Al-Qaeda Urges Jihad for Islam in Bangladesh

[Daily Star] Says Bangladesh being turned into ‘subjugated surrogate of India’ and ‘a huge prison’al-qaeda

Alleging that thousands of people are being killed in the streets of Bangladesh for protesting against a “collusion of the anti-Islam secular government”, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri has invited people to “confront this crusader onslaught against Islam”

The Daily Star could not independently verify the authenticity of the message.

The call came in an audio message posted by al-Qaeda’s media production house ‘As-Sahab Media’ on a website, which promotes jihad (war for religious cause) across the globe.

“A massacre of Muslims is being carried out these days, and the Muslim world is totally oblivious to it. The western media is colluding with the killers to belittle its significance and hide the facts,” Zawahiri said in the message.

The message titled ‘Bangladesh: A Massacre Behind a Wall of Silence’, contains photographs from Hefajat-e Islam programmes and law enforcers action on them.

It also carries statements of Maulana Abdul Rasheed Ghazi, a Pakistani cleric who was killed during security forces’ operation on July 5, 2011, and Palestinian Sunni Islamic scholar Imam Abdullah Azzam, who was killed by a car bomb blast on November 24, 1989.

“This is the bloodbath taking place in Bangladesh, without the Muslims paying the least attention to it,” said the al-Qaeda chief who took over the helm of the terrorist militant outfit after the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011 at a house in Abottabad in Pakistan.

“Bangladesh is the victim of the conspiracy in which the agents of India, the corrupt leadership of the Pakistan army, and treacherous power hungry politicians of Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are always prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of fulfilling their ambitions and desires, were all equal participants,” Zawahiri said.

However, the real victim was the Muslim Ummah in the subcontinent generally, and in Pakistan and Bangladesh specifically, the Egyptian physician insisted.

“The crimes that are being committed in Bangladesh today against the core beliefs of Islam, the Prophet of Islam (pbuh), and the Muslim Ummah are only the fruits of the rotten seeds sown by these criminals.

“Their purpose was not independence from Pakistan, stopping the aggression against the people of Bangladesh, or getting rid of military rule in Pakistan. None of these was the real objectives, even if these criminals took cover behind these slogans, parroted these lines, and propagated these out of their malevolence or stupidity, or due to both. None of this was the real purpose.”

The real purpose was weakening the Muslim Ummah in the subcontinent, said the al-Qaeda chief.

“It was to rip the Muslim Ummah apart into pieces, and lead it to death by getting it entangled in mutual strife, regional conflicts and wars. Above all, their purpose was to attack the real capital of this Ummah, and the secret of its strength: the Islamic faith.”

What is taking place today in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Afghanistan is “only a prelude to the execution of this evil plan, and the aforementioned criminals are the tools of the enemies of Islam in this vile conspiracy”, he said.

“Those who massacred the Muslims in Bangladesh only yesterday are the same people who are massacring the Muslims in Pakistan today. Similarly, those who allied with India against Pakistan by claiming that they sought to defend the honour and sanctities of Bengalis are the same people who are attacking the sanctities, beliefs, honour, lives and properties of Bengalis today.”

Continues Zawahiri: “They claimed that they created Pakistan more than 60 years ago to defend Islam and Muslims in the subcontinent. Today we have a Pakistan that has no Shariah, no independence and no honour.

“Its government, army, intelligence, police and judiciary act as mercenaries hired to defend the interests of the crusader onslaught in South Asia.”

Similarly, they claimed that they created Bangladesh more than 40 years ago to protect the independence, glory, honour and freedom of its people, he said.

“But today we see Bangladesh turning into a huge prison in which the sanctities, honour, dignity and sacred places of Muslims are violated. Their lives are put at stake, and they are tortured in defence of the crusader onslaught, which is fighting Islam politically, militarily and ideologically.”

Bangladesh, which they claimed to have won from Pakistan so that it may get its freedom, is being turned into a subjugated surrogate of India, the Islamist theologian alleged.

“These anti-Islamic policies that assail Islamic beliefs, symbols and the noble Prophet of Islam (pbuh), are only a manifestation of complete subjugation to India.”

The events in Bangladesh enjoy the blessings of both India and America, since their interests in fighting Islam overlap, and this is why their bilateral relations are becoming stronger day by day.

This is the bitter truth that we must be aware of, so that we can take the first step on the road to freeing ourselves from this misfortune, humiliation and subservience to foreign powers.

Zawahiri alleged that thousands of people are being killed in the streets of Bangladesh “without any guilt, except that they have come out to protest against the collusion of the anti-Islam secular government with a bunch of transgressing secularists who are heaping insults and vulgar abuses on Islam and the Prophet of Islam (pbuh)”.

“Hundreds of callers to the religion and scholars are also facing hardships, manhunts, imprisonment, trials, death sentences and life imprisonments without any guilt except that they have taken a stand against the agents of this crusader onslaught, who are being used as tools by the leading criminals of the western world to distort the image of Islam and poke fun at this religion, its prophet and beliefs.”

He invited Muslims in Bangladesh “to confront this crusader onslaught against Islam, which is being orchestrated by the leading criminals in the subcontinent and the West against Islam, the Prophet of Islam and the Islamic creed, so that they may turn you into slaves of a despotic and disbelieving system”.

“The system which they want to impose on you seeks to enslave mankind, steal the resources and divide it into segments with its hellish and brutal apparatus.”

3 thoughts on “Al-Qaeda Urges Jihad for Islam in Bangladesh

  1. Lucky, Apostasy = Treason. What is the punishment of Treason in your country?

    Knowledge is based on the vicinity of experience, precincts of foresight and thought. It is not based on false texts!

    Islamic ideology is better than any other ideology. It eradicates adultery, injustice, prostitution, Idolatry and establishes worship of invisible ONE God.

