Hindus in Pakistan angered over forced conversions to Islam

[DNA] The Hindu community in Pakistan is reportedly angered by the rise in forced conversions to Islam.

Representational Image

Representational Image

At a recently concluded seminar titled ‘Hindus in Pakistan-issues and solutions,’ held at the Karachi Press Club, people belonging to the Hindu community aired their grievances with the increased level of forced conversions to Islam.

Uncle of a girl Rinkle Kumari, Raj Kumar revealed that a six-year-old girl, Jumna, along with her 10-year-old sister, Pooja were also being forced to change religion had the media not raised their case, Dawn News reports. Jumna’s mother Soma revealed that one day her girls didn’t return from their daily door-to-door selling of clay toys and after several reports in the media about them, they were found to be staying with a man named Rajab Pathan. She further revealed that the police of Akhtar Colony in Mirpurkhas area later produced the girls in court as Muslim children.

Chairman of the All Hindu Rights Organisation, Kishan Chand Parwani, said that it was sad to see the problems of minorities in Pakistan multiplying instead of decreasing. He said that in his five terms of serving as an MNA in Pakistan, he knew that the rights of Hindus have never remained a priority, adding that the Marriage Act for Hindus was never passed by the assembly as the government finished its term and now underage Hindu girls were being forcibly converted to Islam and married to Muslim men.

Parwani further said that Hindu community in Pakistan was facing harassment at every level.

Meanwhile, politician Dr Riaz Chandio said that they would have had no problems with their daughters converting to Islam if they did so of their own free will. Former senator Safdar Abbasi said that it was a sad reality that not just Hindu temples but also mosques, Imambargahs and churches were not safe in Pakistan these days, the report added.

6 thoughts on “Hindus in Pakistan angered over forced conversions to Islam



    Obviously, we cannot judge any religion by just looking at those who claim to follow it. It would be all too easy to point a finger at the many Muslims who have perpetrated violence against Christians, Jews and others over the centuries and conclude that Islam preaches violence, or to point the finger at the many Christians who have perpetrated violence against Muslims, Jews and others and conclude that Christianity preaches violence. This would, however, be quite erroneous. Not all who claim to act in the name of a religion are true adherents to its teachings. To answer the question with which we are concerned today, then, it is necessary to go back to the sources of Islam to see what they have to say about violence and about co-existence with adherents of other faiths. I shall therefore first consider the Qur’an, Islam’s holy book that Muslims believe was revealed to Muhammad from God, and the Hadith, which are the collections of Muhammad’s sayings and actions. These are the first two sources of Islam. [1] I shall go on to consider the actions of the prophet of Islam and his companions as they were the people that understood the Qur’an the best, and who are taken as role models by Muslims today.
    Abrogation Within the Quran الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن
    What do we mean by the term “abrogation”?
    The Arabic words ‘nasikh’ and ‘mansukh’ are both derived from the same root word ‘nasakha’ which carries meanings such as ‘to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate’.
    The word nasikh (an active participle) means ‘the abrogating’, while mansukh (passive) means ‘the abrogated’. In technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the Qur’anic revelation, which have been ‘abrogated’ by others. The abrogated passage is the one called ‘mansukh’ while the abrogating one is called ‘nasikh’. (Ahmad von Denver, Ulum Al-Quran)
    Understanding the concept of abrogation is very important in order to understand Islam. Within the Qur’an itself are statements which contradict others.
    For example, I have recently read an article by Karen Armstrong saying: “the only permissible war (in the Koran) is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2:190).”
    Others quote verses from the Qur’an like:
    “Let there be no compulsion in religion” 2:256
    “لا إكراه في الدين”
    “Therefore expound openly what thou art commanded, and turn away from those who join false gods with Allah” 15:94
    ” فَاصْدَعْ بِمَا تُؤْمَرُ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْمُشْرِكِين” الحجر 94:15
    These verses seem to say clearly enough that the Qur’an teaches a peaceful response to those who oppose Islam. But there are other verses in the Qur’an which say quite the opposite. For example
    “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” 9:5 (we will have a closer look at this verse later on).
    Which verse should Muslims follow? According to the doctrine of abrogation, the later texts supersede the earlier whenever there are inconsistencies, or they are said to “abrogate” the earlier texts. Therefore, a Muslim simply needs to know which verse came earlier, and which came later. The importance of the doctrine of abrogation cannot be understated. In a mosque in the city of Kufa, Ali b. Abi Talib once saw people gathering around the judge, Abdur-Rahman. The judge was confusing that which is permissible with that which is not. Ali asked him whether he could tell the abrogative verses from the abrogated; he said that he could not. Ali then grabbed the man’s ear, twisted it, and said:
    “you perish, and you make others perish. Do not judge in our mosque anymore.”
    That is how important it is; the person who doesn’t know abrogation shall
    “perish and make others perish”, according to Ali Ibn abi Talib.
    Returning to the three verses I quoted above, we see that all three were abrogated, according to Muslim scholars.(تراجع كتب الناسخ والمنسوخ لـ ابن حزم، الكرمي، ابن الجوزي، المقري، قتاده،…) (for detailed information check books under titles like The Abrogative and the Abrogated by authors like Ibn Hazem, Al-Karmi, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Muqri, or Al-Nisabouri)
    Suyuti in his book استنباط التنزيل (Istenbat al tanzeel) says: “Every thing in the Qur’an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5.” Al-Shawkani in his book السيل الجرار (Alsaylu Jarar 4:518-519) says: “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed. [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case.”
    Please note that I am not telling Muslims which verses to follow and which not. As I said earlier, I believe 100% in an individual’s right to choose his or her beliefs. However, what I am saying is that according to the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, these verses are null and void. They are contradicted by later verses, and in Islam it is the later verses which must be followed today.
    Let us now look at some of the Qur’an that was not written until later, in Madina
    The Qur’an says:
    “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors”. 2:190
    “قاتلوا في سبيل الله الذين يقاتلونكم ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين” البقرة 190:2
    “And slay them (the infidels) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” 2:191
    ” وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ” البقرة 191:2
    “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression”. 2:193
    ” وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَواْ فَلاَ عُدْوَانَ إِلاَّ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ” ابقرة 193:2
    “Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not” 2:216
    ” كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ” البقرة 216:2

    Here we see for the first time that war was permissible. Remember that in the earlier days of Islam, war was not allowed. But these verses abrogate the earlier verses, allowing war both in self-defense and against those who the Muslims did not have a treaty with. However, even these verses were in turn abrogated by these later verses:

    “Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory soon shall we give him a reward of great (value)” 4:74
    “فَلْيُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يَشْرُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا بِالآخِرَةِ وَمَن يُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيُقْتَلْ أَو يَغْلِبْ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا” النساء”74:4
    “Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” 4:89
    “وَدُّواْ لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُواْ فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاء فَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء حَتَّىَ يُهَاجِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتَّمُوهُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلاَ نَصِيرًا” النساء 89:4
    “Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home “4:95
    “لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا” النساء 95:4
    “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly” 8:60
    “وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن قُوَّةٍ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدْوَّ اللّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ اللّهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ وَمَا تُنفِقُواْ مِن شَيْءٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيْكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تُظْلَمُونَ” الأنفال 60:8
    “O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding” 8:65
    “يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَالِ إِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ عِشْرُونَ صَابِرُونَ يَغْلِبُواْ مِئَتَيْنِ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّئَةٌ يَغْلِبُواْ أَلْفًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَفْقَهُونَ” الأنفال 65:8
    “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, and heal the breasts of the Believers” 9:14
    “قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُّؤْمِنِين” التوبة 14:9
    “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” 9:29
    “قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُون” التوبة 29:9
    “Say: can you expect for us (and fate) other than one of two glorious things (martyrdom or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send his punishment (for not believing in Allah) from Himself, or by our hands. So wait (expectant); we too will wait with you” 9:52
    “قُلْ هَلْ تَرَبَّصُونَ بِنَا إِلاَّ إِحْدَى الْحُسْنَيَيْنِ وَنَحْنُ نَتَرَبَّصُ بِكُمْ أَن يُصِيبَكُمُ اللّهُ بِعَذَابٍ مِّنْ عِندِهِ أَوْ بِأَيْدِينَا فَتَرَبَّصُواْ إِنَّا مَعَكُم مُّتَرَبِّصُون” التوبة 52:4

