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast, in these respects, “the most beautiful tale,” the history of Joseph (xii.), and its glaring improprieties, with the story in Genesis, so admirably executed in spite of some slight discrepancies. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Qur’an. The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anancloutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a “when” or “on the day when,” which seem to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a “think of this” or some ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases; in xviii., for example, “till that” (hatta idha) occurs no fewer than eight times. Muhammad, in short, is not in any sense a master of style.

    Nöldeke, Theodor. “The Qur’an,” Sketches from Eastern History. Trans. J.S. Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892.

    PLAGIARISM IN MUHAMMAD’S TIME

    The Qur’an tells us that Muhammad’s critics caught him plagiarizing traditions, folklore, and Jewish and Christian scripture. Examples:

    We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients” (8:31). “Such things have been promised to us and to our fathers before! They are nothing but tales of the ancients!” (23:83)

    ZOROASTRIANS TRADITIONS

    In regard to the Islamic versions of heaven, a paradise, plagiarism from non-Abrahamic beliefs is also evident.

    None of this, of course, can be found in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but it is in the writings of the Zoroastrians of Persia, who were a considerable presence in the areas around the Persian Empire before the advent of Islam. According to historian W. St. Clair Tisdall, who did pioneering work on these questions in his monograph “The Sources of Islam,” which he later expanded into a book, and in his other writings, “The books of the Zoroastrians and Hindus… bear the most extraordinary likeness to what we find in the Koran and Hadith.

    Thus in Paradise we are told of ‘houris having fine black eyes,’ and again of ‘houris with large black eyes, resembling pearls hidden in their shells.’… The name houry too is derived from an Avesta or Pehlavi Source, as well as jinn for genii, and bihisht (Paradise), signifying in Avestic ‘the better land.’ We also have very similar tales in the old Hindu writings, of heavenly regions with their boys and girls resembling the houris and ghilman of the Koran.

    DIFFERENT QUR’ANS IN MUHAMMAD’S TIME

    Islamic sources tell us that Muhammad’s followers would argue because Muhammad provided contradicting versions of the Qur’an. A notable example appears in Bulhari’s Hadith:

    Umar ibn Khattab [the second Caliph] said, ‘I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat Al-Furqan [“Al-Furqan,” the title of the 25th surah, has no meaning in any language.] during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle. I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited it in several ways which Allah’s Apostle had not taught me. So I was on the point of attacking him in the prayer, but I waited till he finished, and then I seized him by the collar. “Who taught you this Surah which I have heard you reciting?” He replied, “Allah’s Apostle taught it to me.” I said, “You are lying. Allah’s Apostle taught me in a different way this very Surah which I have heard you reciting.” So I led him to Muhammad. “O Allah’s Apostle! I heard this person reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way that you did not teach me.” The Prophet said, “Hisham, recite!” So he recited in the same way as I heard him recite it before. On that Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed to be recited in this way.” Then the Prophet said, “Recite, Umar!” So I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed to be recited in this way, too.” He added, “The Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in several different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you.” (Bukhari:V6B61N561)

    DEVOID OF CONTEXT

    The Qur’an in itself as a source for anything is devoid of context and thus arbitrary. Being devoid of context and any understanding, how can it be understood as the word of God?

    We do not have material in the Qur’an to compose a biography of Muhammad because the book is a disjointed discourse, a pastiche [imitation, parody] of divine monologues that can be assembled into a homily [lecture, sermon] or perhaps a catechism [snippets of dogma] but that reveals little or nothing about the life of Muhammad and his contemporaries…. The Qur’an give us no assurance that its words and sentiments are likely to be authentic in the light of the context they were delivered and in the manner of their transmission. There are no clues as to when or where or why these particular words were being uttered…. The Qur’an is of no use whatsoever as an independent source for reconstructing the life of Muhammad. The Qur’an is not terribly useful even for reconstructing the Meccan milieu much less the life of the man who uttered its words; it is a text without context.

    Source: Jay Smith, “Is the Qur’an the Word of God?”, 1995

    THE QUR’AN 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 Qur’an 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” (Qur’an, 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 (Qur’an, Suras 2:65; 7:163-166).

