|
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
and Khalid Zaheer vs. Ali
Sina
Part XI
The following is another chapter of the book written
by Dr. Ghamidi, where he explains the concept of jihad. As you read this
piece, I would like you to keep in mind that Dr. Ghamidi is a moderate
Muslim. This article will show you how moderate Muslims think and you will
learn about their stance on jihad and how they think the non-Muslims
should be treated.
|
[Ghamidi, Javed A. (2005); “The Islamic Shari’ah of Jihad”
translated by Shehzad Saleem; pp. 3-5;
Lahore
: Al-Mawrid,
Institute
of
Islamic Sciences
]
For the second objective, the words used in Surah Baqarah and Surah Anfal
(the second and the eighth chapters of the Qur’an) are “Allah’s
religion reigns supreme” and “all of Allah’s religion reigns supreme”
respectively. Prior to them, the word “fight them” directs the Muslims
to wage war. The antecedent of the pronoun “them” in this statement is
the Idolaters of
Arabia
. Consequently, these expressions mean that in the
land
of
Arabia
the religion of Islam would reign supreme. This purpose could only have
been achieved in two ways: either the followers of all other religions
were to be put to death or they were to be subdued and subjugated
completely. Consequently, after many phases interspersed with
periods of both war and peace when the disbelievers were totally
humiliated, both these ways were adopted. Muslims were directed to kill
the Idolaters of Arabia if they did not accept faith and to let the Jews
and Christians live on their own religions if they accepted to pay jizyah
(the non-Muslim tax) and live a life of total subjugation to the Islamic
state established in
Arabia
.However, the active adversaries among them were put to death or exiled
whenever it became possible.
It has been written at the very beginning of this article that the
various measures adopted by the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta)
including warfare were all Divinely ordained. These measures do not belong
to the common shar’iah law of Islam. Rather they belong to a specific
law that can be termed as the law of itmam al-hujjah (unveiling
of truth in an undeniable form). This law can be summarized thus: When the truth of a rasul’s (messenger’s) message is
unveiled to a people in its ultimate form such that
no one has any excuse to deny it, the rejecters of this truth are punished
in this very world.
|
This seems to be a gross miscalculation on the part
of Allah, who appoints fallible people to judge the faith of others and if
in their opinion it does not measure up, kill them. Consequently
Muslims, following this directive, engage in acts of terrorism and wage
war against others and each other. It is natural that each person thinks
he has found the truth. These directives of Allah entitle them to declare
war on those who do not think like them and kill them, with clarity of conscience
thinking that they are doing God’s work. It is irrational to believe
that God needs humans to do what should be strictly his work.
|
The
history of this worldly Judgment as mentioned in the Qur’an shows that
the nature of the punishment meted out is generally of two forms:
In one form, a rasul (messenger) has very few companions, and, also does
not have a place to migrate. In the second one, he migrates with a
considerable number of companions. In fact, even before he even does so,
the Almighty arranges for them a territory where they can migrate and live
there as its sovereigns with freedom. In both these cases, the established
practice of the Almighty regarding His rusul (messenger) manifests itself
– the practice which the Qur’an describes in the following words:
“Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messenger are bound to be
humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: ‘I and My Messengers shall always
prevail’. Indeed Allah is Mighty and Powerful.” (58:20-1)
In the first case, this humiliation takes the form of Divine punishment
that descends upon the adversaries of a rasul (messenger) in the form of
raging storms, cyclones and other calamities, which completely destroy
them. It is evident from the Qur’an that the nations of Noah (sws),
Lot
(sws), Salih (sws) and Shu‘ayb (sws) along with some other nations of
rusul (messenger) met with this dreadful fate. The only exception to this
were the People of the Book (the Israelites) who were not destroyed
because, being the People of the Book, they were basically adherents to
monotheism. Their humiliation
took the form of constant subjugation to the followers of Jesus (sws) till
the Day of Judgment.
|
If we are to believe that these natural calamities
are acts of Divine punishment, then we must conclude that God punishes
Muslims most because they generally are affected more by these natural
calamities. Furthermore, if Allah has such a low self esteem and is
offended so much by the disbelief of his creatures that only by killing
them he can feel better, why he does not kill only those who disbelieve?