    • OH DUMB PLUM, WHY YOU MAKE IT SO EASY? “Islamic ideology is better than any other ideology. It eradicates adultery, injustice, prostitution, Idolatry and establishes worship of invisible ONE God”. THE CULT OF MUHAMMEDANISM IS ON PAR WITH A MENTAL ASYLUM & ITS INMATES! “ONE FLEW OVER MUHAMMAD’S NEST”, THE SEQUEL TO “ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST” THE OPINION OF THE COMPANIONS ABOUT EACH OTHER Muhammad al Tijani al Samawi Published on Books on Islam and Muslims | ( Home > Then I was Guided > The Opinion of the Companions about Each Other > 4. The testimony of the Shaykhan against themselves 1. THEIR TESTIMONY THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION OF THE PROPHET Abu Saeed al-Khudari said: On the first days of ‘Id al-Fitr (breaking the fast of Ramadan) and ‘Id al-Adha (celebrating the end of the Pilgrimage), the first thing the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to do was to say his prayers in the mosque, then he went to see the people, who sat in rows in front of him, and then he started to deliver advice or orders or even finalize outstanding issues, and after all that he would leave. Abu Saeed added: The situation continued to be like that, until one day, either Fitr or Adha, I went with Marwan, who was the governor of al-Medinah. When we arrived at the mosque, which had a new pulpit built by Kathir ibn al-Salt, Marwan headed for the pulpit (before praying), so I pulled him by his clothes, but he pushed me and went up on to the pulpit. He addressed the people before he prayed, so I said to him, “By Allah you have changed it.” He replied, “O Abu Saeed, what you know has gone.” I said, ‘By Allah, what I know is better than what I do not know.’ Marwan then said, ‘People did not sit for us after the prayers, so I put (it) before the prayers.’”1 I looked for the reasons which led those Companions to change the Sunnah (the tradition) of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and found that the Umayyads (and most of them were Companions of the Prophet) and Muawiah ibn Abi Sufian (writer of the revelation, as he was called) in particular used to force people to swear at ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and curse him from the pulpits of the mosques, as most of the historians have mentioned in their books. Muslim, in his Sahih, wrote in a chapter entitled, “The virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib,” the following: Muawiah ordered his governors everywhere to take the curse (of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib) as tradition, and that all the speakers must include it in their speeches. When some of the Companions protested very strongly against such a rule, Muawiah ordered their killing and burning. Among the famous Companions who were killed at the order of Muawiah were Hijr ibn Adi al-Kindi and his followers, because they protested and refused to curse ‘Ali, and some of them were buried alive. Abu al-Aala al-Mawdudi wrote in his book “Caliphate and Kingdom”: Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: Muawiah had four features, and if he had only one of them, it would have been considered a great sin: 1. Making decisions without consulting the Companions, who were the light of virtues. 2. Designating his son as his successor. His son was a drunkard, corrupt and wore silk. 3. He claimed Ziyad (as his son), and the Messenger of Allah said, “There is offspring for the honorable woman, but there is nothing for the whore.” 4. His killing of Hijr and his followers. Woe unto him from Hijr and the followers of Hijr.2 There were some good Companions who used to dash out of the mosque immediately after the prayers so that they did not have to listen to the speeches which always ended with the cursing of ‘Ali. For that reason the Umayyads changed the tradition of the Messenger of Allah. They put the speech before the prayers, so that people listened to it against their will. What kind of Companions were these people! They were not afraid of changing the tradition of the Messenger of Allah, or even the laws of Allah, in order to reach their wicked and low objectives and to satisfy their sinister desires. They cursed a man whom Allah had kept cleansed and purified, and made it obligatory for people to pray for him in the same way as they prayed for His Messenger. Furthermore, Allah and His Messenger made it obligatory for people to love him, and the Prophet (saw) said, “Loving ‘Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy.”3 But these Companions changed the rules and said, “We heard, but we disobey.” And instead of loving him, praying for him and obeying him, they swore at him and cursed him for sixty years, as has been mentioned in the history books. Whereas the Companions of Moses plotted against Aaron and tried to kill him, some of the Companions of Muhammad killed his Aaron and pursued his sons and followers everywhere. They removed their names from the Diwan (account books of the treasury) and prohibited anyone to be named after them. As if that was not enough for them, they cursed him and forced the faithful Companions to do so unjustly and by force. By Allah! I stand astonished and perplexed when I read in our Sihahs how much the Messenger of Allah loved his “brother” and cousin ‘Ali and how he put him above all the Companions, and even he said, “You are to me as Aaron was to Moses, but there will be no prophet after me.”4 He also said the following things about ‘Ali: “You are from me, and I am from you.”5 “Loving ‘Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy.”6 “I am the city of knowledge, and ‘Ali is its gate.”7 “‘Ali is the master of all the believers after me.”8 “Whoever accepted me as his master, then he should also accept ‘Ali as his master. O Allah be friendly with his friends, and be enemy to his enemy.”9 If we study all the virtues that the Prophet (saw) attributed to ‘Ali, which have been mentioned and approved by our scholars in their books, then we would need to write a whole book. So, how did the Companions ignore all these texts, swear at him, plot against him, curse him from the pulpits of the mosques and then fight against him and finally kill him? I tried in vain to find a reason for the behavior of those people, but found nothing except the love of this life and the competition for it, in addition to the tendency to apostatize and turn back on their heels. I have also tried to attach the responsibility to a group of bad Companions and some hypocrites, but regrettably those were only a few among the famous and the important. The first who threatened to burn his house, with its inhabitants, was Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the first who fought him were Talhah, al-Zubayr, Aishah bint Abi Bakr – Umm al-Mumineen, Muawiah ibn Abi Sufian, Amr ibn al-‘Aas and many others. I am astonished, and my astonishment will never end, and any responsible free thinker would agree with me, as to how the Sunni scholars agree on the righteousness of all the Companions and ask for the blessings of Allah to be upon them and pray for all of them without exception, although some of them say: “Curse Yazid, and no further.” But where is Yazid amongst all these tragedies which no religion or logic could approve? I appeal to the Sunni people, if they truly follow the Prophet’s tradition, to ask themselves how they could accept somebody to be righteous when the laws of the Holy Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition judge him as being corrupt, an apostate and an unbeliever. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “He who insults ‘Ali, insults me. He, who insults me, insults Allah. And he who insults Allah, Allah will throw him into Hell.”10 If that is the punishment for those who insult ‘Ali, one wonders about the punishment of those who fought him and ultimately killed him. What are our scholars’ opinions regarding all these facts, or are their hearts locked solid?! Say, O God please protect us from the tricks of the devil. 2. THE COMPANIONS EVEN MADE CHANGES IN PRAYERS Anas ibn Malik said: I knew nothing during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) better than the prayer. He said: Have you not lost what you have lost in it? Al-Zuhri said: I went to see Anas ibn Malik in Damascus, and found him crying, I asked him, “What is making you cry?” He answered, “I have known nothing but these prayers and they have been lost.”11 I would like to make it clear that it was not the followers who implemented the changes after all the intrigues and civil wars; rather it was the caliph Uthman who first made changed in the Prophet’s tradition regarding the prayers. Also Umm al-Mumineen Aishah was involved in these changes. Al-Bukhari and Muslim, both stated in their books that the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed two prayers at Mina, and Abu Bakr after him, then Umar and Uthman who later performed four prayers.12 Muslim also stated in his book that al-Zuhri asked ‘Urwah, “Why did Aishah complete her prayers during the journey?” He answered, “She improvised in the same way as Uthman did.”13 Umar used to improvise and interpret the clear texts of the Prophet’s tradition, and even the Holy Qur’anic texts. Like he used to say: “Two pleasures were allowed during the life of the Messenger of Allah, but now I disallow them and punish those who commit them and I tell the person who is in a state of ritual impurity or cannot find water not to pray.” This in spite of the words of Allah, the Most High, in Surat al-Maidah: “If you do not find water, then use clean sand.” Al-Bukhari stated in his book, in a chapter which deals with ritual impurity: “I heard Shaqiq ibn Salmah saying: ‘I was with Abdullah and Abu Musa, and Abu Musa asked, ‘What do you say about a man who is unclean but cannot find water?’ Abdullah answered, ‘He should not pray until he finds water.’ Abu Musa then asked, ‘what do you think about what the Prophet said to Ammar (regarding the issue of impurity) when Ammar asked him?’ Abdullah said, ‘For that reason Umar was not satisfied with (that).’ Abu Musa said, ‘Forget about what Ammar said, but what do you say about the Qur’anic verse?’ Abdullah did not know what to say, but he justified his stance by saying, ‘If we let them do that, then whenever the water becomes cold, they avoid using it to clean themselves, and instead they use sand.’ I said to Shaqiq, ‘Abdullah is most certainly hated for that.’ He said, ‘Yes.’”14 3. THE COMPANIONS TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES “Anas ibn Malik said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to al-Ansar: ‘You will notice after me some great selfishness, but be patient until you meet Allah and His Messenger by the pool. Anas said: We were not patient.’15 “Al-Ala ibn al-Musayyab heard his father saying: ‘I met al-Bara ibn Azib, may Allah honor them both, and said to him, ‘Bless you, you accompanied the Prophet (saw) and you voted for him under the tree.’ He said, ‘My son, you do not know what we have done after him.’”.16 This early Companion, who was one of those who voted for the Prophet under the tree, and who received the blessing of Allah, for Allah knew what was in their hearts, testifies against himself and his companions that they did not keep the tradition. This testimony is confirmation of what the Prophet (saw) talked about and predicted in that his Companions would break with his tradition and fall back on their heels. How could any sensible person, after all this evidence, believe in the righteousness of all the Companions, as the Sunnis do? He, who believes that, is definitely reversing the order of logic and scholarship, and there will be no intellectual criteria for the researcher to use in his quest for the truth. 4. THE TESTIMONY OF THE SHAYKHAN AGAINST THEMSELVES In a chapter entitled “The virtues of Umar ibn al-Khattab,” al-Bukhari wrote in his book: “When Umar was stabbed he felt great pain and Ibn Abbas wanted to comfort him, so he said to him, “O Commander of the Believers, you accompanied the Messenger of Allah and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was very pleased with you. Then you accompanied Abu Bakr, and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was pleased with you. Then you accompanied their companions and you were a good companion to them, and if you left them, they would remember you well.” He said, “As for the companionship of the Messenger of Allah and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah, the Most High, has granted to me. As for the companionship of Abu Bakr and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah, Glory be to Him, has granted to me. But the reason you see me in pain is for you and your companions. By Allah, if I had all the gold on earth I would use it to ransom myself from the torture of Allah, Glory and Majesty be to Him, before I saw Him.17 He has also been quoted as saying the following, “I wish I was my family’s sheep. They would have fattened me up to the maximum. When they were visited by friends, they would have killed me and roasted part of me, and made qadid (meat cut into strips and dried) from the other part of it, then they would have eaten me, and lastly, they would have relieved me with their bowel evacuation … I wish I had been all that, rather than a human being.”18 Abu Bakr apparently said a similar thing to the above. He looked at a bird on a tree, and then said, “Well done bird … you eat the fruits, you stand on the trees and you are not accountable to anybody nor indeed can anybody punish you. I wish I was a tree by the road and that a camel would come along and eat me. Then relieve me with his bowel evacuation … I wish that I had been all that, rather than a human being.”19 MinHajj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 120 He also said, “I wish that my mother had not given birth to me … I wish I was a straw in the mud.”20 These are some texts that I used just as examples and not for any specific reason. And this is the Book of Allah which gives the good news to the worshippers of Allah who believe in Him: “Now surely the friends of Allah, they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. Those who believe and fear (Allah), they shall have good news in this world’s life and in the Hereafter, there is no changing in the words of Allah; that is the great achievement.” (Holy Qur’an 10:62-64) Allah also says: “(As for) those who say, our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying, ‘Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised. We are your guardians in this world’s life and in the Hereafter, and you shall have therein what your souls desire and you shall have therein what you ask for. An entertainment by the Forgiving, the Merciful.’ (Holy Our’an 41:30-32) How could the two Shaykhs, Abu Bakr and Umar, wish that they were not from the human race, which Allah honored and put it above all His creation? Even the ordinary believer, who keep on the straight path during his lifetime, receives the angels to tell him about his place in heaven, and that he should not fear the torture of Allah, nor be depressed about his legacy in life, and that he has the good news while he is in this life before reaching the life Hereafter. Then how could the great Companions, who are the best of creation after the Messenger of Allah (so we have been taught), wish they were excrement or a hair or a straw when the angels had given them the good news that they would go to heaven? They could not have wished to have all the gold on earth to ransom themselves from the torture of Allah before meeting Him. Allah, the Most High, said: “And if every soul that has done injustice had all that is in the earth, it would offer it for ransom, and they will manifestly regret when they see the chastisement and the matter shall be decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt unjustly.” (Holy Quran 10:54) Allah also said: “And had those who are unjust all that is in the earth and the like of with it, they would certainly offer it as ransom (to be saved) from the evil of the punishment on the day of resurrection; and what they never thought of shall become plain to them from Allah. And the evil (consequences) of what they wrought shall become plain to them, and the very thing they mocked at shall beset them.” (Holy Qur’an 39:47-48) I wish sincerely that these Qur’anic verses did not involve great companions like Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar al-Faruq. But I often pause when I read these texts so that I can look at some interesting aspects of their relations with the Messenger of Allah (saw), and how that relation went through much turmoil. They disobeyed his orders and refused him his wishes, even in the last moments of his blessed and honorable life, which made him so angry that he ordered them all to leave his house and to leave him. I also recall the chain of events that took place after the death of the Messenger of Allah, and the hurt and lack of recognition that afflicted his daughter al-Zahra. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Fatimah is part of me, he who angers her angers me.”21 Fatimah said to Abu Bakr and Umar: “I ask you in the name of Allah, the Most High, did you not hear the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying, ‘The satisfaction of Fatimah is my satisfaction, and the anger of Fatimah is my anger, he who loves my daughter Fatimah loves me, and he who satisfies Fatimah satisfies me, and he who angers Fatimah angers me?’ They said, ‘Yes, we heard it from the Messenger of Allah (saw).’ Then she said, ‘Therefore, I testify before Allah and the angels that you have angered me and did not please me, and if I meet the Prophet I will complain to him about you.’22 Let us leave this tragic story for the time being, but Ibn Qutaybah, who is considered to be one of the great Sunni scholars, and was an expert in many disciplines and wrote many books on Qur’anic commentary. Hadith Linguistics, grammar and history might well have been converted to Shiism, as somebody I know once claimed when I showed him Ibn Qutaybah’s book “History of the Caliphs.” This is the type of propaganda that some of our scholars use when they lose the argument. Similarly al-Tabari was a Shi’ite, and al-Nisa’i, who wrote a book about the various aspects of Imam ‘Ali, was a Shiite, and Taha Husayn, a contemporary scholar who wrote “Al-Fitnah al-Kubra” and other facts, was also a Shi’ite! The fact is that all of these were not Shiites, and when they talked about the Shi’a, they said all sorts of dishonorable things about them, and they defended the fairness of the Companions with all their might. But the fact is that whenever a person mentions the virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, and admits to the mistakes that were committed by the famous Companions; we say that he has become a Shiite. And if you say in front of them, when you mention the Prophet, “May Allah bless him and his Family” or say, “‘Ali, may Allah’s peace be upon him” then you are branded a Shiite. According to that premise, one day, during a debate, I asked one of our scholars, “What do you think of al-Bukhari?” He said, “He is one of the leading authorities in Hadith (the Prophetic tradition) and we consider his book to be the most correct book after the Book of Allah, as all our scholars agree.” I said to him, “He is a Shiite.” He laughed and said, “God forbid that Imam al-Bukhari be a Shiite.” I said, “Did you not say that whoever says ‘Ali, may Allah’s peace be upon him, is Shiite?” He answered, “Yes.” Then I showed him and those who were with him al-Bukhari’s book, and in many places when ‘Ali’s name appears, he put “May Allah’s peace be upon him” as well as the names of Fatimah and al-Husayn. The man did not know what to say.23 Let us return to the incident mentioned by Ibn Qutaybah in which Fatimah allegedly was angered by Abu Bakr and Umar. If I doubt the authenticity of that story, then I could not doubt the authenticity of al-Bukhari’s book, which we consider to be the most correct book after the Book of Allah. As we have committed ourselves to the fact that it is correct, then the Shiites have the right to use it in their protestation against us and force us to keep to our commitment, as is only fair for sensible people. In his book, al-Bukhari writes in a chapter entitled “The virtues of the relatives of the Messenger of Allah” the following: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Fatimah is part of me, and whoever angers her angers me.” Also in a chapter about “The Khaybar Raid” he wrote: According to Aishah, Fatimah- may Allah’s peace be upon her – daughter of the Prophet, sent a message to Abu Bakr asking him for her share of the inheritance of the Messenger of Allah, but he refused to pay Fatimah anything of it. Fatimah became so angry at Abu Bakr that she left him and never spoke to him before her death.24 The final result is one, al-Bukhari mentioned it briefly and Ibn Qutaybah talked about it in some detail, and that is: the Messenger of Allah (saw) is angry when Fatimah is angry, and he is satisfied when Fatimah is satisfied, and that she died while she was still angry with Abu Bakr and Umar. If al-Bukhari said: She died while she was still angry at Abu Bakr, and did not speak to him before she died, then the end result is quite clear. If Fatimah is “the leading lady among all the ladies” as al-Bukhari declared in the section al-Isti’dhan, and if Fatimah is the only lady in this nation whom Allah kept clean and pure, then her anger could not be but just, therefore Allah and His Messenger get angry for her anger. Because of that Abu Bakr said, “May Allah, the Most High, save me from His anger and Fatimah’s anger.” Then he cried very bitterly when she said, “By Allah, I will curse you in every prayer that I do.” He came out crying and said, “I do not need your pledge of allegiance and discharge me from my duties.”25 Many of our historians and scholars admit that Fatimah, may Allah’s peace be upon her, challenged Abu Bakr in many cases such as the donations, the inheritance and the shares of the relatives, but her challenge was dismissed, and she died angry at him. However, our scholars seem to pass over these incidents without having the will to talk about them in some detail, so that they could as usual, preserve the integrity of Abu Bakr. One of the strange things that I have read regarding this subject, is what one of the writers said after he had mentioned the incident in some detail: God forbid that Fatimah should claim something that does not rightly belong to her, and God forbid that Abu Bakr denied her rights. The writer thought that through this weak reasoning, he would be able to solve the problem and convince the researchers. He appears to be saying something similar to the following: God forbid that the Holy Qur’an should say anything but the truth, and God forbid that the sons of Israel should worship the calf. We have been plagued with scholars who say things that they cannot comprehend, and believe in the object and its antithesis, simultaneously. The point is that Fatimah claimed and Abu Bakr dismissed her claim, so she was either a liar – God forbid – or Abu Bakr treated her unjustly. There could be no third solution for the case, as some of our scholars would wish. Logical reasoning and traditional proofs prevent the Mistress of Ladies from being accused of lying, due to the confirmation of her father (s) in his saying: “Fatimah is a part of me, and whoever hurts her hurts me.” Hence, intuitively, whoever lies does not deserve this kind of statement (of honor) by the Messenger of Allah (saw). Therefore, the saying itself is a clear indication of her infallibility. The purification verse from the Holy Qur’an is another indication of her infallibility, and it was revealed in her honor and the honor of her husband and her two sons, as Aishah herself testified.26 Hence, there is nothing left for sensible people but to accept the fact that she was unjustly treated, and that she was easy to be branded a liar by somebody who was willing to let her burn unless the remaining people in her house came out to vote for him.27 Because of that, she, may Allah’s peace be upon her, refused entry to Abu Bakr and Umar when they asked her permission. Even when ‘Ali allowed them to enter, she turned her face to the wall and refused to look at them.28 Furthermore, before she died, she asked to be buried secretly, and at night, so that none of them could be present at her funeral,29 and to this day, the grave of the Prophet’s daughter is unknown. I would like to ask why our scholars remain silent about these facts, and are reluctant to look into them, or even to mention them. They give us the impression that the Companions are like angels, infallible and sinless, and when you ask them why the caliph of the Muslim’s Uthman was murdered, they would say: It was the Egyptians, and they were not believers who came and killed him thus ends the subject with two words. When I had the opportunity to carry out research into history, I found that the main figures behind the killing of Uthman were the Companions themselves, and that Aishah led them, calling for his death publicly and saying: “Kill Na’thal (the old fool), for he was not a believer.”30 Also we know that Talhah, al-Zubayr, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and other famous Companions besieged him in his house and prevented him from having a drink of water, so that they could force him to resign. Furthermore, the historians inform us that they did not allow his corpse to be buried in a Muslim cemetery, and that he was finally buried in “Hashsh Kawkab” without washing the corpse and without a shroud. O Allah, praise be to You, how could they tell us that he was unjustly killed, and that those who killed him were not Muslims. This is another case similar to that of Fatimah and Abu Bakr: Uthman was either unjustly treated, therefore we may pass judgment on those Companions who killed him or those who participated in his killing that they were criminal murderers because they unlawfully killed the caliph of the Muslims, and threw stones at his funeral, and humiliated him when he was alive and then when he was dead; or that the Companions killed him because he committed certain deeds which were not compatible with Islam, as the historical sources tell us. There is no third option, unless we dismiss the historical facts and accept the distorted picture that the Egyptians, who were not believers, killed Uthman. In both cases there is a definite rejection of the common belief that all the Companions were right and just, without exception, for either Uthman was unjust or his killers were not just, but all of them were Companions, and hence our proposition becomes void. Therefore we are left with the proposition of the followers of Ahl al-Bayt, and that is that some of the Companions were right and some others were wrong. We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it. How could Umm al-Mumineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: “And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours.” (Holy Qur’an 33:33) We may also ask, how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam ‘Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk. Seemingly these people are trying to convince us that that incident – if it was true – namely ‘Ali’s advice to the Prophet to divorce Aishah, was sufficient for her to disobey the orders of her God and her husband, the Messenger of Allah. She rode a camel that the Messenger of Allah forbade her from riding and warned her about the barking of al-Hawab’s dogs,31 she travelled long distances from al-Medinah to Mekka then to Basrah, she permitted the killing of innocent people and started a war against the commander of the believers and the Companions who voted for him, and she caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims, according to the historians.32 She did all that because she did not like ‘Ali who advised the Prophet to divorce her. Nevertheless the Prophet did not divorce her so why all this hatred towards Imam ‘Ali? History has recorded some aggressive stances against ‘Ali that could not be explained and these are some of them. When she was on her way back from Mekka Aishah was informed that Uthman was killed, so she was delighted, but when she learnt that people had voted for ‘Ali to succeed him she became very angry and said, “I wish the sky would collapse on the earth before Ibn Abi Talib succeeds to the caliphate.” Then she said, “Take me back.” Thus she started the civil war against ‘Ali, whose name she never liked to mention, as many historians agree. Had Aishah heard the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “Loving ‘Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy”?33 To the extent that some of the Companions used to say, “We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of ‘Ali.” Had Aishah not heard the saying of the Prophet: Whoever accepts me as his master, then ‘Ali is his master? Undoubtedly she heard all that, but she did not like it, and she did not like mentioning his name, and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.34 Let us move on, for I do not want to discuss the life of Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, but I have tried to show how many of the Companions violated the principles of Islam and disobeyed the orders of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and it suffices to mention the following incident which happened to Aishah during the civil war, and on which all historians tend to agree. It has been said that when Aishah passed by the waters of al-Hawab and heard the dogs barking, she remembered the warning of her husband, the Messenger of Allah, and how he prevented her from being the instigator of “al-Jamal” war. She cried, and then she said, “Take me back. Take me back!” But Talhah and al- Zubayr brought fifty men and bribed them, then made them testify that these waters were not al-Hawab’s waters. Later she continued her journey until she reached Basrah. Many historians believe that those fifty men gave the first falsified testimony in the history of Islam.35 O Muslims! You, who have enlightened minds, assist us in solving this problem. Were these truly the honorable Companions, of whom we were always led to believe in their righteousness, and that they were the best people after the Messenger of Allah (saw)! How could they give a falsified testimony when the Messenger of Allah considered it to be one of the great sins, whose punishment is Hell? The same question crops up again. Who was right and who was wrong? Either ‘Ali and his followers were wrong, or Aishah and her followers and Talhah and al-Zubayr and their followers were wrong. There is no third possibility. But I have no doubt that the fair researcher would take ‘Ali’s side and dismiss Aishah and her followers who instigated the civil war that devastated the nation and left its tragic marks to the present day. For the sake of further clarification and for the sake of my own satisfaction I mention here what al-Bukhari had to say in his book about the civil war. When Talhah, al-Zubayr and Aishah travelled to Basrah, ‘Ali sent Ammar ibn Yasir and al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali to al-Kufah. On their arrival, they went to the mosque and addressed the congregation, and we heard Ammar saying, “Aishah had gone to Basrah and by Allah she is the wife of your Prophet in this life and the life hereafter, but Allah, the Most High, is testing you to know whom you obey: Him or her.”36 Also al-Bukhari wrote in his book a chapter about what went on in the houses of the Prophet’s wives: Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he indicated the house where Aishah was living, then said, “There is the trouble…there is the trouble…there is the trouble…from where the devil’s horns come out …”37 Al-Bukhari wrote many strange things in his book about Aishah and her bad manners towards the Prophet to the extent that her father had to beat her until she bled. He also wrote about her pretension towards the Prophet until Allah threatened her with divorce… and there are many other stories but we are limited by space. After all that I ask how did Aishah deserve all that respect from the Sunnis; is it because she was the Prophet’s wife? But he had so many wives, and some of them were better than Aishah, as the Prophet himself declared.38 Or perhaps because she was Abu Bakr’s daughter! Or maybe because she played an