    Now, what we see here is this: the Quran orders Muslims to fight in order to establish Allah’s kingdom on earth (all of the earth) by any means. Most Islamic scholars say that one verse of the Quran (9:5) abrogates 124 verses, which are basically all the verses that talk about peace and forgiveness. This is the verse that says:
    “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” 9:5
    “فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُاْ الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ” التوبة 5:9
    As we see clearly in this verse (which is commonly called the verse of the sword) there is only one way out for pagans (or infidels) to be spared from being slain. They should repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, i.e. become Muslims. As for people of the book we read the verse in the same sura v. 29, which tells us the way out of being killed “until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
    They have to pay protection money and accept to be subdued, i.e. second class citizens, even if they live in their homeland. We see this put into practice in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, and all the Middle Eastern countries that were conquered by Muslims in the first 100 years of Islam. The ancestors of the Christians who live there now suffered a lot to stay Christian.
    Now, there is a fiqhi rule that has to be taken into consideration when studying this:العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب, i.e. what is considered is the absoluteness of the utterance, not the specialization of the reason for the revelation. That is, they follow the letter, not the spirit of the law…
    In other words Muslims scholars when they make a judgement they consider the Quran and Mohammad in the light of their meaning not in the light of reasons of revelation.

    The Hadeeth
    The Hadeeth are the sayings of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. They are the second source of Islamic doctrine. The Hadeeth completely agree with the Quran (concerning violence and co-existence). Hadeeth have the same concept of abrogation, and the same historical characteristics. That is, Muhammad’s teachings were very peace-loving at the beginning of Islam, but then came sayings such as:
    Ibn Haban in his Sahih, vol. 14, p. 529, narrates: Muhammad said: “I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter.”
    In his Musnad (vol. 2, p. 50) Imam Ahmed narrates by Ibn Omar: “the Prophet said: ‘I was sent by the sword proceeding the judgment day and my livelihood is in the shadow of my spear and humiliation and submission are on those who disobey me.’”
    Omar Ibn al-Khatab said: “I heard the prophet of Allah saying: ‘I will cast Jews and Christians out of the peninsula and I won’t leave any one in it but Muslims.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 2, No. 28, from the Muhaddith program[2])
    Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ibn al’Ashraf), “Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.” (El beddayah wa alnihaya – Ibn Katheer – vol. 4 – in the chapter on killing Ka’ab bin al’Ashraf)

    1 Muhammad’s actions
    Let us now look at the actions of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam, as the Quran says “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah” 33:21
    “لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا” الأحزاب 21:33

    Aisha (the beloved wife of Muhammad) said: “His (Muhammad’s) character was the Qur’an” (narrated Muslim). Therefore the life of Mohammad reflects an accurate interpretation of the Qur’an.
    When we read of the actions of the prophet of Islam, we see many cases of assassination. Most of these cases happened because someone criticized the prophet of Islam in speech only.
    We read:
    Ibn Ishak said: “The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Thereupon Muhayyisa محيصة b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa حويصة was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?’ Muhayyisa answered, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.’” (El badyah wa alnihaya – Ibn Katheer – vol. 4 – in the chapter on killing Ka’ab bin al’Ashraf)

    2 `Umayr’s Expedition To Kill Abu Afak
    Mohammad once killed a man named (al-Harith b. Suwayd). When Abu Afak wrote a poem objecting to the murder, Muhammad said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him. (Ibn Hisham – Dar el jeel Beirut – 1411 –Vol. 6 – UMAYR’S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU AFAK)


    After Abu Afak was murdered, Asma wrote a poem blaming Islam and its followers of killing their opponenets.
    When Muhammad heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Ummayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people. Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma.
    The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.”
    (Ibn Katheer el bedayah wa alnehaya – vol. 5 – in the mention of the year 11 of hijrah also found in- Ibn Hisham – dar al jeel Beirut – vol. 6 UMAYR B. ADIYY’S JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA D. MARWAN)
    (البداية والنهاية ـ ج 5 ـ في ذكر السنة 11 من الهجرة ـ(

    4 Killing of a slave woman.
    A blind man had a slave who he had taken a concubine, the mother of his children, who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop.
    One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about this. He assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.” The man stood up. He sat before the Prophet and said: “Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet said: “Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.”
    «اشهدوا أن دمها هدر» . ) نيل الأوطار للشوكاني _ دار الطباعة المنيرية ـ القاهرة ـ دون تاريخ ـ الجزء السابع. كتاب حد شارب الخمر. باب قتل من صَرّحَ بسب. النبي ـ و في سنن أبي داود ـ مركز الأبحاث والدراسات الثقافية ـ الجزء الثاني ـ باب الحكم فيمن سب النبي.)
    (Naylu Al’wtar – Al-Shawkani – Al muneeriah pulishing – Cairo – Vol 7 – Book of Drinking – Chapter on Killing Of One who declared a warning to the prophet – also in Sunan Abi Daowd – Markaz Al’bhath wa aldersat althkafiah – Vol 2 – Chapter the judgment on one who swore to the prophet)

    5 `Amr B Umayya EXPEDITION
    Once Muhammad sent one of his followers named `Amr, to murder Muhammad’s enemy Abu Sufyan. However, the assassination attempt failed. As he returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Muslim man both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. Prior to going asleep, the shepherd said that he would never become a Muslim. Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep and thereafter: ”as soon as the bedouin was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed.”
    Umayya returned and spoke with Muhammad. He relates…. ”He [Muhammad] asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me.”

    6 Umm Qirfa
    Another example of Muhammad assassinating those who criticised him was when a woman named “Umm Qirfa” (Fatima) was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman. She used to mock Mohammad in speech and poems. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly, by tying a rope to each of her two legs and to two camels and driving the camels in opposite directions until they tore her in two. (Al ‘saba – Ibn Hagar – vol. 4, page 231)

    Muhammad’s companions
    قال الرسول: أصحابي كالنجوم،بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم “My companions are like stars, if you imitate any of them, you will, indeed, be guided” His companions were those who became Muslims and saw Mohammad while he was alive.
    Yet reading the history of these companions we find some horrifying stories. Some of the incidents below would be considered war crimes nowadays.
    Abu Bakr (the first caliph)
    Waging war as the ultimate tool for propagating and defending Islam became a rule for who ever was in power and ruling the Islamic society. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, who took the lead after the death of Muhammad, even launched wars against Muslims to force them to pay dues to him that Muhammad used to collect for himself (as related in the Qur’an 9:103).
    Omar ibn al-Khatab (the second caliph)
    Abd Allah ibn Sa’ed (Omr ibn al-Khatab servant) said: “Arab Christians are not Christians, I am not leaving them until they become Muslims or I cut their throats.” (Kanzu ‘umal – al mutka al hindi – vol. 4, No. 11770)
    Khalid ibn al-Walid (the unsheathed sword of Allah)
    The letter of Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the people of Madain:
    “From Khaled ibn al-Walid to Marazebah the people of Faris [Persian people] peace be to those who follow the guidance. Praise God that your servants left you and you lost your possession and have been weakened. Anyone who prayed our prayer and accepted our place of prayer to the East [Qiblah] and ate our sacrifice that would be a true Muslim who has the same privileges and duties as us. When you receive my letter send me the ransom for the hostage we hold and asked for a covenant, or in the name of the God who there is no other god like him I will send you people who love to die as you love to live.”
    “والله الذي لا إله إلا هو،لأرسلن لكم أقواماً يحرصون على الموت كما تحرصون على الحياة”.
    During the battle with the Persians, and it was very tough war, Khaled said: “O Allah, if you give us victory over them, I swear I won’t leave one of them alive and I will run their river with their blood.”
    Then when Allah gave them victory, Khaled send people to call for capturing everyone and asking Muslims not to kill anyone except who refuses to submit. After they captured them, they (the Persians) were brought to the river and were beheaded. The Muslims did that for three days till they had killed 70000.
    (أبو بكر الصديق لمحمد رشيد رضا ـ البداية والنهاية لابن كثير في ذكر سنة 12 من الهجرةـ عن برنامج المحدث)
    (Abu Bakr – By Muhammad Rashid Rida – “Muhaddith Program”[2] – And Bedaya wa nehaya –Ibn Katheer – In the mention of year 12 of Hijrah “Muhaddith”)
    I recognize that the information above is too much for some people, but I have used only little of what can be found in the Qur’an, the Hadeeth, and Islamic history books.
    We have seen what the Qur’an and the Hadeeth teach; we have seen the actions of the last prophet of Islam, and the understanding of these teachings by his companions.
    The question now is how do Muslims reconcile all of this with what we hear many saying; namely, that Islam is a peace-loving religion and it teaches co-existence with all other religions. I would love to believe that Islam is indeed the peaceful religion as many say it is. But until someone gives me a credible and peaceful interpretation of the writings and events I have outlined, I’m afraid I cannot.