Can’t he make his detractors fall dead with a stroke, heart attack or by
blowing them into pieces? Why should he resort to these total acts of
terrorism, killing so many people indiscriminately? Generally in these
“acts of Gods” children are the ones who suffer most. If truly God is
this insane, he is for sure unworthy of praise.
These natural calamities have nothing to do with God. They are acts of
nature. It just happens that we are in the way and get caught. The claim
that these are acts of God is yet another blatant fallacy. Only this
illogical claim is enough to discredit Islam or any religion that makes
such ridiculous claim.
|
In the second case, a rasul (messenger) and his companions subdue
their nation by force, and execute them if they do not accept faith.
In this case, his addressees are given some more respite. In this period,
the rasul (messenger) does itmam al-hujjah (unveiling of truth in an
undeniable form) on the inhabitants of the land to which he had migrated.
He morally purifies and reforms his followers and prepares them for a
final onslaught with evil. He also consolidates his political
power in the land so that he is able to root out the disbelievers and
establish the supremacy of the believers through this political power.
|
Is reducing people into assassins and murderers moral
purification? What kind of morality are we talking about? Muhammad was
given asylum in
Medina
and his payback was to divide the population and then subdue, banish and
massacre its original inhabitants. Is this moral? No wonder this is what
Muslims intend to do in
Europe
. The point is that Muslims have a totally different understanding of the
term evil. In the Muslims’ eyes, assassination, raiding, looting, raping
and even genocide are not evil and immoral acts when the victims are
non-Muslims. However, freedom of thought is an evil thing that has to be
eradicated.
|
It was this situation which had arisen in the case of the
rasul (messenger) Muhammad (sws). After itmam al-hujjah (unveiling of
truth in an undeniable form), it was the Jews who were subdued first. They
had been granted amnesty because of various pacts. Those among them who
violated these pacts were given the punishment of denying a rasul
(messenger) of God. The prophet (sws) exiled the tribe of Banu Qaynuqa‘
to Khayber and that of Banu Nadir to Syria. The power they wielded at
Khaybar was crushed by an attack at their strongholds. Prior to this, Abu
Rafi‘ and Ka‘b Ibn Ashraf were put to death in their houses. The tribe
of Banu Qurayzah was guilty of treachery and disloyalty in the battle of
Ahzab. When the clouds of war dispersed and the chances of an external
attack no longer remained, the Prophet (sws) laid siege around them. When
no hope remained, they asked the Prophet (sws) to appoint Sa‘d Ibn Mu‘adh
(rta) as an arbitrator to decide their fate. Their request was accepted.
Since, at that time, no specific punishment had been revealed in the Qur’an
about the fate of the Jews, Sa‘d announced his verdict in accordance
with the Torah. As per the Torah, the punishment for treason was that all
men should be put to death; the women and children
should be enslaved and the wealth of the whole nation should be
distributed among the conquerors. In accordance with this pronounced
verdict, all men were executed.
|
And you don’t see anything wrong in this picture?