important role in the denial of the Prophet’s will for ‘Ali, and when she was told that the Prophet recommended ‘Ali, she said, “Who said that? I was with the Prophet (saw) supporting his head on my chest, then he asked me to bring the washbowl, as I bent down he died, so I cannot see how he recommended ‘Ali.”39 Or is it because she fought a total war against him and his sons after him, and even intercepted the funeral procession of al-Hasan, Leader of the Heaven’s youth, and prevented his burial beside his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, and said “Do not allow anybody that I do not like to enter my house.” She forgot, or maybe ignored the Messenger of Allah’s sayings about him and his brother, “Allah loves those who love them, and Allah hates those who hate them,” Or his saying, “I am at war with those who fight against you, and I am at peace with those who appease you.” And there are many other sayings in their honor. No wonder, for they were so dear to him! She heard many more sayings in honor of ‘Ali, but despite the Prophet’s warning, she was determined to fight him and agitate the people against him and deny all his virtues. Because of that, the Umayyads loved her and put her in a high position and filled the books with her virtues and made her the great authority for the Islamic nation because she had half of the religion. Perhaps they assigned the second half of the religion to Abu Hurayrah, who told them what they wanted to hear, so they bestowed on him various honors: they gave him the governorship of al-Medinah, they gave him al-Aqiq palace and gave him the title of “Rawiat al-lslam”, the transmitter of Islam. He made it easy for the Umayyads to create a completely new religion which took whatever pleased them and supported their interests and power from the Holy Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet. Inevitably, such a religion lacked any seriousness and became full of contradictions and myths; hence most of the facts were buried and replaced by lies. Then they forced the people to believe in these lies so that the religion of Allah became a mere joke, and no one feared Allah as much as they feared Muawiah. When we ask some of our scholars about Muawiah’s war against ‘Ali, who had been acknowledged by al-MuHajjireen and al-Ansar, a war which led to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shiites and left it scarred to this very day, they simply answer by saying, “‘Ali and Muawiah were both good Companions, and both of them interpreted Islam in his own way. However, ‘Ali was right, therefore he deserves two rewards, but Muawiah got it wrong, therefore, he deserves one reward. It is not within our right to judge for them or against them, Allah, the Most High, said: ‘This is a people that have passed away, they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.’” (Holy Qur’an 2:134) Regrettably, we provide such weak answers that neither a sensible mind nor a religion, nor indeed a law would accept. O Allah, I am innocent of idle talk and of deviant whims. I beg You to protect me from the devil’s touch. How could a sensible mind accept that Muawiah had worked hard to interpret Islam and give him one reward for his war against the leader of all Muslims, and for his killing of thousands of innocent believers, in addition to all the crimes that he committed? He was known among the historians for killing his opponents through feeding them poisoned honey, and he used to say, “Allah has soldiers made of honey.” How could these people judge him as a man who worked hard to promote Islam and give him a reward for that, when he was the leader of a wrong faction? There is a well-known Hadith of the Prophet, and most of the scholars agree its authenticity, “Woe unto Ammar…he will be killed by the wrong faction.” And he was killed by Muawiah and his followers. How could they judge him as a promoter of Islam when he killed Hijr Ibn Adi and his companions and buried them in Marj Adhra in the Syrian Desert because they refused to curse ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib? How could they judge him a just Companion when he killed al-Hasan, leader of the Heaven’s youth, by poisoning him? How could they judge him as being correct after he had forced the nation to acknowledge him as a caliph and to accept his corrupt son Yazid as his successor, and to change the Shurah (consultative) system to a hereditary one?40 How could they judge him as a man who had worked hard to promote Islam and to reward him, after he forced the people to curse ‘Ali and Ahl al- Bayt, the Family of the chosen Prophet, and killed those Companions who refused to do so, and made the act of cursing ‘Ali a tradition? There is no power but in Allah, the Most High, the Great. The question crops up over and over again. Which faction was right, and which faction was wrong? Either ‘Ali and his followers were wrong, or Muawiah and his followers were wrong, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained everything. In both cases, the proposition of the righteousness of all the Companions does not hold ground and is incompatible with logic. There are many examples for all these subjects. And if I want to study them in detail and discuss them for all their aspects, then I would need volumes. But I wanted to be brief in this study so I mentioned a few examples, but thank Allah, for they have been enough to refute the claims of my people who froze my mind for a period of time, and prevented me from looking at the Hadith (prophetic tradition) and the historical events with an analytical view, using the intellect and the legal yard-sticks which the Holy Qur’an and the honorable Prophet’s tradition taught us to do. Therefore, I shall rebel against myself and rid myself of the dust of prejudice with which they engulfed me. I shall free myself from all the chains and fetters that I have been tied with for more than twenty years, and say, “I wish my people knew that Allah has granted me forgiveness and made me among the honorable people. I wish my people could discover the world they know nothing about, but nevertheless oppose.” • 1. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 122 (al Idayn book) • 2. al Khilafah wa al Mulk, Syed Abul A’la Maududi, p 106 • 3. Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 61 • 4. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 305Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 356, Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 109 • 5. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 76, Sahih, Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 300 Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 1 p 44 • 6. Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 61; Sunan, al Nasai, vol 6 p 117; Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 8 p 306 • 7. Sahih, Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 201; Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 126 • 8. Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 5 p 25; Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 134;Sahih, al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 296 • 9. Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 362; Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 109; Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281 • 10. Mustadrak, hakim, vol 3 p 121; Khasais, al Nasai, p 24; Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 6 p 33; al Manaqib, al Khawarizmi, p 81; al Riyadh al Nadira, Tabari, vol 2 p 219; Tarikh, as Suyuti, p 73 • 11. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 134 • 12. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 154; Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 260 • 13. Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 134 • 14. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 54 • 15. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 135 • 16. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 32 • 17. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 201 • 18. MinHajj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 131; Hilyat al Awliya, Ibn Abi Nuaym, vol 1 p 52 • 19. Tarikh, Tabari, p 41; al Riyadh al Nadira, vol 1 p 134; Kanz al Ummal, p 361 • 20. Tarikh, Tabari, p 41; al Riyadh al Nadira, Tatabri, vol 1 p 134; Kanz al Ummal, p 361; MinHajj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 120 • 21. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 206 • 22. al Imamah Was Siyasah, Ibn Qutaybah, vol 1 p 20; Muhammad Baqir as Sadr, Fadak in History, p 92 • 23. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 127, 130, vol 2 p 126, 205 • 24. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 39 • 25. Tarikh al Khulafa, Ibn Qutaybah, vol 1 p 20 • 26. Sahih, Muslim, vol 7 p 121, 130 • 27. Tarikh al Khulafa, vol 1 p 20 • 28. Tarikh al Khulafa, vol 1 p 20 • 29. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 39 • 30. Tarikh, Tabari, vol 4 p 407; Tarikh, Ibn Athir, vol 3 p 206; Lisan al Arab, vol 14 p 193; Taj al Arus, vol 8 p 141; Al Iqd al Farid, vol 4 p 290 • 31. al Imamah was Siyasah • 32. Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir and other historians who wrote about the events in the Year 36 A.H • 33. Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 48 • 34. Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir, who wrote about the events in the Year of 40 Hijri • 35. Al Tabari, Ibn al Athir and other historians who wrote about the events of the Year 40 A.H • 36. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 161 • 37. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 128 • 38. Sahih al Tirmidhi; al Istiab, Ibn Abd al Barr, Biography of Safiyya • 39. Sahih, Bukhari, vol 3 p 68 • 40. Read Khilafat o Mulukiyat by Syed Abul A’la Maududi A DIALOGUE WITH A SCHOLAR Source URL: Published on Books on Islam and Muslims | ( Home > Then I was Guided > A Dialogue With a Scholar ________________________________________ I said to one of our scholars: “When Muawiah killed the innocent and disgraced the honourable, you judge him as being an interpreter of Islam who got it wrong, and therefore has one reward. When Yazid killed the descendants of the Messenger and authorized the sacking of al-Medinah al-Munawwarah by his army, you judge him as an interpreter of Islam who got it wrong, and therefore has one reward. Some of you even said about him that ‘al-Husayn was killed by the sword of his grandfather.’ Why should I not then interpret Islam through this study, which is forcing me to doubt the intentions of the Companions and to blow the cover of some of them, which would not be equated with killings done by Muawiah and Yazid of the Prophet’s family? If I am right I deserve two rewards, and if I am wrong, I would have only one reward. However, my criticism of the Companions is not for the sake of insulting them or cursing them, but it is a means through which I hope to reach the truth. Who is the right group, and who is the wrong group. This is my duty and the duty of each Muslim, and Allah, praise be to Him, knows what is inside ourselves. The scholar then answered me, ‘ O my son, Ijtihad (the interpretation of Islamic religion) has not been allowed for some time.” I asked, “Who disallowed it?” He said, “The four Imams.” I said liberally, “Thanks be to Allah! Since neither Allah disallowed it, nor His Messenger or the rightly guided caliphs, whom we are ordered to follow, then there are no restrictions on me to interpret Islam, as they did.” He said, “You may not interpret Islam unless you know seventeen disciplines, among them: Tafsir (commentary on the Holy Qur’an), Linguistics, Grammar, Sarf (Morphology), Rhetoric, Hadiths ( Prophetic traditions), History and others.” I interjected by saying, “My Ijtihad is not to show the people the rules of the Qur’an and the Prophet’s tradition, or to be a religious leader of a new creed. Nay! All that I want to know is who is right and who is wrong. For example, to know whether Imam ‘Ali was right or Muawiah, I do not need to master seventeen disciplines. All I need to do is to study the life and works of each one of them to know the truth.” He said, “Why do you want to know all that? This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.” (Holy Qur’an 2:134) I asked, “Do you read Tusaloon (the Arabic word for Questioned) with Dammah (the vowel point upon the letter ta) or with Tasaloon with Fathah (the vowel) point a)?” He said, “Tusaloon, with Dammah.” I said, Thanks be to Allah, if it was with Fathah, then there would be no research. As it is written with Dammah, then it means that Allah – praise be to Him – will not make us accountable for what they have done, similarly, He, the Most High, said: “Each soul is pledged to whatever it has earned.” (Holy Qur’an 74:38) Also He said: “There is nothing for man except what he has strived for.” (Holy Qur’an 53:39). And the Holy Qur’an urged us to know about the earlier nations and to learn lessons from their histories. Also, Allah told us about the Pharaohs, Haman, Nimrod, Quaroon, and about the early prophets and their nations, not for the sake of pleasure, but to show us what is right and what is wrong. As for your question as to why I want to know all that? It is important for me to know all that. Firstly, to know who is the friend of Allah so that I may befriend him, and to know who is the enemy of Allah, so that I may oppose him, and that is what the Qur’an asked me, or indeed, ordered me to do. Secondly, it is important for me to know how I should worship Allah and draw near to Him by obeying His commands, in the way He – the Majesty – wants them to be, not as Malik or Abu Hanifah or any other interpreter of Islam wants them to be. I found that Malik does not prefer the saying of “In the name of Allah the most Merciful and the most Compassionate” during the prayers, whereas Abu Hanifah considers it a “must”. Others say that the prayers are not valid without them. Because prayers are a pillar of Islam, if accepted other deeds would be accepted; but if they were rejected, other deeds would be rejected. Therefore, I do not want my prayers to be invalid. The Shiites say that during the ablution we must rub our feet with wet hands, whereas the Sunnis say that we must wash them. But when we read the Holy Qur’an we find “rub your hands and feet” which is clear about the rubbing. So how do you expect any sensible Muslim to accept this and reject the other without research and analysis?” He said, “You can take what you like from each creed, because all of them are Islamic creeds, and all of them came from the Messenger of Allah.” I said I am afraid that I may become one of those about whom Allah said: “Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for his god and Allah has made him err having knowledge and has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering upon his eye. Who can then guide him after Allah? Will you not then be mindful?” (Holy Qur’an 45:23). Sir, I do not think that all the four lslamic religious schools (Madhahib) are correct, as long as one of them allows something while the other forbids it; and it does not seem logical for one thing to be allowed and forbidden simultaneously. The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not question the rules of the Holy Qur’an because they are revelation: “And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.” (Holy Qur’an 4:82). Because of the vast differences between the four religious Islamic schools, they cannot be from Allah or from His Messenger, for the Messenger did not contradict the Holy Qur’an. When the scholarly Shaykh found my argument logical and sound, he said, “I advise you, for the sake of Allah, that no matter how doubtful you may be, do not doubt the rightly guided caliphs, because they are the four pillars of Islam, if one of them collapses, the whole building will collapse.” I said, “God forbid Sir, but what about the Messenger of Allah if those people were the pillars of Islam?” He said, “The Messenger of Allah is that building He is the whole of Islam.” I smiled when I heard his analysis, and said, “I ask Allah for forgiveness, yet again! Sir, you are saying, indirectly, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) would not be able to stand without the support of those four, whereas Allah, the Most High, says: “He it is Who sent His messenger with guidance and a true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.” (Holy Qur’an 48:28) He sent Muhammad with the Message and did not involve any of the other four, or anybody else, and Allah said with regard to this: “We have sent among you a messenger from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know.” (Holy Qur’an 2:151). He said, “That is what we have learnt from our religious leaders and teachers, and we did not argue about what they taught us, as you the new generation do today. You doubt everything, even the religion itself. This is one sign of the nearness of the Hour, that is the Day of Judgment, and the Messenger of Allah said: the Hour will come as a result of the evil in people.” I said, “Sir, why all this exaggeration? God forbid if I doubt the religion, I believe in Allah, Who is unique and has no partner. I believe in His angels, Books and Messengers. I believe in our master Muhammad as His servant and Messenger, and that he is the best of all the prophets and the last of the messengers, and that I am one of the Muslims. So how could you accuse me of all that?” He said, “I accuse you of more than that, because you doubt our masters Abu Bakr and Umar, and the Holy Prophet said: If the faith of my nation and the belief of Abu Bakr were put on a balance, the faith of Abu Bakr would have weighed heavier. The Holy Prophet also said in honor of Umar: ‘I was shown my nation and each one of them was wearing a shirt that came to the chest, and I was shown Umar and he was pulling his shirt.’ They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! How do you interpret this? He said: ‘The Religion. And you come today, in the fourteenth century (Hijri) and doubt the righteousness of the Companions and especially Abu Bakr and Umar. Don’t you know that the people of Iraq are the people of disunity, blasphemy and hypocrisy!’” What could I say to this man who claimed knowledge and scholarship, and who became so arrogant that he changed a well structured dialogue into a disordered talk full of lies and propaganda? He said it in front of people who admired him, and I noticed that their faces lit up with excitement and evil. I quickly went home and brought back two books, “al-Muwatta of Imam Malik” and “The Sahih of al-Bukhari”. Then said, “Sir, what made me doubt Abu Bakr was the Messenger of Allah himself.” I opened al-Muwatta and read: He said to the martyrs of Uhud, “Those, I bear witness against.” Abu Bakr then said, “O Messenger of Allah, are we not their brothers? Did we not become Muslims as they did? Did we not fight as they did?” The Messenger replied, “Yes, but I do not know what you are going to do after me.” On hearing that, Abu Bakr cried bitterly and said, “We are going to alter many things after your departure.”1 After that I opened the “Sahih” of al-Bukhari and read: Once Umar ibn al-Khattab came to Hafsah and found with her Asma bint Umays. When he saw her, he asked, “Who is she?” Hafsah answered, “Asma bint Umays.” Umar said, “Is she that Ethiopian?” Asma replied, “Yes.” He said, “We emigrated (that is to say from Mecca to Medinah) before you, so we are more entitled to the Messenger of Allah than you.” She became very angry, then she said, “No, by Allah, you were with the Messenger of Allah, who fed your hungry people and advised the ignorant among you; whereas we were in a foreign land, in Abyssinia, for the sake of Allah and His Messenger, and whenever I ate or drank anything, I remembered the Messenger of Allah (saw) and we were hurt, and we were frightened. By Allah I will mention this to the Prophet without lying, adding anything or deviating from the subject.” When the Prophet came, she said, “O Prophet of Allah, Umar said such and such.” He asked, “What did you say to him?” She answered, “Such and such.” He said, “I am not more entitled to him than to you.” He and his companions had one emigration, but you, people of the ship, had two emigrations.” She said, “I found Abu Musa and the people of the ship coming to me in groups and asking me about the Hadith, very much delighted with what the Prophet (saw) had said to them.”2 After having read the Hadiths, the looks on the faces of the scholarly Shaykh and that of the audience changed. They looked at each other and waited for the scholar, who was too shocked at what he had heard, to reply. All he did was to raise his eye brows, as a sign of astonishment and then said, “O my God grant me more knowledge.” I said, “If the Messenger of Allah (saw) was the first to doubt Abu Bakr, and did not bear witness against him, because the Messenger did not know what would happen after him; and if the Messenger of Allah did not approve of the preference of Umar over Asma bint Umays, but indeed preferred her to him; then it is within my right to doubt and not to have a preference for anybody until I know the truth. Evidently, these Hadiths contradict and nullify all the known Hadiths in favor of Abu Bakr and Umar, because they are more realistic than these which mention their alleged virtues.” The audience said, “How could that be?” I said, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not bear witness against Abu Bakr and said: ‘I do not know what they will do after me!’ This sounds very reasonable. History has proved that, and the Holy Qur’an and history bear witness that they did change after him. Because of that Abu Bakr cried for he changed and angered Fatimah al-Zahra, daughter of the Messenger as we explained before, and he changed until he repented and wished that he was not a human being. As for the Hadith: If the faith of my nation and the faith of Abu Bakr were put on balance, the faith of Abu Bakr would weigh heavier”, it is invalid and implausible. It is not possible for the faith of a man, who spent forty years of his life believing in polytheism and worshipping idols, to be greater than the faith of the entire nation of Muhammad, which has many God-fearing and pious people and martyrs and Imams, who spent all their lives fighting for the sake of Allah. How could Abu Bakr fit into this Hadith? If it was true, he would not, in later life have finished that he was not a human being. Further, if his faith was greater than the faith of the entire nation of Muhammad, Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the leading lady, would not have been angry at him or asked Allah to punish him in each prayer she prayed.” The scholar did not say anything, but some of the men said, “By Allah! This Hadith made us doubtful.” Then the scholar said to me, “Is that what you wanted? You have made these people doubt their religion.” It sufficed me that a man from the audience replied by saying, “No, he is right, we have not read a whole book in our life, we followed you blindly and without any argument, and now it appears to us that what al-Hajj has been saying is right, and it is our duty to read and research!” Other people agreed with him, and that was a victory for truth and justice. It was not victory by force, but by logical deduction and proof. Allah says: “Say, bring your proof, if you are telling the truth.” (Holy Qur’an 27:64) That is what encouraged me to undertake the study and opened the door for me, so I entered it in the name of Allah by Allah and tracing the footsteps of the followers of the Messenger of Allah. I hope that Allah, praise be to Him, the Most High, grants me success and enlightenment, for He promised to enlighten anyone who searches for the truth, and He does not break His promises. The study went on for three years, because I often re-read the books, right from the first page to the last. I read “al-Muraja’at” by Imam Sharaf al-Din several times, since it opened new horizons for me and enlightened me and pleased me for the love and the fellowship of Ahl al-Bayt. I read “al-Ghadeer” by Shaykh al-Amini three times because of the clear cut facts it contained. I also read Fadak in History” by al- Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and al-Saqifah” by Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Muzaffar, which explained so many vague issues. I read “al-Nass wal Ijtihad”, the Text and the Interpretation, and became more convinced. Then I read “Abu Hurayra” by Sharaf al-Din and Shaykh al-Mudira” by Shaykh Mahmud Abu Rayyah al-Misri, and learnt that the Companions who changed after the departure of the Messenger of Allah were two types. The first changed the rule because of its power and authority. The second changed the rules by attributing false Hadiths to the Messenger of Allah. I read “Imam al-Sadiq the four Madhhabs” by Asad Haydar and learnt about the differences between gifted knowledge and acquired knowledge. I also learnt about the differences between Allah’s wisdom which He grants to whom He pleases, and the intrusion on knowledge and the belief of personal interpretation (of Islam) which kept the nation away from the spirit of Islam. I read more books by al-Sayyid Ja’far Murtada al-Amili, and al-Sayyid Murtada al-Askari, and Al Sayyid Al-Khusi,and al-Sayyid al-Tabatabai, and Shaykh Muhammad Amin Zain al-Din, and al-Fayroozabadi, and Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu’tazili in his commentary on “Nahj al-Balagha”, and Taha Husayn’s “al-Fitna al-Kubra”. From the history books I read the following Annals written by al-Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, al-Masudi and al-Ya’qubi. And I read more, until I became convinced that the Shi’a Imamiyya were right. Thus, with the help of Allah, I boarded Ahl al-Bayt’s ship and sought their fellowship, because I found, thanks be to Allah, the alternative to the Companions, who, to the best of my knowledge, regressed and only a few of them were saved. I exchanged them for the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, the Prophet’s Family, whom Allah cleansed and purified and made it our duty to seek their fellowship. The Shiites are not, as some of our religious scholars claim, the Persians and the Magus whose power and glory were destroyed by Umar in al-Qadisiyyah war and that is why they hate them! My answer to these who are ignorant is that following the creed of the Prophet’s Family is not restricted to the Persians, for there are Shiites in Iraq, Hijaz, Syria, Lebanon, and all of them are Arabs. In addition to that, there are Shi’tes in Pakistan, India, Africa, America, and all of those are neither Arabs nor Persians. If we confine ourselves to the Shiites of Iran, the issue becomes clearer because I found that the Persians believe in the leadership of the twelve Imams, all of whom were Arabs from Quraysh from Bani Hashim, the family of the Prophet (saw). If the Persians were prejudiced and hated the Arabs, as some people claim, they would have been taken Salman al-Farisi as their Imam, for he was a great Companion and respected by both Shiites and Sunnis. On the other hand I found that most of the leading Sunni Imams were Persians, such as Abu Hanifa, al-Nisa’i, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina, al-Farabi and many others. If the Shiites were all Persians who rejected Umar ibn al-Khattab because he destroyed their power, then how can we explain the rejection of the Arabs who were not Persians? Therefore, this is an illogical claim. These people refused Umar because of his role in excluding the Commander of the Believers, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the caliphate after the departure of the Messenger of Allah, and because of the tragic civil wars and decline of this nation. It is high time that the truth was unveiled to every free-thinking scholar so that he may refute the allegation without any prior animosity. It is true that the Shiites, whether they were Arabs or Persians or any other nationality, followed closely the Qur’anic Texts and the tradition of the Messenger of Allah and his Family, and refused to accept the alternative despite the oppressive policies of the Umayyads and later the Abbasids for seven centuries. During that period, they pursued the Shiites everywhere; they killed them, they made them homeless, they denied them their rightful grants, they removed their cultural and intellectual heritage and they spread all sorts of rumors about them in order to keep people away from them. The legacy of these policies is still felt up to the present day. However, the Shiites stood their ground, remained patient and took the blame for their commitment to Allah and they are paying the price of their defiance to this very day. I challenge any of our religious scholars to enter a debate with their religious scholars without coming out of it overwhelmed by their enlightened way. Yes, I found the alternative, and thanks be to Allah Who guided me to this because I would not he there without His Guidance. Thanks and praise be to Allah Who led me to the saved group, for which I was eagerly searching. I have no doubt that the commitment to ‘Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is the commitment to the unbroken link – the link to Allah. There are many sayings by the Messenger of Allah agreed by all Muslims, which bear witness to that. The sensible mind is, perhaps, the best proof for anybody who is prepared to listen. ‘Ali was the most knowledgeable companion and certainly the bravest, as the entire nation testified. This is a sufficient condition to support the lawful claim of ‘Ali, alone and no one else, to the succession of the caliphate. Allah the Most High said: ‘And their prophet said to them, “Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you.” They said, “How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than him, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth?” He said, “Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample giving, knowing.” (Holy Qur’an 2:247) And the Messenger of Allah said. “Ali is from me, and I am from ‘Ali, and he is the master of every believer after me.”3 Al-Zamakhshari said in some of his poetry: Doubt and differences have increased. Every one claims that he is the right way. But I have committed myself to: there is no other god but Allah, and my love to Ahmed (Muhammad) and ‘Ali. A dog won the love of the companions of the cave, how could I be ever distressed with the love of the Prophet’s Family. Yes I found the alternative, praise be to Allah. and I became a follower of – after the Messenger of Allah – The Commander of the Believers, master of all guardians, leader of the chosen elite, the victorious lion of Allah Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib; and the two masters of Heaven’s youth, and the Prophet’s two followers, Imam Abu Muhammad al-Hasan al-Zaki, and Imam Abu Abdullah al-Husayn; and the daughter of al-Mustafa (Muhammad), mother of the Imams, the essence of the Message, she, for whom Allah feels angry if she is angered, the most honorable lady Fatimah al-Zahra. I have changed Imam Malik for the leader of all Imams, and teacher of the nation, Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq. I have committed myself to the nine infallible men from the posterity of al-Husayn, Imams of all Muslims and the good friends of Allah. I have changed the Companions who turned back on their heels, like Muawiah, Amr ibn al-As, al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba, Abu Hurayra, Ikrima, Ka’b al-Ahbar and others, for the grateful Companions who never broke the promise they gave to the Prophet, like Ammar ibn Yasir, Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad. Khuzayma ibn Thabit – Dhu al-Shahadetain – and others, and praise be to Allah for this enlightenment. I have changed the religious leaders of my people, who discouraged us from thinking and whose majority followed the rules and the sultans, throughout time. I changed them for the devoted religious leaders of the Shi’a who never closed the opportunity for studying and interpreting Islam, and who neither rose to oppose nor submitted to the oppressive rulers. Yes, I changed dogmatic beliefs, full of contradictions for new enlightened and liberal ones based on logical deductions and reasoning. As they say now a days “I have washed my brain” of the dirt that had accumulated over thirty years; lies of the Umayyads. I purified it with the ideology
  2. THE LIE:





