    One final thing concerns me. Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller ( عمدة السالك ), translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)
    Ibn Shihab, another Muslim scholar said: “there were only three cases where lying was acceptable: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).” (More information is provided by William Muir’s “Life of Mahomet”, Volume I, footnote p.88) (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, No. 6303 – from the Alim program)
    I hope Muslims can tell us why should we believe what they say about how peace-loving a religion Islam is, when we know that they are permitted to lie in order to achieve a noble goal, i.e. making Islam the dominant religion of mankind. (8:39,40)
    These are questions of the utmost importance, and I still hope we will hear an answer one day—before its too late.
    [1] The other two sources are Ijmaa’ (uninmity) and Qiaas (Analogy)
    [2] http://www.muhaddith.org

    • Lucky, something new for you : There is NO abrogation in the Quran!

      If there was abrogation then the older verses would be expunged from the text of the Quran. How come all the verses are there in the Quran?

      Replacing a verse does NOT mean abrogation. The “older” verse remains within the context to show how Islam progressed.

      Meaning of Abrogate : to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal: to abrogate a law. 2. to put aside; put an end to.

      As you can clearly see that “replacing” is different from “abrogating”, I would like to claim that there are NO verses in the Quran that have been abrogated otherwise those abrogated would have been expunged!

      • YO PLUM,



        Farooq Ibrahim

        Over the years, a number of Muslims and some non-Muslims have asked me why I had problems defending my Islamic faith. While a Muslim in the late 1980’s, and seeking the truth within Islam, I was faced with a number of issues in defending my faith. One such issue was “abrogation.” Abrogation means to annul or cancel something with appropriate or legal authority. The purpose of writing this response has been to provide an answer to my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters regarding the challenges I faced at that point in my faith. During this time I was not seeking to put down or reject Islam, on the contrary, my goal was to invite others to Islam. In trying to grapple with this topic, I was armed primarily with the Quran, Hadith (the documented words and/or deeds of Mohammad) and other supporting works by Muslims and some non-Muslim authors. Please note that the purpose of this response is not to publish an academic work with a thorough and critical evaluation on the entire topic of abrogation, but mostly a reflection on a personal journey as I was contending with my Islamic faith.
        The concept of “abrogation” in the Quran is that Allah chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah – means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Quran) that supercede earlier ayat in the same Quran. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106:

        None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

        I struggled with the question of how an eternal revelation of Allah could have such time-bound revelation in it. It seemed at odds with the nature of Allah – the all-knowing, all-wise, creator and sustainer of the universe; the eternal, self-existent one. As a Muslim this was one of the bigger challenges I faced with regard to the Quran. Although the Quran is said to be an eternal and universal scripture, I found it to be time-bound.

        Not all Muslim scholars agree on what abrogation covers. Briefly here was my discovery.

        • Muslim scholars of old hold to the concept that some ayahs in the Quran abrogate other ayahs in the Quran, but do not all hold to the same set of abrogated and abrogating ayahs.
        • Other Muslim scholars are of the opinion that the Quran may abrogate the Quran as well as the Sunnah (deed or example of Mohammad) and vice versa.
        • Some Muslim scholars hold that the Quran abrogates all the previous scriptures, specifically the scriptures sent to Musa and Isa, but not itself.
        • Some Muslim scholars, especially of recent times do not believe in the concept of abrogation at all.
        Note that the ayah 2:106 above is clearly making the claim that only when a better ayah or similar ayah is available, does Allah change it and cause the older ones to be forgotten. And to drive the point home, the ayah continues on that Allah has power over all things. It puzzled me that Allah being all-wise needed to reveal better or similar ayahs to replace older ones. Perhaps this was understandable for a Muslim if the Quran is talking about books given to Musa, then Isa, and finally Prophet Mohammad. But what about ayahs within the life-span of Prophet Mohammad in the Quran – Allah was claiming to change earlier ayahs revealed in the Quran. This seemed completely out of context and reason for the Quran that claims to be for all time and all peoples.

        An example that is often used to show the topic of abrogation as relevant and true in the Quran is the topic of wine drinking. In early Islam, wine drinking and gambling were allowed – Surah 2:219:
        They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: “In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.” They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: “What is beyond your needs.” Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-
        From this ayah it was taught that drinking and gambling could provide a benefit and also have bad effects. To identify that the practice of drinking wine was not uncommon among Muslims, another ayah was revealed that forbade the Muslims to come to prayer drunk, Surah 4:43:

        O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.