Muhammad treacherously assassinates his critics, among them a centenarian
man called Abu Afak and a nursing mother of five named Asma. He banished
entire tribes, looting their property and butchering hundreds of men
falsely accusing them of conspiring against him with his enemies, the
Ahzabs. If that accusation was true, then why the Ahzab left and did not
attack Medina? Lies and deceptions were the traits of Muhammad. He made this false
accusation to justify his evil acts, kill those who had hurt his gigantic
ego by rejecting him and take possession of their wealth. Who was Sa’d
to pass such judgment on so many innocent people? Wasn’t Muhammad in
touch with Allah? Why this Allah who was so fast to reveal verses to
justify Muhammad’s lustfulness and often acted as his pimp, when it came
to such an important decision that involved the lives of an entire
population, left it all to a ruffian thug, a wounded and dying man in pain,
a bodyguard of Muhammad to pass judgment? Was that judgment fair? Even if
the psychopath Muhammad rejoiced and said Sa’d had judged with Allah’s
wisdom, why Allah did not stop this insane butchery? Assuming the lies of
Muhammad about the Banu Quraiza were true, did all the men in this tribe
deserve death? Did that
warrant such punishment? Muhammad ordered the inspection of the genitals
of boys to determine if they had grown pubic hair and if so he counted
them amongst men and beheaded them. Is this justice? What about the fate of
the women and children who became slaves? What was their fault?
Here is where Dr. Ghamidi that you can prove that you
are a human. It is here that you have to denounce Muhammad and say in a
clear voice that what he did was evil. By justifying this monstrous crime
you become less human. What defines us as humans is our humanity. If you
have already lost it, what else is left in you?
The
Pakistani soldiers and the Pakistani president committed despicable acts
of barbarity in 1971 in Bangladesh, massacring 3,000,000 unarmed civilians
and rapping 250,000 women (God knows how many more did not report out of
shame or were part of those killed after being raped). This is a real
crime, not like the bogus accusations made by Muhammad against the Banu
Quraiza. What do you think should be done to the entire Pakistani nation?
Should every Pakistani man be put to death and all their women and
children taken as slaves? This is what Muhammad did to the Banu Quraiza.
It is unconscionable to defend those acts. Everything Muhammad did was
shameful and despicable but this takes the crown.
Any person who can’t see the evilness of this massacre is evil
himself
|
No other incident worthy of note took place regarding the
Jews until in Surah Tawbah (ninth chapter of Qur’an) the final judgment
was declared against them:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which has 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 (the non-Muslim tax) with willing submission and
are subdued.” (9:29)
This directive related to both the Jews and the Christians. The punishment
mentioned in these verses was in fact a show of great lenience to them
because of the fact that they were originally adherents to monotheism. In
reality, they had become worthy of death and destruction after
deliberately denying Muhammad (sws). However, they did not benefit from
this lenience because after the death of the Prophet (sws) they once again
resorted to fraud and treachery. Consequently, the Jews of Khaybar
and the Christians of Najran were exile once and for all from the Arabian
peninsula by the Caliph ‘Umar (rta). This exile in fact thus fulfilled
the following declaration of the Qur’an about them:
“And had it not been that Allah had decreed exile for them, He would
certainly have punished them in this world; and in the Hereafter theirs
shall be the torment of the Fire.” (59:3)
When the Idolaters of Arabia had been similarly subdued, it was proclaimed
in Surah Tawbah (the ninth chapter of the Qur’an) that in future no pact
would be made with them. They would be given a final respite of four
months and then they would be humiliated in retribution of their deeds and
would in no way be able to escape from this punishment (Qur’an; 9:1-2).
Consequently, Makkah was conquered and just as some of the active
adversaries among them
had been executed when they were caught as prisoners in the battle of Badr
and Uhud, similarly at this occasion also such adversaries were put to
death.
|
Here
Muhammad put to death people who had ridiculed him. You can’t escape the
wrath of a narcissist after humiliating him. To a narcissist this is the
gravest crime. He is mostly concerned about his ego. Among the victims of
Muhammad were a street performer poet Ibn Khatal and his two dancing girls, who had
mocked him when he was in
Mecca. He did not forget that. A narcissist never forgets and never forgives.
