In one of my article in this Blog, I have introduced Nadir Ahmed to my viewers. He is a self-proclaimed Scholar of Islam, who thinks that critics of Islam fear his intelligence and knowledge on Islam and comparative religion. After going through his refutations to Ali Sina, I decided to dedicate a short rebuttal to his claims, which can be viewed here.
I sent him link of my page and got an instant reply from him. In this page we will see his replies following my comments. I’ll keep updating this page, as the discussion progresses. Comments in ( ) are my opinion on his reply, which was not present in original mail, and is added later by me, for clarification of his mail. Following is the Nadir’s response to my page.
|I accuse Muhammad of being unfit and unworthy to be a messenger of God.|
Nadir Ahmed:- who cares… yawn…
So, it is Ok with you if Muhammad is discredited from being a Messenger of God, then what is the use of Message which he taught? First you need to prove Muhammad was messenger of God, then we will consider the message.
Bk 4, Number 2127:
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said:Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi’ (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.
Why Muslims choose whatever suits to their demand. In your last mail, you said “Aisha was a GIRL. not a woman. Thus this hadith teaches it is ok to spank a child.”
Now the problem is, when critics and Ex-Muslims started accusing Muhammad of being Pedophile. Muslims came up with the theory that Aisha’s age was not 6 year, when she was Married. First you need to settle this matter with your own Muslim community, who say Aisha was elder than 15 years when she was Married. For reference see this link:- http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html
So this topic is still in debate whether she was Child or Women. So, her beating cannot be justified. If she was Women, then Ali Sina’s claim is true that Muhammad beat women, and if she was Child then Prophet was pedophile.
You asked me to ask Ali Sina to debate you, but last time when both of you had debate, you kept asking him to debate him on topic, “Quran and Science”. Why not something else, which both of you agree to debate. In the FFI’s forum you ignored comments by readers, which accused Muhammad to be unfit of being a Messenger of God. So, why not debate on Muhammad’s character.
1 Samuel 15:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Anas said, “Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.” Bukhari 1.4.234
“He [Muhammad] had their hands and feet cut off, ordered nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in a rocky land to die slowly. Anas said that they asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died. Bukhari 4.02.261Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.” Muslim 19: 4292
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.[9:5]
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.[9:29]
Nadir Ahmad is so dense that he does not realize when he is defeated. He beats his chest when he is actually proven wrong.
Here is the full debate that I had with him.
Just read it and see how pathetic he sounds.
Nadir is not a scholar and I have made a rule that I will either debate with scholars or with those who have read my book. So if he wants to debate with me he has to read my book, which I will send him a copy.
I saw Nadir’s debate with Sam Shameon. Now if after that he still has the face to show in public, then this man truely is incapable of realizing when he is being defeated. Sam destoryed the poor Nadir and he did it with grace and effortlessly.
If he thinks he has defeated me then he is delusional. This is a psychological problem and there is nothing I can do to help. I can defeat him a million times and each time he will jump back and while his nose is bleeding, he will claim “yet another victory.” What can you do with a man like that?
Anyway, as I said, I will debate either with scholars or with those who have read my book. Nadir is no scholar. So let him read my book and then I will debate with him.
All the best
Now, when we talk about debate, are we talking about some written back and forth type nonsense? or can this coward face me , I will even settle for Skype, I suppose i can read his foolish writings, but what topic shall we discuss ?
“Muhammad and his followers destroyed all the books that belonged to the pre Islamic era of “jahiliyyah”. If no other book prior to Muhammad mentions this city it is because Muhammad burned those books.”
“The history reports the burning of the libraries in virtually all the countries that Muslims invaded. The most famous one of then was the huge library of Alexandria.”
The longest version of the story is in the Syriac Christian author Bar-Hebraeus (1226–1286), also known as Abu’l Faraj. He translated extracts from his history, the Chronicum Syriacum into Arabic, and added extra material from Arab sources. In this Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum he describes a certain “John Grammaticus” (490–570) asking Amr for the “books in the royal library”. Amr writes to Omar for instructions, and Omar replies: “If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.” [Source]
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 1, Number 0142:I have a wife who has something (wrong) in her tongue, i.e. she is insolent. He said: Then divorce her. I said: Messenger of Allah, she had company with me and I have children from her. He said: Then ask her (to obey you). If there is something good in her, she will do so (obey); and do not beat your wife as you beat your slave−girl.
Sunan Abu Dawood Book 11, Number 2142:Narrated Umar ibn al−Khattab: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
In that debate, Robert tried to show you that the way you are interpreting the Qu’ranic verses, are your exclusive interpretation, and the Muslim world does not interprets Qu’ran, as you do, nor the Islamic scholars do. Now you need to answer this, that why most Islamic scholars does not interprets Qur’an the way you do?
Robert Spencer quotes Qur’an 9:29 to prove that Islam preaches believers to fight against non-believers because they are Non-Believers, but you tried to give your own interpretation to that verse. As most of scholars of Islam support Robert’s view on that verse. Let’s start with the very verse 9:29, which says:-
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets .
The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time, one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful, well organized and civilized Islamic State. This Treaty afforded further opportunities to Islam to spread its influence in the comparatively peaceful atmosphere created by it. After this Treaty, two events took place, which led to very important results.
Further he says:-
If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:
- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
- Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam. Therefore the following measures were adopted:
- A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it.
- A decree was issued that the guardianship of the Ka`abah, which held central position in all the affairs of Arabia, should be wrested from the mushriks and placed permanently in the hands of the Believers, (vv. 12-18) that all the customs and practices of the shirk of the era of ‘ignorance’ should be forcibly abolished: that the mushriksshould not be allowed even to come near the “House” (v. 28). This was to eradicate every trace of shirk from the “House” that was dedicated exclusively to the worship of Allah.
- The evil practice of Nasi, by which they used to tamper with the sacred months in the days of ‘ignorance’, was forbidden as an act of kufr(v. 37). This was also to serve as an example to the Muslims for eradicating every vestige of the customs of ignorance from the life of Arabia (and afterwards from the lives of the Muslims everywhere).
- In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.
Isn’t this enough historical evidences from Islamic scholars, who clearly states that the verse we are discussing was revealed to extend influence of Islam outside Arabia.
Waiting for your reply.