        Note that Yusuf Ali in his translation uses the phrase “mind befogged”. Other Muslim scholars who have translated the Quran render the phrase slightly differently: Pickthall uses the word “drunken”, and Shakir uses “intoxicated”. It is clear that being intoxicated is the intended meaning. Also, during the battle of Uhud a number of Muslims were killed, some of whom had alcoholic drinks the morning of the battle. This can be seen from the Sahih (authentic) Hadith of Bukhari on the ill-fated battle.
        Volume 6, Book 60, Number 142:
        Narrated Jabir:
        Some people drank alcoholic beverages in the morning (of the day) of the Uhud battle and on the same day they were killed as martyrs, and that was before wine was prohibited.
        Then the ayah Surah 5:93 was revealed to stop drinking wine.
        O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (Dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, – of Satan’s handiwork: Eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.
        Finally an ayah is revealed that considers drinking an abomination and to be avoided. Thus, this put an end to drinking being allowed in Islam. Since there is not much detail in the Quran about the context, let’s refer to Sahih Bukhari that clarifies what transpired.
        Volume 6, Book 60, Number 144:
        Narrated Anas:
        The alcoholic drink which was spilled was Al-Fadikh. I used to offer alcoholic drinks to the people at the residence of Abu Talha. Then the order of prohibiting Alcoholic drinks was revealed, and the Prophet ordered somebody to announce that: Abu Talha said to me, “Go out and see what this voice (this announcement) is.” I went out and (on coming back) said, “This is somebody announcing that alcoholic beverages have been prohibited.” Abu Talha said to me, “Go and spill it (i.e. the wine).” Then it (alcoholic drinks) was seen flowing through the streets of Medina. At that time the wine was Al-Fadikh. The people said, “Some people (Muslims) were killed (during the battle of Uhud) while wine was in their stomachs.” So Allah revealed: “On those who believe and do good deeds there is no blame for what they ate (in the past).” (5.93)
        (As a side note, the 5.93 at end of the above Hadith refers to Surah 5:93. Since not all translators use the same numbering system, in Yusuf Ali’s translation that I quote from, it refers to Surah 5:96 which makes clear there is no blame on those who died before this prohibition was enacted.)
        A number of my Muslim friends and scholars make the point that this is progressive revelation as the Arab community was used to drinking alcohol and hence this method was used to slowly stop it. However, this method for me lacks rational reasoning and does not have precedence or similarities in other commands of Allah. Nor could I find a Sahih Hadith that supported this argument. In fact it supports the opposite, for example the Arabs were used to worshipping multiple gods, or have intercessors before God and the worship of one true Allah directly was set from the very first time – there were no progressive changes here.
        To my surprise, Surah 2:106 was not the only place where the topic of abrogation was discussed. This concept of substituting ayahs is further elaborated in others, for example note these two other ayahs.
        Surah 16:101
        When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.
        (As a side note, the words in brackets above are interpretation in the English and do not exist in the Arabic Quran.)
        It is clear in this above ayah that a number of people were upset at this concept of abrogation. They said to Prophet Mohammad, “Thou art but a forger” in response to the revelation of new ayahs that were better and superceded the older ones. Some Muslim scholars consider this ayah to be in response to the questions by Jews. They consider it to imply the Torah versus the Quran. However the challenge for me was that the word used in the Arabic in Surah 16:101 is “ayah” and not “kitab” or any specific word to imply the Torah or their scriptures as that is how the Quran typically refers to the revelation to the Jews.
        What surprised me more is that Allah not only reveals this abrogation, but also makes a strong claim for it as noted below. It is Allah’s pleasure to change or confirm whatever he chooses as stated in Surah 13:39:
        Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.
        As I investigated the topic further, I found that depending on the Muslim scholar, there were different lists of abrogated (mansukh) ayat, as well as those that replace it, the abrogating (naskh) ayat. It was clear from my investigation on this topic that the Quran does teach the doctrine of abrogation – that actual ayat of the Quran have been annulled or cancelled by newer ones and this has been accepted in Islam.
        I found examples where some authors make the claim of abrogating and abrogated ayat. But when I reviewed some of these in light of the context of the ayat, there is room for interpretation depending on how one views the context, the historical setting and the reliability of the Hadith used in support of it. We will examine one such example where a claim is made for abrogation – some scholars say that Surah 3:85 abrogates Surah 2:62 and Surah 5:69.
        Let’s take a look at each of these.
        Surah 2:62 (some claim this is abrogated by Surah 3:85 below)
        Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians, – Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
        Surah 5:69 (some claim this is also abrogated by Surah 3:85 below)
        If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course : but many of them follow a course that is evil.
        Surah 3:85
        If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
        When one considers these ayat, the claim being made by Surah 3:85 seems to say that only those who follow Islam will be accepted in the Hereafter. This would seem to override Surahs 2:62 and 5:69 where not only Muslims, but non-Muslim righteous people of other faiths will also have their reward with Allah. There are many challenges in these ayat, one is of context and the other relates to when these were revealed historically. If one purely looks at the context of the three ayat, both interpretations are possible. Now if one considers the chronology of when these were revealed, the challenges are even bigger. This is because the Quranic passages are not assembled chronologically. In general, the larger Surahs (which also have the lower numbers) are of the Medina period while the shorter Surahs (which have the higher numbers) are from the Meccan period. However, there is mixing of some shorter Meccan ayat in the Medina Surahs and vice versa. There are many Hadith, but no overarching theme can be seen. Hence, in this case I was left to decide if this ayah (Surah 3:85) made the list of abrogation. If this was the case, it would mean that only Muslims (going forward since the Quran was revealed) will be rewarded in the Hereafter, but Christians and Jews of today will not as they do not accept Prophet Mohammad. Or am I to consider myself aligning with those who believe there is no abrogation and be content that Muslims, Christian, Jews among other righteous people even today will be rewarded by Allah. Both are probable, the evidence from the Quran and Hadith was not conclusive.
        Moving on, an example dealing with Quran and Sunnah abrogation, I found the punishment for fornication and adultery rather interesting, because of the implication that either the Quran had ayahs missing, lost or forgotten from it or that the Sunnah had abrogated the Quran. Either way, this caused enough of an interest to review this area. Let us first see what the Quran says about the punishment for fornication and adultery in Surah 24.
        Surah 24:2
        The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
        Surah 24:3
        Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.
        It is clear from the Quran, that either in the case of adultery or fornication the punishment is 100 lashes. Note that in the Surah 24:3, the people who commit this crime are still able to continue to live and marry, implying they are not to be put to death. But as we know from Shariah Law, the punishment for adultery is death by stoning. This ruling comes from the Sunnah. This is further clarified by the Quran translator Yusuf Ali, in his commentary notes on Surah 24:2 (Note 2594)
        2954. Zina includes sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other. It therefore applies both to adultery (which implies that one or both of the parties are married to a person or persons other than the ones concerned) and to fornication, which, in its strict signification, implies that both parties are unmarried. … Although zina covers both fornication and adultery, in the opinion of Muslim jurists, the punishment laid down here applies only to unmarried persons. As for married persons, their punishment, according to the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be on him), is stoning to death.
        The Sahih Bukhari Hadith that follows supports the Shariah law separating the punishment for adultery and fornication.
        Volume 8, Book 82, Number 815:
        Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:
        While we were with the Prophet, a man stood up and said (to the Prophet ), “I beseech you by Allah, that you should judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” Then the man’s opponent who was wiser than him, got up saying (to Allah’s Apostle) “Judge us according to Allah’s Law and kindly allow me (to speak).” The Prophet said, “Speak.” He said, “My son was a laborer working for this man and he committed an illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and I gave one-hundred sheep and a slave as a ransom for my son’s sin. Then I asked a learned man about this case and he informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year, and the man’s wife should be stoned to death.” The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Laws of Allah. Your one-hundred sheep and the slave are to be returned to you, and your son has to receive one-hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O Unais! Go to the wife of this man, and if she confesses, then stone her to death.” Unais went to her and she confessed. He then stoned her to death.
        While the Sahih Bukhari Hadith dealing solely with fornication and adultery are as follows:
        Volume 8, Book 82, Number 818:
        Narrated Zaid bin Khalid Al-Jihani:
        I heard the Prophet ordering that an unmarried person guilty of illegal sexual intercourse be flogged one-hundred stripes and be exiled for one year. Umar bin Al-Khattab also exiled such a person, and this tradition is still valid.
        Volume 8, Book 82, Number 806:
        Narrated Abu Huraira:
        A man came to Allah’s Apostle while he was in the mosque, and he called him, saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.” The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but that man repeated his statement four times, and after he bore witness against himself four times, the Prophet called him, saying, “Are you mad?” The man said, “No.” The Prophet said, “Are you married?” The man said, “Yes.” Then the Prophet said, “Take him away and stone him to death.” Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: I was among the ones who participated in stoning him and we stoned him at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but we overtook him at Al-Harra and stoned him to death.
        Hence we see here that existing Muslim Law is based on the Sunnah and not on the Quran. Therefore, as some Muslim scholars correctly say, the Sunnah abrogates the Quran – which in the case of the offense for adultery is true. Of course, there is a small possibility that an ayah was revealed, but is not in our current edition of the Quran. Note this tradition from the Sahih Bukhari Hadith on it.
        Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:
        Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
        … In the meantime, ‘Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, ‘Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, “Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession …”
        I will not spend much time on this at this point as it leads into the whole discussion on the compilation of the Quran (which I have briefly discussed earlier) regarding arrangement of the ayat, as it is a very large topic on its own.
        What I do want to address is what a large number of modern Muslims scholars and teachers say about the whole issue of abrogation. Their views can, in general, be divided into the following two groups.
        • Abrogation was abrogating older scriptures – Torah and Injil and not the Quran.
        • The Quran itself claims that no part of it is at variance with another, and hence the doctrine of Abrogation is not supported within the Quran.
        I can see that Muslims as a whole agree with the first bullet point, as the Quran claims to be the final revelation of Allah. But saying that does not however exclude what we have discussed and shown. I found the doctrine of abrogating older scriptures, the Torah and Injil, unsupportable from the Quran. As I looked at the evidence regarding this matter, I found no place in the Quran where abrogation is discussed in reference to the books (kitab) of the previous prophets, but only ayah, which means “a sign.” Generally when reference is made in the Quran to the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the words used are the books (kitab), or specifically Torah and Injil, or scriptures given to Musa or Isa. I found no such ayat to exist in the Quran stating that such are abrogated. As an example, note in Surah 2:62 and Surah 5:69 mentioned earlier, how the Jewish and Christian scriptures are referenced.
        In addition, the word used throughout the Quran regarding abrogation is the word “ayah,” which means signs and can refer to any sign that God may choose to use to show himself or reveal his word or will. It could be a miracle, such as what Isa did or his miraculous virgin birth, or some aspect of creation that points to him. More specifically it is used to refer to the Quranic revelations that was revealed as a sign (ayah) to Prophet Mohammad For example this ayah – Surah 2:99 describes that an ayah is commonly what was revealed in the Quran and the unbelievers reject them.
        We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse.
        Also, Surah 2:106 clearly says that it would bring about better or similar ayat and the older one would be forgotten.
        The Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament books have a long history of documentary evidence that clearly shows that these books that they have today match what was available during and before the time of Prophet Mohammad. Therefore there is no textual or documentary evidence that any of the Christian or Jewish scriptures are forgotten. This too is a big topic and detailed discussion on it would be a task of its own.
        Regarding the second bullet point made above, the position taken by some modern Muslim scholars is that in considering abrogation of one ayah by another when the two cannot be reconciled with each other contradicts the clear teaching of the foundation of the Quran. Namely that it declares that no part of it is at variance with another. Note for example ayah Surah 4:82 given to make this claim.
        Do they not consider the Quran (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.
        I agree with them, the Quran clearly teaches that. However, the evidence based on the actual ayat being at variance with another is yet another matter that I was challenged with and I desire to discuss it as a separate topic, though it is one that is closely related to abrogation. While the Quran does make such a claim, the hard evidence shows the doctrine of abrogation is clearly stated in the Quran, not once, but many times. The example of wine drinking and punishment for adultery and fornication, among others affirm it. Whereas the issue of non-Muslims getting rewarded in Heaven could be considered abrogated or perhaps not, both are probable based on the evidence in the Quran. There are other such ayat that a number of Muslim scholars have compiled and I briefly list a few of them but do not wish to go into details as that would make this response too lengthy. Included in the list are:
        • Surah 9:29 abrogating Surah 2:109
        • Surah 2:185 abrogating Surah 2:184
        • Surah 9:36 abrogating Surah 2:217 and Surah 45:14
        In conclusion, for many Muslims, this concept that Allah as the absolute sovereign can alter his commands and replace them at will, appears at harmony with their view of God. To them, the Will of God is paramount. While I respect their thoughts and opinions, this was at odds with my view of an all-knowing and all-wise God. It seems to me that a man like myself is limited and needs to learn from his mistakes, and therefore need to provide better commands after earlier commands have not worked. It is not self-evident to me that the creator and sustainer of the universe is like that. Hence, I reached a point where I could no longer defend the Quran as we have it today as the true and complete revelation of Allah. This cast doubts on the credibility of the current Arabic Quran’s claim that it is the perfect and final revelation of Allah.