The god of Muhammad resembles him. Allah too is a vengeful psychopath narcissist
because he is Muhammad's own alter ego.
|
Prior to this, the directive had been revealed about them that it
should be proclaimed at the time of the great pilgrimage, hajj-i-akbar,
(9th Hijra: the ninth year after the prophet’s migration to Madinah)
that once the forbidden months would be over, Muslims should slay the
Idolaters wherever they find them except if they accept faith, establish
the prayer and pay zakah (the religious tax). However, those among them who were bound in time-barred pacts with
Muslims were an exception to this directive. Muslims were asked to honour
these contracts until their stipulated time period was over if their
adversaries abided by them. The implication was clear: once the
time period expired, these adversaries would also meet the fate that had
been ordained for all the Idolaters of Arabia. They were to be killed in
case they did not accept faith. This declaration was made in the Qur’an
in the following words:
|
I think the implication for us also must be clear.
Muslims will make treaties as long as they are weak, once they become
strong, they do not need anymore to make any treaties and will fall on the
weaker nations forcing them to convert or be killed. Dr. Ghamidi is
spelling the evilness of Islam in a very clear language. We would not pay
heed to what he says at our own peril.
|
“And a declaration should be made from Allah and His Messenger to these
people on the day of the great hajj (pilgrimage) that Allah is free from
[all] obligations to these Idolaters and so is His Messenger. So if you [O
Idolaters!] repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know
that you cannot escape from the grasp of Allah. And give tidings [O
Muhammad (sws)!] of a painful torment to these disbelievers. Except those
of these Idolaters with whom you have a treaty, and who have not shown
treachery in it nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their
treaty to the end of their term. Indeed, Allah loves those who abide by
the limits. Then when the sacred months [after the hajj] have passed, kill
these Idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them,
and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and
establish the
prayer, and give zakah (the religious tax), then leave them alone. Indeed,
Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:3-5)
|
Thank you Dr. Ghamidi for your candidness and for not trying to
dissimulate the truth. You stated the facts better that me. These confessions coming from you carry far more weight than when they are
said by me in the form of accusations. You are a Muslim of the
moderate variety and yet you see no wrong in all these evil deeds and acts
of intolerance and inhumanity perpetrated by Muhammad. You are not trying
in anyways to pretend to be apologetic but are telling things as they are.
The implication for us kafirs should also be clear.
Muslims are not going to deal with us any better than their prophet dealt
with the non-believers of his time, should we let them get the upper
hand. If now they show restraint and
are not engaged in wholesale massacre of non-Muslims, it is because they
are weak. As Dr. Ghamidi explained, Muhammad did not kill anyone when he
was living in
Mecca, was weak and knew that he could be punished for his crime. Once he was safe amongst his followers and untouchable, he committed all sorts of crimes,
assassinations and murders. Today Muslims are weak. They do
as their prophet did. They wait until they gain the strength. Then they
will not stop until they subdue each and every person on this planet, kill
them or reduce them into dhimmitude.
|
With these measures, the basic objective of war stated by the
words “all of Allah’s religion reigns supreme” was achieved in the
ultimate sense. However, it is explained above that as per the law of
itmam al-hujjah (unveiling of truth in an undeniable form), all these
measures were an obvious outcome of the fact that first the shahadah
(bearing witness to the truth) was established through the Prophet (sws)
on the Idolaters and the People of the Book of Arabia and second because
of this worldly retribution that took place in Arabia, this
shahadah was established on certain nations outside Arabia.
Consequently, it was as a result of this that after the truce of
Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet (sws) himself, singled out these nations by
writing letters to them. The territories of these nations were almost the
same as those which in the Torah are called the inherited land of the
progeny of Abraham. In all, they were written to the heads of eight
countries. Consequently, after consolidating their rule in the Arabian
peninsula, the Companions (rta), in order to implement this judgment of
the Almighty, launched attacks against these countries giving them two options if they wanted to remain
alive: to accept faith or to accept a life of subjugation by paying jizya
(the non-Muslim tax). None of these nations was an adherent to polytheism
in the real sense, otherwise they would have been treated in the same way
as the Idolaters of Arabia.