    Official Islam is the Islam that the mainstream media, educators and government officials tell us is the “real” Islam. Official Islam is at best a half-truth and, as a result, it is false. It is important to not only know the truth of a subject, but it’s almost as important to know the common untruths.


    The fact that the Official Islam does not agree with the Koran, Sira and Hadith is of no importance, since it is not based upon them. Official Islam is based upon the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not one line of the Official Islam is totally true and many of the points are complete fabrications.
    At best, some assertions are partially true. A half-truth is a lie. When you testify in our courts you have to swear an oath:

    “I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

    Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA, 1971, pgs. 231, 232.
    All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true in itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

    The Official Islam is not the whole truth and as a consequence Official Islam is a lie.
    Official Islam is not provable and is delivered by “authorities”. This article is based upon critical/scientific thought. The Official Islam is based upon authoritarian thought—that is, you must believe it because those who have more power than you have say that it is true. Official Islam is a mind-set of denial and delusion and is the intellectual basis of the destruction of our civilization.

    Now you know why all of the arguments for Islam sound so uniform. The apologists for Islam get their scripts from the same source—the Muslim Brotherhood and its minions at the universities. In trying to persuade someone about Islam, it is very useful to be able to categorize their arguments. You can point out that what they say is part of a systemic lie. You can say: “if you believe that, then I am sure you also believe…” It is very disarming.

    Kafirs have a basic instinct when faced with Islam—let’s make some compromises. We will do things your way, Islam can reform and life will be good. This will not work and has never worked, but Kafirs refuse to be logical and study Islam to see why compromise won’t work.

    We must go through all of the steps of compromise to see why they will fail. In particular, we must see why reform is a logical impossibility. And last, but not least, we must see why the “good” Muslim cannot and will not help to achieve a solution.

    The elites tell us that Islam has always been part of one big happy human family. Islam is here and it is a wonderful thing. Islam is a foundational part of our civilization. Muslims make wonderful neighbors.

    The elites tell us that if we don’t get along with Political Islam, if we find a problem, then the problem is with us. The fact of the matter is that Mohammed attacked every single neighbor he had. His only success came through violence. His dying words were to hurt Jews, Christians and all Kafirs. Mohammed was Islam and he was never compatible with any Kafir. The Big Lie is just that. There is no way to live with Islam. Life with Islam is a succession of demands. Mohammed never stopped until 100% of his demands were met. That was life with Mohammed—the Sunna.

    Islam is a civilization that is designed to extinguish all Kafir civilizations down to their last cultural vestige. Annihilation is Sunna and the last 1400 years of history is proof of the brutal efficiency of Islamic politics. There has never been a culture where Islam and Kafirs existed in long-term peace. After a long enough time period, Islam takes over the total civilization. This is the goal of Islam.

    But since Kafirs don’t know anything about the history of Islam, they think that we will work this out like we always have. We will find a compromise. After all, in Kafir civilization, progress is made through teamwork and compromise. The first and crucial error is thinking that Islam is analogous to our civilization and that our rules apply to it. Let’s compare Islam with our civilization’s ideals.

    Each and every point of Official Islam is at best a half-truth. Since every apologist believes these half-truths, it is very important to know how to refute the errors of Official Islam.



    Islam is not only a religion, however, but a complete civilization with a political system of Sharia law and an Arab culture. It is the politics of Islam that are ruinous, not the religion.

    The Koran has 64% of its text devoted to the politics of the Kafir, not how to be a Muslim.

    The Sira (Mohammed’s biography) devotes 67% of its words to jihad. Religion plays very little part of the Sira. Mohammed was a failure until he turned to politics and jihad. Islam’s success depends upon its politics, even today.

    The religion of Islam is the invisibility cloak of Political Islam. People do not think of Islam as a political system, but a religion. You cannot criticize religion, so you cannot criticize Islam. This gets Political Islam off the hook.

    Both Christianity and Judaism have the Golden Rule as their central ethical principle.

    Islam does not have a Golden Rule, but instead has dualistic ethics with one set of rules for Muslims and another set for Kafirs.

    The Koran repeatedly says that the scriptures of the Jews and Christians are corrupt and filled with errors.

    The Koran defines Allah.

    The Hebrew Bible defines the Jewish god.

    Allah condemns, rails against and curses the Jews, but the god of the Hebrew Bible loves the Jews.

    The Christian god is defined by the New Testament and loves humanity.

    Allah does not love humanity, but hates the Kafirs (non-Muslims) and only loves Muslims.

    The Koran insists that Jesus was not divine, was not crucified and was not resurrected.

    The Koran says that the Christian Trinity is God, Mary and Jesus and then adds that there is no Trinity. The Koran rejects every principle of Christianity.

    The Jesus of the Koran is called Isa. Isa is not Jesus. And in the same way, the Musa of the Koran is not the Moses of the Torah. Every single “prophet” of the Koran that has a Jewish name is not actually the same prophet of the Torah.

    The concept of the commonality of Abrahamic faiths is purely an Islamic assertion, without evidence.

    Judaism and Christianity share the Hebrew Bible as being valid scripture.

    Islam denies the validity of the Hebrew Bible.


    Muslims per se prove nothing about Islam. Islam is the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. There is absolutely nothing that any Muslim can do about the doctrine of Islam, except to choose what part of it to follow. The word Islam means submission; the word Muslim refers to one who submits. This establishes cause and effect—Islam causes Muslims; Muslims do not cause Islam.

    Besides, what is a “good” Muslim? Kafirs mean that a good Muslim is someone who seems nice. But that is a subjective and personal standard. The only measure of “goodness” of a Muslim is the Koran and the Sunna. So even if the Muslim seems nice that proves not a single thing about the Koran, Sira and Hadith.
    It is faulty thinking to believe that everything that a Muslim does is pure Islam. Those who call themselves Muslims are also attracted to Kafir civilization. Few Muslims follow pure Islam. Muslims are also part Kafir and the goodness is due to their Kafir nature, not their Islamic nature. When Muslims are good to Kafirs they are following the Golden Rule, a Kafir ethic, not Islamic ethical dualism which asserts Muslims should not take Kafi rs as friends.


    This naming is either pure dhimmitude or deceit. It is impossible to be an extremist if you are following the Sunna of Mohammed. Islam rose to power through continued violence for nine straight years with an act of violence, on the average, of every six weeks. The act of jihad is not ex¬tremism, but a manifestation of the core political doctrine of Islam. Put another way, none of the jihadists on 9/11 were extremists, but were ex¬traordinary Muslims who followed the Sunna of Mohammed.
    refuting official islam


    This is dhimmitude (serving the needs of Islam) based upon ignorance and fear. Any student of Islamic history can show that Islam is never accommodated until the host culture follows Sharia. Mohammed was not satisfied until every person in Arabia submitted to Islam.
    Accommodation of Islam means the end of free speech, free thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and our civilization.


    Golden age?

    It is important to understand the true Islamic Golden Age as it such a popular argument about the greatness of the intellectual power of Islam. The Golden Age is part of Official Islam and is taqiyya (deception).

    The Islamic Golden Age occured in two places—Moorish Spain and Baghdad in the ninth and tenth century. The oft-told Big Lie goes like this: Islam established a paradise on earth where Christians, Jews and Muslims lived in peace. Everybody got along. People were wealthy and knowledge flowed from the Islamic scholars in an unprecedented wave. While Europe was in the Dark Ages, Islam was a light unto the world. The only way that Europeans moved out of the Dark Ages was through the charity of Islamic knowledge.

    That is the short version told by our dhimmi professors in such works as The Oxford History of Islam. Let us examine the Islamic Golden Age.


    Islam invaded Baghdad and Spain with the sword in hand. Islam killed so many people that the remainder surrendered. Those who surrendered and did not convert were raped, robbed and made dhimmis, except for those who were made slaves and shipped to another part of the Islamic empire. How Golden a beginning is that?