  2. Pingback: Hindus in Pakistan angered over forced conversions to Islam



    Muhammad had homosexual tendencies. One such tradition is the following taken from a newsgroup posting:
    فى يوم خرج محمد إلى السوق فوجد زاهرا وكان يحبه فأحتضنه من الخلف
    فقال له زاهر اطلقنى من انت؟ فقال له محمد انا من يشترى العبيد ورفض ان
    يطلقه فلما عرف زاهر أنه محمد صار يمكن ظهره من صدر محمد
    السيرة الحلبية ج 3 ص 441 وفتحي رضوان في (الثائر الأعظم) ص 140
    One day, Muhammad went to the market, there he found Zahir, whom he liked, so he hugged him from behind. Zahir said: let go of me, who are you? Muhammad told him: I’m the slave trader (literally, I’m the one who buys the slaves), and refused to let go of him so when Zahir knew it was Muhammad, he drew (stuck) his back closer to Muhammad’s chest.
    Al Seera Al Halabya (Muhammad’s Biography) by Al Halabya, volume 3, p. 441 and Fathy Rdwan in his book Al Tha’er al A’azam (The greatest rebel) (Quoted as found at http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/20756.htm)
    Muhammad would also invite young boys to see him wash his private parts:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Whenever Allah’s Apostle went to answer the call of nature, I along with another boy used to accompany him with a tumbler full of water. (Hisham commented, “So that he might wash his private parts with it.”) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 152; see also Numbers 153-154)
    Now the authors may accuse us of being perverted for even seeing any homosexual overtones in this tradition. We would respond by saying the same is true of their reading of Acts 16:3, which only exposes how sick and filthy their minds are. As they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
    Other sick practices of Muhammad include having his young child bride wipe semen off his clothes:
    Narrated ‘Aisha:
    I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229)
    Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:
    I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231; see also Number 232)
    Narrated ‘Aisha:
    I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233)
    Not only did nine year old Aisha have to marry and live with an over fifty year old Muhammad (making him old enough to be her grandfather) but she also had to wipe semen stains from her elderly husband’s clothes while still a young girl!
    Other traditions state that Muhammad would actually allow young boys to suck his tongue and he would suck the tongue of others. For instance, in “Musnad Ahmad,” Hadith number: 16245, Volume Title: “The Sayings of the Syrians,” Chapter Title: “Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan,” we read:
    Narrated by Hisham Ibn Kasim, narrated by Huraiz, narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abu Awf Al Jarashy, and narrated by Mua’wiya who said,
    “I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire). (Source)
    الرسول يمص لسان الحسن و شفته
    ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏هاشم بن القاسم ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏حريز ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عبد الرحمن بن أبي عوف الجرشي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏معاوية ‏ ‏قال ‏‏رأيت رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يمص لسانه ‏ ‏أو قال شفته ‏ ‏يعني ‏ ‏الحسن بن علي ‏ ‏صلوات الله عليه ‏ ‏وإنه ‏ ‏لن يعذب لسان أو شفتان مصهما رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم
    مسند أحمد .. مسند الشاميين .. حديث معاوية بن أبي سفيان رضي الله تعالى عنه
    From the Syrian Biography of Muhammad written by Al-Amin Al-Ma’moun, Chapter Title: “The first people to believe in the prophet.”
    In mentioning the 10 specific qualities of the prophet, Al Zamakhshari mentioned that the prophet took charge of naming Ali and feeding him many days from his blessed saliva and having Ali SUCK ON THE PROPHET’S TONGUE.
    For it was narrated by Fatimah Bint Asad, the mother of Ali – may Allah be pleased with her – who related that when she gave birth to her son, it was the prophet who named him Ali and the prophet spat in Ali’s mouth THEN ALLOWED HIM TO SUCK ON HIS TONGUE till he fell asleep.
    She also said, “On a later day we requested a wet nurse for him (Ali) but he refused her breast so we called for Muhammad – pbuh – WHO PLACED HIS TONGUE IN ALI’S MOUTH and he fell asleep. This is the way it was as Allah willed it.” (Source)
    الرسول يمص لسان علي بن أبي طالب و يغذيه من ريقه المبارك
    وفي خصائص العشرة للزمخشري أن النبي صل الله عليه وسلم تولى تسميته بعلي وتغذيته أياما من ريقه المبارك بمصه لسانه فعن فاطمة بنت أسد أم علي رضي الله تعالى عنها أنا قالت لما ولدته سماه عليا وبصق في فيه ثم إنه ألقمه لسانه فما زال يمصه حتى نام قالت فلما كان من الغد طلبنا له مرضعة فلم يقبل ثدي أحد فدعونا له محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم فألقمه لسانه فنام فكان كذلك ما شاء الله عز وجل هذا كلامه فليتأمل.
    السيرة الحلبية في سيرة الأمين المأمون .. باب أول الناس إيمانا به صلى الله عليه و سلم
    Muhammad also appeared naked before a man:
    Narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ismail, narrated by Ibrahim Ibn Yahya Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abad Al Madany, narrated by Abu Yahya Ibn Muhammad, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Muslim Al Zuhri, narrated by Urwah Ibn Al Zubair narrated by Aisha who said,
    “Zaid Ibn Haritha came to Medina while the prophet – pbuh – was in my house. He (Zaid) came and knocked on the door so the prophet rose up and went towards him naked, dragging his garment behind him. By Allah I had not seen the prophet naked before this or after it (in front of people). Then the prophet embraced Zaid and kissed him.”
    Abu Issa stated that this was a sound hadith, THOUGH STRANGE, and that Al Zuhri was only known for (sound) hadith. (Sunan Al Tirmidhi, Hadith Number, 4412, Volume Title: “The Book of Permission and Manners of the Prophet,” Entry Title: “What is Related About Kissing and Embracing”. (Source)
    محمد عريان و يحضن و يقبل الرجال
    ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن إسمعيل ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إبراهيم بن يحيى بن محمد بن عباد المدني ‏ ‏حدثني ‏ ‏أبي يحيى بن محمد ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن إسحق ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن مسلم الزهري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عروة بن الزبير ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏قالت ‏ ‏قدم ‏ ‏زيد بن حارثة ‏ ‏المدينة ‏ ‏ورسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏في بيتي فأتاه فقرع الباب فقام إليه رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏عريانا يجر ثوبه والله ما رأيته عريانا قبله ولا بعده فاعتنقه وقبله ‏ ‏‏قال ‏ ‏أبو عيسى ‏ ‏هذا ‏ ‏حديث حسن غريب ‏ ‏لا نعرفه من حديث ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏إلا من هذا الوجه
    سنن الترمذي .. كتاب الإستئذان و الآداب عن رسول الله .. باب ما جاء في المعانقة و القبلة
    Muhammad went so far as to claim that there are young boys awaiting the believers in Paradise:
    And round them shall go boys of theirs as if they were hidden pearls. S. 52:24 Shakir
    Round about them shall go youths never altering in age, With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink; S. 56:17-18 Shakir
    And round about them shall go youths never altering in age; when you see them you will think them to be scattered pearls. S. 76:19 Shakir
    We wonder, what will Muslims be doing with these young boys, hold hands and sing together? It is passages such as these that led some Muslims to argue that homosexuality and pederasty would be permitted in Paradise. For instance, New York Times columnist Judith Miller, while commenting on the reason Egyptian professor and columnist Farag Foda was assassinated, wrote:
    “About two weeks before his murder, he mocked what passed for intellectual discourse among Islamists by citing a recent sermon by Egypt’s most popular preacher, Abdel Hamid Kishk, a blind sheikh who constantly attacked both the government and its official religious establishment. Kishk had been telling his audience that Muslims who entered paradise would enjoy ETERNAL ERECTIONS and the company of young boys draped in earrings and necklaces. Some of the ulema, the religious scholars at al-Azhar, the government’s seat of Islamic learning had disagreed. Yes, they said, men in paradise would have erections, BUT MERELY PROTRACTED, NOT PERPETUAL. Other experts disputed the possibility of pederasty in paradise. ‘Is this what concerns Muslims at the end of the 20th century?’ Foda asked in a column in October magazine. ‘The world around us is busy with the conquest of space, genetic engineering and the wonders of the computer,’ while Muslim scholars, he wrote ‘in sadness and pain,’ were worried about sex in paradise. In a column published just before he was killed, Foda reported that the Tunisian government had videotaped militant Islamic leaders on their prayer rugs, unwilling to await paradise, making love to beautiful women here on earth. Meanwhile, Egyptian militants in Assyut were ordering believers not to eat eggplants and squash because of their resemblance to sexual organs. ‘The Groups of Darkness are obsessed with sex,’ he wrote.” (Miller, God Has Ninety-Nine Names [A Touchstone Book, published by Simon & Schuster, 1997], pp. 26-27; bold emphasis ours)
    Please note carefully here that not all of the experts disagreed with Kishk’s views regarding the permissibility of pederasty or that men will have eternal erections in Allah’s sexcapade called Paradise.
    Abul-Ala Maari said that homosexuality will be permissible in paradise. He based this opinion on Sura al-Waqi‘a 56:17-23: “Round about them are male youths of freshness … and there will be huris (‘beautiful companions with large and lustrous eyes, like pearls well-guarded’)” …
    “Abul-Ala said: ‘If wine is prohibited in this world and allowed in paradise, the same will happen with homosexuality’ (Risala al-ghufran by al-Maarri and Khawater Muslim fi al-mas’ala al-Jinsiyya by Muhammad Jalal Kishk).” (True Guidance (Part 4), An Introduction to Quranic Studies [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 122)
    These passages may have also been the impetus behind Muslim men desiring to sleep with young boys, and the reason why others felt free to express their homosexual desires in writing. Professor Philip K. Hitti writes:
    “The servants were almost all slaves recruited from non-Muslim peoples and captured by force, taken prisoners in time of war or purchased in time of peace. The white slaves (Mamluk) were mainly Greeks and Slavs, Armenians and Berbers. Certain slaves were eunuchs (khisyan) attached to the service of the harem. Others termed ghilman, who might also be eunuchs, were the recipients of special favour from their masters, wore rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion. We read that ghilman in the reign of al-Rashid, but it was evidently al-Amin who, following the Persian precedent, established in the Arabic world the Ghilman institution for the practice of unnatural sexual relations. A judge under al-Mamun used four hundred such youths. Poets like abu-Nuwas did not disdain to give public expression to their perverted passions and to address amorous pieces of their composition to beardless young boys.” (Hitti, History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present, revised tenth edition, new preface by Walid Khalidi [Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; ISBN: 0-333-63142-0 paperback], p. 341; bold emphasis ours)
    Writing on the reasons for the collapse of the Abbasid Empire, Hitti says:
    Then there were the social and moral forces of disintegration. The blood of the conquering element became in course of centuries diluted with that of the conquered, with a subsequent loss of their dominating position and qualities. With the decay of the Arab national life, Arab stamina and morale broke down. Gradually the empire developed into an empire of the conquered. The large harems, made possible by the countless number of eunuchs, the girl and THE BOY SLAVES (ghilman), who contributed most to the degradation of womenhood AND DEGENERATION OF MANHOOD; the unlimited concubines and the number of half-brothers and half-sisters in the imperial household with their unavoidable jealousies and intrigues; the luxurious scale of high living with the emphasis on wine and song – all these and other similar forces sapped the vitality of family life and inevitably produced the persistently feeble heirs to the throne. The position of these feeble heirs was rendered still more feeble by their interminable disputes over a right of succession which was never definitely determined. (Ibid., 485; bold and underlined emphasis ours)
    Interestingly, the Quran seems to suggest that lesbianism will also be tolerated! Compare the following citations:
    Those who bear the power and those around Him celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask protection for those who believe: Our Lord! Thou embracest all things in mercy and knowledge, therefore grant protection to those who turn (to Thee) and follow Thy way, and save them from the punishment of the hell: Our Lord! and make them enter the gardens of perpetuity which Thou hast promised to them and those who do good of their fathers AND THEIR WIVES and their offspring, surely Thou are the Mighty, the Wise. S. 40:7-8 Shakir
    Whoever does an evil, he shall not be recompensed (with aught) but the like of it, and whoever does good, WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE, and he is a believer, these shall enter the garden, in which they shall be given sustenance without measure. S. 40:40 Shakir
    Lo! those who kept their duty dwell in gardens and delight, Happy because of what their Lord hath given them, and (because) their Lord hath warded off from them the torment of hell-fire. (And it is said unto them): Eat and drink in health (as a reward) for what ye used to do, Reclining on ranged couches. And we WED them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. And they who believe and whose seed follow them in faith, We cause their seed to join them (there), and We deprive them of nought of their (life’s) work. Every man is a pledge for that which he hath earned. And We provide them with fruit and meat such as they desire. There they pass from hand to hand a cup wherein is neither vanity nor cause of sin. S. 52:17-23 Pickthall
    Verily, for THE RIGHTEOUS is decreed a triumph – Walled gardens and grapevines, , And over-flowing cups. Therein they will hear no vain discourse nor lying; A recompense from thy Lord – a gift amply sufficient – S. 78:31-36 Sher Ali
    Islamic traditions unashamedly say that men will have perpetual sex with these beautiful wide-eyed virgins:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s Cause).”
    Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53)
    Muhammad reported that some (persons) stated with a sense of pride and some discussed whether there would be MORE MEN IN PARADISE OR MORE WOMEN. It was upon this that Abu Huraira reported that Abu’l Qasim (the Holy Prophet) (may peace be upon him) said: The (members) of the first group to get into Paradise would have their faces as bright as full moon during the night, and the next to this group would have their faces as bright as the shining stars in the sky, AND EVERY PERSON WOULD HAVE TWO WIVES and the marrow of their shanks would glimmer beneath the flesh and THERE WOULD BE NONE WITHOUT A WIFE IN PARADISE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number 6793; see also 6797)
    Narrated Anas ibn Malik
    The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “In Paradise the believer will be given such and such power to conduct sexual intercourse.” He was asked whether he would be capable of that and replied that he would be given the capacity of a hundred men. Tirmidhi transmitted it. (Al-Tirmidhi, Number 1482, ALIM CD-Rom Version)
    Here also is Ibn Kathir’s commentary on S. 56:35-37:
    Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,

    Anas said, “I asked, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,
    At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, “Sahih Gharib.” Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?” He said,