It is evident from these details that all these armed campaigns and offensives were not
merely qital (war), they were in reality a punishment of the Almighty.
This punishment, which is meted out to those who deliberately deny the
truth of a rasul’s (messenger’s) message, is an established practice
of Allah. As a Divine scheme, it descended first upon the Idolaters
and the People of the Book of Arabia and then to certain other nations
outside it. Consequently, it is absolutely certain that fighting those who
have deliberately rejected the truth and forcing the vanquished to lead a
life of subjugation by imposing jizyah (the non-Muslim tax) on them is no
longer allowed. For Muslims, the sole ground of war now is injustice and
oppression. They cannot wage war on any other ground any more. (ibid, pp.
27-33)
|
Hold
on Dr. Ghamidi. The fact that what Muhammad did was utterly evil is beyond
proof. You justify all his crimes because in your opinion he was following
the orders of the Almighty. This is however what you have yet to prove and
we are waiting for that “undeniable proof”. Please tell us how did you
conclude that those directives have ended and the further attacks of
Muslims on non-Muslim nations are unwarranted? Is this a personal opinion
or is it something you can back up with the Quran? All other Muslims who
engage in Jihad today seem to have missed this verse. Will you please show
us where does it say, after the conquest of these eight nations, jihad
must end? I
can show you that Muhammad broke even his own (allegedly Allah's) words in the
Qur'an. In no less
than two places he said he came for the Meccans and for its surroundings.
(6.92,
42.7) Also in verses 32.3 and 36:6 he said that he was
ordered to admonish people whom no warner has come to them. This excludes
the people of the Book. Muhammad lied and made rules as situation
dictated.
|
The
fact of the matter is that the prophet, may God be pleased with him, as a
true follower of Qur’anc teachings, was extremely careful on the
question of taking the life of fellow humans. He never allowed anyone to
kill another human being without a legitimate reason.
|
Legitimate reason? Do you really think the massacre
of an entire population is legitimate under any circumstance? Is it
legitimate to raid and massacre those who want to worship a god different
to yours or not worship at all? Do I and those who think like me
have the same right to massacre the Muslims because we are convinced that
Muslims are blasphemers and idolaters and that Allah is Satan?
|
During
the first thirteen years of his stay in Makkah as a prophet, he and his
companions were criticized, condemned, and even persecuted by the leaders
of the tribe of Quraish for accepting a faith different from theirs.
However, he always advised his companions to remain patient on the face of
adversities. On migrating to Madinah, battles were imposed on him by the
enemies which when they were fought they were fought gallantly. During
these battles, clear instructions were given that no non-combatant person
should be touched nor the assets not relevant to the battle be destroyed.
|
The above short paragraph contains no less than five
fallacies.
1- The first fallacy is that when Muhammad was in Mecca, he had no more
than 70 or 80 followers, most of whom where renegade youths or
dispossessed slaves and therefore he had no choice but to refrain
from any violence. Only when he came to
Medina
and could get away with his crimes he showed his real face. Even the most
hardened criminals, act with self restraint when they know they can't get
away with their crimes. Only if they can
behave when they are free, can we say that they are
reformed.
Son of Sam is an American psychopath who had killed many people just
for the fun of it and for having the public attention. Now that he is
caught and has no possibility of killing he has become a born again
Christian feigning piety and preaching “hope”. This monster would
again start killing if he can get away. The fact that Muhammad did not
kill anyone when he could not do it is not proof that he was a good man.
Even Hitler did not kill anyone while he could not do it.
2- The second fallacy is the claim of persecution. The Qurish did not
persecute the Muslims for their faiths. They were polytheists and as such they could not care less what others
worshiped.