    The Muslim masters were the new rulers who put Sharia law in place. What was the level of learning of the Muslims when they set up Baghdad as the imperial city? Islam was only a century away from Mohammed. There had never been a book written in Arabic until the Koran. Architecture consisted of mud huts. Arabia was barely out of the Bronze Age. Superstition ruled and the “science” of Mohammed as shown in the Hadith:

    •The first men were 90 feet tall.
    •One wing of a fly carries a disease, but the other wing is a cure for the disease.
    •Black cumin will cure all diseases except death.
    •Indian incense will cure seven diseases.
    •Honey will cure diarrhea.
    •A fever is caused by the heat from Hell.
    •The sun sets at night beneath the throne of Allah.

    This was the state of Islamic knowledge when Islam conquered Baghdad in the Christian nation of what is now Iraq. In short, Islam brought nothing to the intellectual table to start the Golden Age.

    The knowledge of the Golden Age in Baghdad came from the conquered Jews, Christians, Persians, and Hindus.

    Islam took the “Arabic” numerals and the zero from the Hindus.

    The parabolic arch came from Assyria, the dome from Persia, and the barrel vault came from the Romans.

    Suddenly, the ignorant jihadists “owned” the world’s finest minds. This explains how so much of the Islamic knowledge was actually translated into Arabic by Christians.

    O’Leary’s book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs gives a list of the best known scholars of the Baghdad (Abbasid caliphate) Golden Age. Out of theses 22 “Muslim” scholars, 20 were Christian, 1 was Persian and 1 was Muslim. Each and everyone had an Arabic name, so it is assumed that they were Muslim.

    It was the Christians Assyrians who translated the Greek philosophers into Syriac and then Arabic. It had to be this way. The Christians had a long tradition of education and learning that came from the Greeks, Jews and Romans; the Muslims had none. It had to be Christian Kafirs who brought over the Greek and Roman knowledge to the Muslims. Ironically, the Muslims claim all of the credit for the translations saving Greek knowledge from the Dark Ages.

    Another example of taking credit is found in Iraqi history texts which claim that the Assyrians, Sumerians, and Babylonians were all Arabs. This allows Islam to take credit for earlier work.

    Islam makes great claims for its advanced medicine, which was the best in the West. However, the Christians and Jews were the chief practitioners. For 200 years the Bakhtishu family, Assyrian Christians, were the physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad.
    The Baghdad Golden Age disappeared as the persecution of the Christian dhimmis continued, and they converted to Islam. Once the pool of Kafir talent became Muslims, the gold went out of the Golden Age.

    The Golden Age of Spain is much of the same. Let’s examine the perfect society of Christian, Jew and Muslim living in such harmony. Moorish Spain is portrayed as the high point of multi-cultural existence that is the perfect expression of Islamic society. Islam came to Spain by the sword. That invasion started an 800-year war with the Christians fighting against the constant Islamic invasion pressure at the border between Spain and Europe. Why does a struggle of 800 years not sound Golden? If Islamic Spain was such a Golden Age, then why did the Spanish die in furious battles to throw out the Muslims?

    Why is Islamic imperialism painted as such a beautiful thing?

    At this point it may seem as if there were no Islamic intellectual work that was of any value. This is not true, but the Golden Age propaganda is so strong, that a case must be established that the Golden Age was not what is portrayed—a proof of Islam’s wonderful multicultural paradise and superior intellectual achievements.

    But even the Muslim scholars had to contend with an intellectual world that was limited by the Koran and the Sunna. No thoughts were allowed that went beyond these small and strict bounds. Averroes was one of the best-known scholars of Moorish Spain and was very influential with both Christians and Jews. His writings were not Islamic enough and he was banished until shortly before his death. Many of his writings were burned. No school of Islamic school of thought followed him. Only Europeans honored his intelligence.

    Al Farabi was a Muslim thinker of the first rank and used Greek reasoning to conclude that logical thought was superior to revelation, an Islamic heresy. He used critical thought examining the Koran and rejected predestination. He illustrates the idea that the best Muslim scholars were part Kafir.

    Al Khwarzimi was an Islamic scholar in mathematics and astronomy. His translated works introduced Hindu mathematics to Kafirs. His work was the basis of algebra and the algorithm.

    The more basic question is why do Muslims do so poorly at intellectual work? Even during the Golden Age, their output was small and depended upon Kafirs. In the modern world, Muslims have never won a single Nobel Prize in science, medicine or chemistry by themselves. There have been 8 prizes won by Muslims who worked with Kafirs in Kafir countries. But there has never been a Noble Prize for Muslim ideas.

    Yes, there are Muslim thinkers who can produce good intellectual work, but they are outstanding individuals and are not at all typical. Saudi Arabia is the purest Islamic country and has untold billions to support any project they choose. In 2003 there were only 171 patents granted to Saudis1; compare this with 16,328 patents by South Korea2. Why is this?
    1 Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 11.
    2 ibid

    This is not a modern phenomenon. It goes back 1400 years. The only explanation lies with the nature of Islam itself.
    There is one more thing to notice about what Islam produced with the Kafir knowledge. Some of their best work was in math, but it never went anywhere practically. Al Khwarzimi may have developed the algo¬rithm, but it was Kafirs who put it to use in computers. Algebra was only an idea in a book; it was a Kafir, Sir Isaac Newton, who used algebra to develop calculus and differential equations. And with calculus and dif¬ferential equations, Newton was able to show how the planets moved in orbit. Muslims used glass for windows in their mosques. Kafirs used it in telescopes and microscopes.


    The basic problem with the Golden Age is the status of the Kafirs. They were dhimmis, third class citizens without civil rights.

    The Islamic ethical basis of the Golden Age was dualism—one set of ethics for Muslims and another set for Kafi rs. Kafirs had to wear special clothing, were prohibited from being in positions of power, had to get permission to repair houses of worship and could not testify in courts against a Muslim. If a Kafir killed a Muslim, he received a death sentence, but if a Muslim killed a Kafir, he paid a fine. A Kafir was inferior in every way to a Muslim. How Golden is that?

    Every Kafir lived under Sharia law and Sharia law is based upon the evil of the principles of submission and duality. Sharia is oppressive and cruel.
    Where did all this propaganda about the Golden Age come from? Two sets of people created the Golden Age myth—French intellectuals such as Voltaire, and the Jews. Both had the same motivation—hatred of the Catholic church. Building up the wonderful Islamic culture was to contrast how bad the Catholics were.
    There were Kafirs who prospered under Islam. They submitted and served Islam and their masters rewarded them. Every occupying army can persuade some locals to act as traitors their own for personal gain. Some of these Kafirs even had positions of some power, but in the end, they were servants of Islam.


    This explanation works best if you are a Marxist of some fl avor who believes that economics and materialism is the driver for human behavior. Anyone who has studied Islamic doctrine and history knows that Islam is based upon violence and that without violence Mohammed would have died a failure. Jihad by terror and violence, was his best invention and was the reason for his success in Medina. In Mecca he tried religion as a basis for success and failed.

    Violence by Muslims against Kafirs is pure Islamic doctrine.


    This is another version of the Golden Age of Islam was humanity’s best days. When Islam destroyed the Greek culture of Anatolia and the Mediterranean, many of the surviving Greek and Roman texts were translated by Arabic Christians into Arabic. Later when Europe began to recover from the destruction of the Roman Empire by barbarians and the destruction of the Byzantine Empire by Islam, the Arabic translations became part of the recovery process.

    So as a result of the destruction of Greek culture and the preservation of the texts by Christian Arabs, Islam gets credit for saving European culture. Imagine that you had a valuable art collection that was stolen. Then the thieves burned your house. Afterwards, the police recovered your stolen art. Should the thieves get credit for the preservation of your art?


    The Christians of Europe committed some grievous errors in the Crusades. The worst mistake was attacking Constantinople and fatally weakening the Greek Byzantine Empire. This attack led to Islam’s success in conquering the Greek Byzantines, one of humanity’s great tragedies.

    Another dreadful error was the killing of thousands of Jews on the way to Jerusalem. Persecution of Jews occurred on more than one Crusade.

    Having said that, it was one of the few times that European Christians came to the aid of their tortured Orthodox Christian brothers. Remember—the Crusades were defensive warfare. Islam invaded and conquered the Christians of the Middle East. When the Orthodox Christians cried out for help, the European Christians responded. Since that time, the Christians have steadfastly ignored the suffering of their Orthodox brothers.


    This is a perfect example of making statements about Islam based upon the Golden Rule and ignorance (or deceit) about the doctrine and history of Islam.

    The only scale for measuring Muslims is Islam, not our ethics. Only the Koran and the Sunna give us the scale to measure a Muslim. Any Muslim that follows the doctrine of either Meccan Islam or Medinan Islam is a moderate. Medinan Muslims (jihadists) are moderates, just like Meccan Muslims are moderates.

    The only extremist Muslim is an apostate, since apostasy is the “extreme” in Islam that is condemned.


    This is the grand error of Official Islam. Once you know Mohammed, you know Islam. Once you know Mohammed, you know you are a Kafir and it is the purpose of Islam to annihilate you and your culture.

    Therefore, it is the prime directive of Official Islam to never mention Mohammed, the Sunna and Sharia and only talk about the Koran, the book everybody has heard of and nobody has read (and is considered impossible to understand). Sheer belief in the profound nature of the Koran is superstitious behavior.

    If someone tries to explain Islam based upon the Koran, he knows very little about this subject. Immediately shift the conversation to Sharia and Mohammed. You can’t defeat Islam using the Koran, unless you are very skillful, but anyone can use Sharia and Mohammed and make major ideological points easily.

    Of the three Islamic texts—Koran, Sira and Hadith—the Koran is about 16% of the total content of the doctrine. Islam is 84% Mohammed and 16% Koran. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

    Notice the brilliance of moving the Kafirs’ attention to the Koran, not the Sunna. The conventional wisdom is that you have to understand the Koran to understand Islam. That is what our generation has been taught refuting official islam in our schools. It used to be that the word Islam was not used, but instead was called Mohammedanism. That name points to truth and to Mohammed. But everybody looks to the book they cannot understand, the Koran.

    Yet, what you need to know Mohammed in order to understand Islam. The Koran has been made impossible to understand without Mohammed. Most of the educated Kafi rs never think about Mohammed, they are left ignorant and believing whatever Muslims say.


    Luckily all of the bad stuff in the Koran has been interpreted in the Sharia, we don’t need to worry about interpretation. The Sharia says that the verses about fighting in Allah’s cause means killing Kafirs.

    There is no “bad stuff” in the Koran. The Koran is crystal clear in its nature. The fact that violence is repeatedly preached in the Koran does not make the Koran bad.

    Everything is the Koran is pure Islamic goodness. Jihad is part of that Islamic goodness.
    Indeed, the entire concept of “good” and “bad” is un-Islamic. In contrast, Islam is based upon what is permitted and not permitted.