    The gushing 12 springs story found in Qur’an, 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 (Qur’an, 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 (Qur’an, 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 Qur’an, 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 Qur’an, Sura 3:35-37 is the fanciful book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser.

    The source of Qur’an, Sura 87:19 is the Testament of Abraham.

    The source of Qur’an, 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 (Qur’an Sura 2:259ff.).

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

    • The story in Qur’an, 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 Qur’an, 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 Qur’an, Sura 27:20-44 came from the Second Targum of the Book of Esther.

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

    The story found in Qur’an, 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 (Qur’an 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 (Qur’an, Suras 42:17; 101:6-9).

    MUSLIMS SAY:
    QUR’AN HAS NO EARTHLY SOURCES

    According to the Islamic religion, the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran came STRAIGHT FROM HEAVEN and cannot have any earthly source. Yet Western scholarship easily shows that ALL of Islam is based on the customs and fables of pre-Islamic Arabia and misinterpretation of the Bible by Muhammad.
    Even the word, “Islam” wasn’t new with Muhammad. It originally meant,

    Defiance of death, heroism, to die in battle.
    Today, it is supposed to mean Submission.

    Now given all the terrorism from the Middle East and fighting between the Shiite and Sunnis which definition better fits Islam? “to die in battle” or “submission”? The Quran commands Muslims to convert everyone to Islam or else kill them.

    “Islam” existed before Muhammad came on the scene so there is an earthly source.

    Also, the Quran is not written in a heavenly language, it is written the Quraish dialect (Hadith vol. 6, no. 507) which was Muhammad’s tribe. On top of that it is easily translated. It didn’t fall out of heaven as they claim. Neither is it non-translatable as Muslims are taught that it is.

    Let’s move on. Even the word “Allah” was not invented by Muhammad. It was already well known. Allah is a purely Arabic word al = the ilah = god. It is not taken from the Hebrew or Greek word for God. It is not even the Arabic word for God. It is the name of a peculiar deity–Allah, the moon god. The Encyclopedia of Islam says:

    The Arabs, BEFORE the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called allah. (ed. Houtsma)

    Allah was known to the PRE-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities. (ed. Gibb)
    Ilah…appears in PRE-Islamic poetry…By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry. (ed. Lewis)

    “Allah” does not mean “God” in Arabic.

    The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says this:

    The origin of this (Allah) goes back to PRE-Muslim times. Allah is NOT a common name meaning “God” (or a “god”), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity.

    Allah was a pre-existing god. He was well known to Muhammad’s Quraysh tribe. Scholars quickly point out that Allah was one of the names used for the MOON god who was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called “the daughters of Allah. Their names were Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. These were considered high gods–at the top of the plethora of Arabian deities. Muhammad’s father’s literal Arabic name was Abd-Allah. His uncle’s name was Obied-Allah. His family was devoted to the moon god for at least two generations before Muhammad. The Arabian pagans prayed towards Mecca because that is where their idols/gods were sitting. Since Allah was one of the idols in the Kabah it only made sense to turn toward their god and pray. Praying toward Mecca continues to this day.

    Allah is an Arabian idol that sat in the Kabaa with a bunch of other idols. The pagans prayed in the direction of Mecca because that is where their gods (including Allah) resided heaped on top of each other in the Kabaa. This is not news to educated Muslims, they generally understand this point. Allah is the moon god, that’s probably why there is the crescent moon and star on the Muslim flag.

    In conclusion, the Quran took Allah from the existing Arabic paganism and superimposed it on top of the God of the Jews and Christians. A dumb idol that can neither hear, nor speak, nor think.

    “Well,” you might say, “what about Arabic Bibles that say, ‘Allah’ for the word God?”

    “Well,” I would say, “the missionaries got intimidated by Arabs to use Allah instead of the Arabic word of God.” I also might say, “Many missionaries are turning to dynamic equivalency which means that they do not translate word for word but rather look for similar ideas to convey meaning.

    ABOUT MUHAMMAD

    Muhammad is the “prophet” of Islam. At age 40 he claimed that he was a prophet and apostle (he took these terms from the Bible. They had no history in Arabian religion). The Quran gives four conflicting accounts of how he was called to be a prophet-

    (1) In Qur’an, Suras 53:2-18 and 81:19-24, Allah personally appeared.