    Al-Hafiz Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, “In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 9 (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: September 2000], pp. 429-430; bold and capital emphasis ours)
    And also his comments on Surah 78:33:
    meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and others have said,
    “This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age …” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 10 (Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur’an) [First Edition: September 2000], pp. 333-334; bold and capital emphasis ours)
    This is in marked contrast to God’s true word, the Holy Bible:
    “So Jesus said to them, ‘The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, they can no longer die, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection.” Luke 20:34-36 NET Bible
    Reading these statements from the hadiths along with the passages of the Quran, one can safely infer that women will also have sex with the houris as well as with their husbands.
    We break it down so that our readers can see more clearly the implication of these statements:
    1. All (not just some, not just the male) believers who do good will enter Paradise.
    2. In Paradise, there will be young maidens and boys, fruits, meats, rivers of wine, honey, milk and water for all the believers to enjoy.
    3. Since women believers will also enter Paradise this means that they too will engage in “joyful” pleasures with young maidens.
    The following author presents the possible reasons why Muhammad would permit such perversions:
    To make his doctrine on sex more attractive to his followers, Muhammad assured them of having in Paradise a multiple of doe-eyed virgin houris with whom they would have sex ad infinitum. For those men who would not be interested in females, he made a different provision for them. They would be attended in Paradise, he told them, by young boys, graced with eternal youth, who to the beholders’ eyes, will seem like sprinkled pearls. When they would gaze upon the scene (a reference, perhaps, to human anatomy), said he, they would behold a kingdom blissful and glorious (human anatomy, again?). The boys shall be arrayed in garments of fine green silk and rich brocade, and adorned with bracelets of silver. Muhammad himself would give them pure and holy wine, mixed with camphor, to drink 76:19-21). In their state of drunkenness, those boys would be providing complete sexual pleasures to their pious masters, a tantalizing concept that induced many homosexual pagan men to accept Islam without having any regard to the consequences they were likely to face, before their death, in this world.
    From the Quran, we have learned much about the Paradise and the amenities it holds for its residents. It width is alone that of the whole of the heavens and the earth (3:133). It has everything to provide a blissful life to all of its occupants. It has more fruits than all the fruits our whole earth has; it has neither rain nor heat of the sun. It does not experience storms nor does it have the snow of the winter (76:13). By virtue of the controlled climate that the Paradise has, neither its present occupants need now nor its future inhabitants would need any homes to live within. All of its present occupants, prophets Idris and Isa (Jesus Christ to the Christians), being two among many others, have all along been living in the Paradise’s open sky. For comfort, they wear silk robes (76:12). They spend their time reclining on soft couches, shadowed by tree branches, from which always hang clusters of fruit (76:14).
    Paradise’s inhabitants partake their meals from silver dishes; they have large silver goblets for drinking not only the purest water but also the delectable wine (47:15); its measure being dependent on the drinker’s wish (76:16). No matter the quantity of wine one consumes, he never gets drunk. Instead, he feels a soothing sensation that makes him yearn for sex. If the blessed soul wishes for a female, a doe-eyed virgin houri presents herself for copulation. On the other hand, if another soul wishes for anal sex, he will find a boy, graced with eternal youth and appearing like sprinkled pearls, ready to satisfy carnal lust.
    Depending on the length of their respective erections, the Paradise’s inhabitants may remain locked with their partners for an indefinite period of time.
    And this goes on in an open space, where God appears every now and then to witness his beloved Muslim men’s performance. Aroused by unending erotic scenes, celibate Isa must also be enjoying uninterrupted sex either with the houris or with the boys to compensate for what he had missed during his short stay on earth.
    Copulations over, both the houri and the boy turn virgins once again, ready to serve those men who may wish to have them without a moment’s notice.
    Since pious Muslim men – – and their number is huge- – avoid excessive and entertaining sex in their ephemeral lives, the sight of most of their brethren engaging themselves, before their eyes, in sex in a large group will not appear to them like an orgy. Instead, it would appear to them as being another pious act in Paradise; its methodology, composition of partners and duration having been determined by God himself. (Mohammad Asghar, MUHAMMAD & ISLAM: Stories not told before, PART – 13)
    Now the authors may claim that the hadiths state that only men have sex with the maidens, not women. The problem with this claim is that the Quran nowhere says that only the men will have maidens of pleasure, but that this will be the reward of all believers which includes males and females. The authors must provide an explicit reference saying that the women will not have sex with these maidens of delight. They can’t simply assume this and pass it off as proof.
    The authors may also wish to argue that the Quran condemns homosexuality, to which we reply where does the Quran explicitly condemn it? One verse that is often appealed to is the following:
    And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. S. 4:16 Shakir
    Nothing stated here leads one to think that the author had homosexuality in mind. In fact, a totally different picture emerges once the passage is read in context:
    And such of your women who are guilty of any flagrant impropriety – call to witness four of you against them; and if they bear witness, then confine them to the houses until death overtakes them or ALLAH opens for them some other way. And if two from among you are guilty of it, punish them both. And if they repent and amend, then leave them alone; surely ALLAH is Oft-Returning with compassion and is ever Merciful. S. 4:15-16 Sher Ali
    From the context one can argue that 4:16 is referring to the women mentioned in verse 15, i.e. that Allah is prescribing the punishment to be imposed on immoral women, whether the nature of the immorality is sexual or something else. The late Maulana Muhammad Ali agrees since this is what he says about 4:16:
    The crime spoken of in this verse is the same as that in the previous verse. The committers are two, and though the masculine gender is used, it does not imply that they are both necessarily males. Slight punishment is explained by Qatadah as meaning reproving with the tongue (AH). Islam requires the utmost modesty in sexual relations.
    The reference to repentance in connection with the mention of fahishah is further proof that fahishah does not here mean fornication, but some immorality short of that, for fornication is punishable criminally, and penitence on the part of those guilty of it cannot avert the punishment (Ali, Holy Qur’an – Arabic Text, English Translation & Commentary [Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore Inc. USA 1995], p. 193, fn. 552; underlined emphasis ours)
    Now someone may argue that this interpretation is untenable since their punishment is already prescribed in verse 15. On the contrary, verse 15 says that this will be the prescribed punishment until Allah opens another way:
    … then confine them to the houses until death overtakes them OR ALLAH OPENS FOR THEM SOME OTHER WAY …
    Verse 16 prescribes this other way which Allah alluded to in the prior verse. In other words, verse 16 abrogates the punishment prescribed in verse 15. This is not the only time where one verse abrogates the verse right before it:
    O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence. Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast. S. 8:65-66 Pickthall
    4:16 may also be including the male involved in the act, so that both the male and female participants are singled out. Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi says:
    584. (whether men or women, married or unmarried). The enactment here is general. It speaks of any two persons guilty of the act, in contradistinction to ‘married women’ of the previous verse. In several nations, as among the Greeks and in the earlier period of Roman history, there was no recognition of the offence of adultery, ‘unless a married woman was the offender.’ (Tafsir-Ul-Qur’an Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’an, Volume I [Darul-Ishaat Urdu Bazar, Karachi-1, Pakistan; First edition: 1991], p. 311)
    This is perhaps why Rashid Khalifa translated it in the following manner:
    The couple who commits adultery shall be punished. If they repent and reform, you shall leave them alone. GOD is Redeemer, Most Merciful.
    Muhammad Asad’s notes provide evidence for understanding the verse in this manner, since he writes:
    … According to most of the commentators, this refers to the immoral conduct on the part of a man and a woman as well as to homosexual relations. (Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 104, fn. 13: http://www.geocities.com/masad02/004; underlined emphasis ours)
    Apart from the claim that some took this in reference to homosexual relations, Asad demonstrates that there is nothing in the wording of 4:16 that necessarily points to it. One must first assume that this refers to homosexuality and then proceed to read that into the text. Asad also writes:
    … Some of the commentators attribute to the term fahishah (here rendered as “immoral conduct”) the meaning of “adultery” or “fornication” and are, consequently, of the opinion that this verse has been “abrogated” by 24: 2, which lays down the punishment of one hundred stripes for each of the guilty parties. This unwarranted assumption must, however, be rejected. Quite apart from the impossibility of admitting that any passage of the Qur’an could have been “abrogated” by another of its passages (see surah 2, note 87), the expression fahishah DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, CONNOTE ILLICIT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE: it signifies anything that is GROSSLY IMMODEST, unseemly, lewd, indecent or ABOMINABLE IN WORD OR DEED (cf. Lane VI, 2344f.), AND IS BY NO MEANS RESTRICTED TO SEXUAL TRANSGRESSION. Read in this context, and in conjunction with 24:2, this expression obviously denotes here immoral conduct not necessarily amounting to what is termed zina (i.e., “adultery” or “fornication”), and therefore redeemable by sincere repentance (in contrast to a proven act of zina, which is punishable by flogging). – It is noteworthy that in all cases of alleged sexual transgressions or misbehaviour the Qur’an stipulates the direct evidence of four witnesses (instead of the two required in all other judicial cases) as a sine qua non of conviction. For the reasons underlying this injunction, as well as for its judicial implications, see note 7 on 24:4. (Ibid., fn. 14; bold and capital emphasis ours)