    As long as they are following the Sunna, a Muslim is a “good” Muslim. But extremists are merely Medinan Muslims, since they follow the Medinan doctrine of jihad. Extremists are jihadists. Jihadists are the best Muslims and don’t need reform. Indeed, the Koran gives the jihadists political power over the Meccan Muslims, the ones we call good Muslims. Meccan Muslims are subordinate to Medinan Muslims, so the only reform can only come from Medinan Muslims, not the other way around.


    This is Sunna: when Mohammed became a prophet of Allah there were 360 religions in Mecca and were practiced around the Kabah. The Arabs were a very tolerant people. There had never been a religious war in Arabia until Mohammed.

    After Mohammed came torture, murder, assassinations, enslavement, rape, theft and deceit. After 23 years of Mohammed, there were no other religions tolerated in Arabia. Mohammed was absolutely intolerant of all Kafirs. Mohammed was one of the most intolerant men who ever lived; therefore, Islam is one of the most intolerant political systems in history.


    Show me the Islamic Golden Rule. It is not found in the Koran, the Sira or the Hadith. The very concept of “Kafir” means that the Golden Rule cannot exist. There is no Golden Rule in Islam, since it divides humanity into two equal groups—believer and Kafir.
    After Mohammed became a prophet of Allah, he attacked everyone who did not agree with him. He kept attacking, first verbally and then physically, until everyone agreed to do exactly what he said. That is not the Golden Rule, but it is the Sunna. Mohammed did not follow the Golden Rule, therefore, it is not Sunna, and it is not Islam.


    American culture is founded on the moral principle of the Golden Rule and the intellectual principle of critical thought. The Golden Rule is manifest in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We have full legal equality of sex, race, religion and freedom of thought, ideas and the media.

    Islam denies all of these principles with its dualistic ethics and dualistic logic. It is Islam’s desire to eliminate all of our civilization and it is not part of it, whatsoever. It is not possible for dualism to be a part of our civilization, since it denies our core values.


    This is an insult to Islam, since it is the civilization of slaves. Mohammed was a slave of Allah. Muslims are the slaves of Allah. Mohammed enslaved those who did not agree with what he said. Every Muslim is a slave to the Sharia. Freedom is an anathema in Islam.
    To leave Islam is a death sentence. Apostasy is the worst crime in Islam. If you cannot leave Islam, how is it free?

    Once you know the actual doctrine of Islam, it is easy to refute Official Islam, the Big Lie. You probably will never use all of these arguments at the same time, but each of them can come up at any discussion of Islam since the government, religious leaders, professors and media types all push this propaganda.


    Here is a typical comment from a religious leader in response to a letter in a paper that was critical of Islam:

    We find otherwise good people become bigots when they discuss Islam.
    They judge Islam by its extremists. Unfortunately, Islamophobia is the last remaining acceptable prejudice.

    When they say that Islam abuses women, murders apostates and hates outsiders, they are talking about a counterfeit Islam. We find such hatred amongst both Jews and Christians as well.

    One Muslim writer pointed out that there is enough in the Koran for global holy war. But there is also enough there for people of a peaceful mind-set to discover a path to enlightenment and peace. There is bad material in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament as well. But we can also find sublime uplifting passages.
    Our spiritual work, as brothers of the Abrahamic faith, is to combat ugly anti-Muslim sentiments and make it socially intolerable.
    Signed: Rabbi …


    Let us start with an analysis of content.

    Here are some major points:

    •There is not one mention of Mohammed or Allah (Koran)
    •Bigots judge Islam by its extremists (what is an extremist? No scale to measure extremism is given)
    •Being critical of Islam is prejudiced
    •Denies that Islam abuses women, murders apostates and hates outsiders
    •Calls Muslims who do such—counterfeit (what is the reference to determine the truth? If something is false, how do we determine what is true or false. We must have a standard.)
    •Who is the “one Muslim writer” and why do we care?
    •There are good verses and bad verses in the Koran, but there is good stuff and bad stuff in the Bible
    •Jews, Christians, and Muslims are part of the same Abrahamic faith
    •In the last paragraph we are now hating people (not Islam)
    •People who speak against Islam must be driven out of society
    •Who is this man to make such moral judgments?

    There are many points to attack. Here is one reply that tackles most of these points. Notice that even though the writer is a rabbi, it makes no difference; he could be a Christian or any other dhimmi.


    There is not one single fact about Islam in the entire letter. We know this because anything that relates to the doctrine of Islam includes the words: Allah or Mohammed. Instead of facts, the writer substitutes his authoritarian reasoning and the opinion of “one Muslim writer”, not Mohammed. He declares from his high moral ground the judgment that anyone who criticizes Islam is a bigot. Why? He decrees it. Evidence? Facts? No need for those when you have the authority to make decrees.


    He uses the word “counterfeit”. And what is the standard to determine counterfeit from the real deal? Simple, the one and only standard of Islam is the Koran and the Sunna. Let’s use that standard.


    For those who enjoy fact-based logic: Does Islam abuse women?

    Let’s start with the Koran:

    Koran 4:34 Allah has made men superior to women because men spend their wealth to support them. Therefore, virtuous women are obedient, and they are to guard their unseen parts as Allah has guarded them. As for women whom you fear will rebel, admonish them first, and then send them to a separate bed, and then beat them. But if they are obedient after that, then do nothing further; surely Allah is exalted and great!

    Now let us turn to Mohammed as found the Hadith (Mohammed’s traditions). Mohammed’s words and actions (Sunna) are half of Islam.

    If Mohammed did it, then it not extremist, by definition.

    Abu Dawud 11, 2142 Mohammed said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.


    Abu Dawud 11, 2155 Mohammed said: If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: “O Allah, I ask You for the good in her, and in the disposition You have given her; I take refuge in You from the evil in her, and in the disposition You have given her.” When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing.

    Here is more advice about slaves and women:

    Bukhari 7,62,132 The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”



    Does Islam murder apostates (those who leave Islam)? Let us ask what the Sunna of Mohammed says:

    Bukhari 9, 83, 37 […] This news reached Allah’s Apostle , so he sent (men) to follow their traces and they were captured and brought (to the Prophet). He then ordered to cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, and then he threw them in the sun till they died.” I said, “What can be worse than what those people did? They deserted Islam, commit¬ted murder and theft.”

    Bukhari 9, 84, 57 […] I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

    Bukhari 9, 84, 58 […] Behold: There was a fettered man be¬side Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. […]

    It is Sunna to kill apostates, so Islamic doctrine says to kill apostates. As an aside, when Mohammed, died the next caliph, Abu Bakr, killed apostates for two years because many Muslims wanted to quit. Abu Bakr persuaded the survivors to be contented Muslims.


    Does Islam hate outsiders? Let us turn to the Koran and consider a word introduced and defined by the Koran. The word is Kafi r (unbeliever), the ultimate outsider. More that half of the Koran is about Kafi rs. The only good verses about Kafirs are abrogated later in the Koran. Allah hates Kafirs and plots against them.

    Koran 40:35 They who dispute the signs of Allah [Kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Al¬lah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart.

    Koran 86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the Kafi rs and leave them alone for a while.
    Kafirs can be tortured, mocked, robbed, enslaved and raped. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

    The Kafir argument may be carried further with more details. Make a list of what Mohammed did to all of his Kafi r neighbors.

    The rabbi grapples with the duality of the Koran in his paragraph about the good and the bad in the Koran. He makes the usual argument about “it all depends on the interpretation.” This drive for interpretation is an attempt to eliminate the contradictory nature of the Koran. The Ko¬ran is filled with contradictions at all levels, and this was pointed out to Mohammed by the Meccans of his day. The Koran uses the principle of abrogation to resolve these contradictions. The later verse is better than the earlier verse.
    But since everything in the Koran is the exact word of Allah and Allah is perfect and cannot lie, then every verse of the Koran is true, even if it is contradictory. This violates our logic so we try to decide which side is the truth. But both sides are true in dualistic logic. The Koran is dualistic document and Islam is a dualistic ideology. The answer to the question: “which side is it?” is always—all of the above. That is the genius of Islam. It can have it both ways, and this confuses the Kafirs.


    Now to the idea of: “brothers in the Abrahamic faith.” Let us look to Mohammed for the relationship between Muslims and their Jewish brothers. At first, Mohammed proved his validity by the fact that his angel was Gabriel, the angel of the prophets of the Jews. Therefore, he was of the same prophetic linage. Since there were no Jews in Mecca to deny him, the idea worked.

    When he went to Medina, which was half Jewish, the rabbis told him he was no prophet in the lineage of the Jews. No one could contradict Mohammed and as a result, three years later, there was not a single Jew left in Medina. They were annihilated. Then he attacked the Jews of Khaybar and made them dhimmis after he had killed, tortured, raped and robbed them. On his deathbed he condemned the Jews and Christians to be banished from Arabia. There are no Jews in Arabia today.

    That is the Sunna. That is Islam. And that is the way Islam has treated the Jews and Christians ever since—as dhimmis. Dhimmis are Kafirs who serve Islam by submitting and laboring for Islam. If the dhimmi is subservient enough, Islam will be kind. There are no brothers of Abraham. Just dhimmis to Mohammed!

    The root of the Israel problem is that Israel refuses to act like dhimmis.

    This argument about the falseness of the Abrahamic brotherhood of Jews, Christians and Muslims is attacked by the Sunna. Another attack is to point out that a Jew or Christian is not a “real” Jew or Christian until they meet Islam’s criteria. Jews must admit that the Torah is corrupt and all of the stories about Moses, David, Noah and the rest are wrong. Then Jews must accept Mohammed as the last of the Jewish prophets. Christians must deny the divinity of Jesus, His crucifixion and resurrection. Christians must also admit that the Gospels are wrong and that Mohammed is the final prophet to the Christians.
    If the writer were a Christian, then the Sunna would be about how Mohammed attacked and killed Christians and made them dhimmis.

    Here is the place to make the argument that in fact, the rabbi and the person who he claims is a bigot, have something in common. They are both Kafirs. Of course, the rabbi is a dhimmi as well, but notice that the word is never applied to him directly. Be careful to avoid name calling, even dhimmi. Be that as it may, both are Kafirs and are not Muslims. This has consequences. If there is any brotherhood to be had, it is between Kafirs, not between Jews (or Christians) and Muslims.


    We need to address one last bit of sophistry. The writer subtly shifts the argument about Islam to Muslims. Muslims are people and as such vary. There are 1.5 billion varieties of Muslims, but only one source of Islam. We need to stick to the study of Islam and leave Muslims out of it.

    Making it socially intolerable to criticize Islam is pure social tyranny. He rejects critical thought and calls on the authorities of a fascist state to suppress ideas he does not like. Who is the true bigot?

    It would seem that before a spiritual leader takes on the task of calling those who use critical thought bigots, his better task would be to seek the truth of Islamic ideology. The truth of Islam is found in the Koran, the Sunna (Sira and Hadith) and Islam’s political history. As a spiritual leader, once you have mastered those texts, and then speak to the issue. Until then, he should play the role of the student and stop referring to those with knowledge as bigots.

    This has been an exercise in fact-based rational thought; compare it to the writer’s authoritarian thought and his groundless assertions.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s