    (2) In Qur’an, Suras 16:102 and 26:192-194 he was called by “the Holy Spirit”.

    (3) In Qur’an, Sura 15:8 the angels announced his prophetic ministry; and

    (4) The angel Gabriel told him of his ministry and hands him the Quran.

    Who were Muhammad’s first supposed converts? Jinies! Yes, Muhammad supposedly preached to and converted Jinnies in Qur’an, Suras 46:29-35; 72:1-28. How convenient that there was no one around to confirm his prophethood

    MUHAMMAD WAS A VIOLENT THUG

    Muhammad killed and plundered many people. During the Nakhla Raid, he sent some of his thugs to loot a caravan killing one man and enslaving others. This was his first battle. Do you wonder why so many terrorists are Muslims? The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.

    The “prophet” Muhammad did not even foresee his own death in 632 A.D. As a result, he left no instructions for his successors. Soon there were warring sects in Islam such as the Shiites and Sunnis who fight to this day. So not only are Muslims fighting infidels like Christians and Jews, they are fighting each other!

    WHY MUSLIMS ARE SO VIOLENT:

    Sure, here in the west, they’ve tried to “Christianize” their beliefs and many of us gullibly believe that Muslims are a peace-loving people–but historically, Muhammad, terrorism, and Jihad tell a different story. It is written in their law that Muslims must kill those that don’t convert. Their leader, Muhammad made his fortune plundering and killing. Don’t think it happens today? Look at Algeria. Look at worldwide terrorism. Look at Khadafy, the Clerics of Iran, Sadaam Hussein, Arafat’s Palestine, etc. The word “assassin” came from a secret sect of Muslims who killed folks while supposedly high on hashish. Violence and Islam are good friends.

    Why does it seem like they are always fighting and terrorizing people? Why is Islam so militant and overbearing? If we make a simple analysis of the foundation of this religion, the answers will become very apparent. It all begins and ends with a man named Mohammad. The Hadiths (other “holy” books of Islam) says that Jihad, or holy war, is the second best thing to believing in Allah and his apostle (Muhammad).

    Allah’s apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and his Apostle.” The questioner then asked, “What is the next?” He replied, “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s cause.” (Hadith vol. 1, no. 25).

    The Hadith also says that Murderous Muslims could take the property of people they killed during a Jihad (there are different types of Jihad). In addition to killing infidels like Christians and Jews, Muslims are also commanded to kill anyone who leaves Islam (Hadith vol. 4, no. 260).

    THE QUR’AN DEMANDS VIOLENCE:

    Qur’an, Sura 9:5 says,

    “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war”.

    Sura 5:33 records what is done to infidels who resist Islam:

    Their punishment is…execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land.

    Muhammad also burned out eyes with hot irons (Hadith vol. 1, no. 234) and deprived people of water until they died (vol. 8, no. 796).

    In Islamic countries you can be incarcerated and tortured without due process–this was all part of 7th century Arabia. The dictator could do whatever he wanted to. I read article in the Washington Post about Sadaam Hussein’s son. They said that he a violent thug. One night he raped a woman and when she complained, he killed her. He did stuff like that all the time and one night he got shot up getting out of his car and was paralyzed.

    A TRUE PROPHET OF GOD:

    MUHAMMAD OF MECCA OR JESUS OF NAZARETH?

    The coming of Muhammad was not foretold. Muhammad came on the scene claiming that he converted Jinns that nobody seen. And now a whole host of people worship this man and his fake god that is no god. Muhammad did many treacherous evil things including robbing and plundering for his own tribes wealth. He also commanded his followers to kill all that would not submit to Muhammad’s made-up religion.

    Today in Africa and around the world, Muslims are killing anyone who will not submit to Islam.

    Of late, Muslims are trying to say that Muhammad was sinless, but Muhammad admitted that he is a sinner.

    “Muhammad replied…”O Allah, set me apart from my sins…”
    Hadith vol. 1, no. 711

    In Qur’an, Sura 18:10,

    Allah tells Muhammad: Say, I am but a man like you.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s