    Asad shows that there is nothing contextually which necessarily points to homosexuality. As a side note, Asad rejected the widely held Muslim belief that the Quran abrogates itself and it is therefore not surprising that he rejected the opinions of Muslims regarding the abrogation of 4:16.
    The authors may try to appeal to the story of Lot in the Quran where the men of the town are considered immoral for wanting to sleep with the male guests:
    And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty. S. 7:80-84 Shakir
    And when Our messengers came unto Lot, he was distressed and knew not how to protect them. He said: This is a distressful day. And his people came unto him, running towards him – and before then they used to commit abominations – He said: O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man? They said: Well thou knowest that we have no right to thy daughters, and well thou knowest what we want. He said: Would that I had strength to resist you or had some strong support (among you)! (The messengers) said: O Lot! Lo! we are messengers of thy Lord; they shall not reach thee. So travel with thy people in a part of the night, and let not one of you turn round – (all) save thy wife. Lo! that which smiteth them will smite her (also). Lo! their tryst is (for) the morning. Is not the morning nigh? So when Our commandment came to pass We overthrew (that township) and rained upon it stones of clay, one after another, Marked with fire in the providence of thy Lord (for the destruction of the wicked). And they are never far from the wrong-doers. S. 11:77-83 Pickthall
    But even here the authors are without support for the following reasons. First, one can argue from the context that what the Quran is condemning is gang rape, i.e. that a group of men wanted to sleep with the male guests against their will. Trying to appeal to Lot’s negative comments about their lust of men and his willingness to offer his daughters in place of his guests to prove their point that Allah condemns homosexuality won’t work. Appealing to Lot would mean that the authors’ would have to then agree that Lot’s willingness to allow his daughters to be violated by these men was something also acceptable in God’s sight. Lot was obviously wrong in even suggesting that the evildoers sleep with his daughters, implying that he may have also been wrong in his views regarding same sex relations (at least as far as the Quran is concerned). The only way the authors can show that Lot’s negative view of same sex relations was right is to quote passages from the Quran explicitly stating this.
    The authors may try to argue that the Quranic account echoes the Genesis story and since the OT condemns homosexuality the Quran would therefore be in agreement. (Cf. Lev. 18:22; 20:13)
    Even though the evil men’s desire to sleep with the male guests would be condemned as a homosexual act in light of the overall context of the Pentateuch, this doesn’t necessarily mean that this is the case with the Quran. For instance, the Quran permits sexual relations which the Pentateuch condemns as abominable. Compare the following:
    “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.” Deuteronomy 24:1-4
    In contrast with:
    “A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. So do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand.” S. 2:229-230
    The Ahadith state:
    Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Miswar ibn Rifaa al-Quradhi from az-Zubayr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr that Rifaa ibn Simwal divorced his wife, Tamima bint Wahb, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, three times. Then she married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr and he turned from her and could not consummate the marriage and so he parted from her. Rifaa wanted to marry her again and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he forbade him to marry her. He said, “She is not halal for you until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse.” (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.17; see also Number 28.7.18)
    In light of the foregoing one can argue that, since the Quran nowhere explicitly condemns homosexuality, the men of Lot were not being judged for having homosexual inclinations but for wanting to rape the guests against their will.
    The authors may shout “not so fast,” and appeal to the next quotation which says that Allah designed for a man to marry a woman:
    The people of Lut gave the lie to the apostles. When their brother Lut said to them: Will you not guard (against evil)? Surely I am a faithful apostle to you; Therefore guard against (the punishment of) Allah and obey me: And I do not ask you any reward for it; my reward is only with the Lord of the worlds; What! do you come to the males from among the creatures And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits. They said: If you desist not, O Lut! you shall surely be of those who are expelled. He said: Surely I am of those who utterly abhor your doing: S. 26:160-168 Shakir
    Yet again this can be easily explained away. One can argue that Allah wasn’t rebuking them so much for wanting to have sex with men, but for wanting to forsake their wives. In other words, had these been unmarried men than there would have been no problem with them having sex with other men. Therefore, this passage can only be used to show that a man cannot abandon his wife to sleep with another man, but can only do so if he is single.
    The authors may still appeal to other passages such as S. 29:28-29 where Lot condemns the men for coming into other men.
    One could account for the above by arguing that the condemnation of homosexuality in Lot’s story only shows that it was not acceptable at that time period. One can equally argue that just as the Quran abrogated other forbidden sexual relations, such as the Mosaic prohibition of marrying one’s former wife who had remarried, the Quran also did away with the prohibition of homosexuality; especially when we take this in light of the passages that imply that homosexual relations will be permitted in, of all places, Paradise!
    In one last act of desperation the authors may turn to the hadiths to prove that Islam condemns homosexuality. Note for instance the following hadiths:
    Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
    The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, “Turn them out of your houses.” The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 774; see also Volume 8, Book 82, Number 820)
    Narrated Um Salama:
    that once the Prophet was in her house, and an effeminate man was there too. The effeminate man said to ‘Abdullah, (Um Salama’s brother) “O ‘Abdullah! If Ta’if should be conquered tomorrow, I recommend you the daughter of Ghailan, for she is so fat that she has four curves in the front (of her belly) and eight at the back.” So the Prophet said (to his wives) “These effeminate (men) should not enter upon you (your houses).” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 775; see also Volume 7, Book 72, Number 774; Book 62, Number 162; Volume 5, Book 59, Number 613)
    Again, several responses are in order. First, these traditions would simply point to contradictions between the Quran and the ahadith. The rule of thumb is that when the ahadith contradict the Quran than the ahadith are to be rejected. Second, none of these hadiths condemn homosexuality, but condemn men for acting like women and vice-versa. This view is supported by the following hadith:
    Malik said from Hisham ibn Urwa from his father that an effeminate man was with Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He said to Abdullah ibn Abi Umayya while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was listening. “Abdullah! If Allah grants you victory over Ta’if tomorrow, I will lead you to the daughter of Ghailan. She has four folds on her front and eight folds on her back.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “This sort of man should not enter freely with you.” (It was customary to allow men with no sexual inclination to enter freely where there were women). (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 37, Number 37.6.5)
    Thus, we have to ask: Why were there effeminate men to begin with? What were they doing there with the Muslims and why didn’t Muhammad punish them for being effeminate? This leads me to my final point.
    If the Quran does condemn homosexuality then what is the punishment that it prescribes for those practicing it? We find passages prescribing the punishment of fornicators and adulterers, but where is the prescribed punishment for homosexuals? The following author, although erroneously assuming that Surah 4:16 refers to homosexuality, candidly admits:
    That homosexuality must be treated as a crime in a Moslem State is evident from the story of Lot and his people. Verse IV.20 says: “If two men commit indecency punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, let them be.” In this case NO SPECIAL PENALTY HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED. (Faruq Sherif, A Guide to the Contents of the Quran [Garnet Publishing Limited, UK (printed in Lebanon); reprinted 1995, 1998], p. 214; bold and capital emphasis ours)
    Equally important, where does the Quran explicitly condemn lesbainism? Where is there any passage prescribing punishment for lesbians? There is no such passage.
    Now I am sure that the authors would accuse me of twisting the passages of the Quran regarding homosexuality so as to avoid accepting its condemnation of such a practice. They would say that the reason why I fail to see what the Quran says about homosexuality is because my “perverted” mind blinds me from seeing it. I would respond by saying that this is precisely the same problem the authors have when they accuse the holy Apostle Paul of being a homosexual despite his clear condemnation of such relations.
    For more on Islam and homosexuality we highly recommend the following book: Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature, by Stephen O. Murray (editor), Publisher: New York University Press; (January 1997), ISBN: 0814774679. The contributing authors demonstrate just how prevalent the practice of homosexuality, including lesbianism, was in Muslim lands throughout the centuries.
    Also, the following web site makes available upon request an article where they produce evidence they feel sufficiently proves that Muhammad was gay:
    In the following links, author Faris Malik attempts to make a strong case for the permissbility of having passive homosexual relations by examining some Quranic passages and hadiths:
    Another Muslim site defending homosexuality: http://www.al-fatiha.org.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s