Polytheists are tolerant of differing beliefs by their very nature. It's
only the monotheists who think they are the sole possessors of the
absolute truth and often are intolerant of other faiths. In
Arabia,
prior to Islam, there were a multitude of faiths, all living side by side
in harmony. Although Arabs fought with one another for the same
reasons that other people fought in those days, religious animosity and persecutions
were unheard of. Ka’ba alone housed 360 deities, each a patron of a
different tribe. There were also many Christians, Jews, Sabeans, and even
Zoroastrians who practiced their faiths freely.
Khadijah was a Hanifi and her cousin was a Christian monk. So accusing
the Quraish of persecuting the Muslims for their faith is preposterous. (I
have refuted this claim elsewhere in more detail.) Muhammad taunted the Meccans for 13 years and they did not
harm him. There
is no proof whatsoever that they intended to kill him when he claimed
to have received intimation from Allah that this is what they were
planning to do. In verse 8:30 Allah guesses that they were about to
"keep you in bounds, or slay you
or get you out (of you home). The All knowing Allah is unaware of what the
Quraish were about to do. It is clear that this verse was concocted
by Muhammad himself. As a narcissist he was paranoid. Paranoid
people have persecution complex. This was true in the case of Hitler,
Stalin, Saddam, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson and virtually all
other psychopath narcissists. The origin
of this bogus claim should be sought in Muhammad’s psychopathology and
not in the actions of the Meccans.
3- The third fallacy is your claim that war was imposed
on Muslims by the Quraish. It is amazing that you should say that when
just a few paragraph earlier you stated "Consequently, after consolidating their rule in the Arabian
peninsula, the Companions (rta), in order to implement this judgment of
the Almighty, launched attacks against these countries giving them two options if they wanted to remain
alive: to accept faith or to accept a life of subjugation by paying jizya
(the non-Muslim tax)."
None of the victims of Islam including the Quraish
initiated the hostilities. All hostilities began by Muhammad and his
marauding gang. It was
Muhammad who kept raiding the Meccan caravans and making life impossible for
them forcing them to come to the defense of their caravan at Badr and then
try to attack Medina
during the war of Khandaq to put an end to the nightmare that Muhammad had
caused them. The first blood shed in Islam was the blood of a Meccan caravanier
that Muhammad's men killed cowardly and with no warning in Nakhlah in the
sacred months while treacherously posing as pilgrims. Qazwa means raid not defensive war.
Muhammad launched 78 qazwas in the last ten years of his life.
You are not twisting the truth. You are simply
repeating a lie, that all Muslims so uncritically rehash and none pauses
of one minute to see the contradiction. This is a lie concocted by Muhammad, who on one hand was the victimizer and on the other hand claimed
to be the victim. Not a single person among his billion followers wonders
how can one reconcile the claim of persecution with the qazwas and the
Quranic verses that call for murder of the unbelievers. No wonder Muslims
on one hand praise Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists and on the other
hand they deny that Islam has anything to do with those terrorisms and
accuse CIA and the Zionists, instead. I am not blaming you Dr. Ghamidi,
because I too was caught in this web of lies. I simply did not think about
the contradiction. It was much easier not to think and just believe
uncritically. You are a smart man. Once you manage to break the
shackle of Islam, and see it from outside, you will be able to see
countless contradictions and absurdities, far better than me. That is
because you are an expert on Islam while I am only a layman.
4- The forth fallacy is your claim that “clear
instructions were given that no non-combatant person should be touched nor
the assets not relevant to the battle be destroyed.” Since with
few exceptions, virtually all the wars of Muhammad were cowardly raids with no warning, those who were killed were unarmed and even if
they were physically able to defend themselves, had they had the chance to
prepare themselves, caught off guards and unarmed they did
not qualify as combatants. Muhammad’s raids were by all accounts cowardly terrorisms launched
on unwary citizens and not acts of war. He himself bragged that he owed
his victories to terror.
5- The fifth fallacy is about not destroying the assets
of his victims. The hadith and Sura clearly mention even to the head count
the amount of cattle and herd that Muhammad looted in each raid. Also it
is recorded that he cut and burned the palm trees of the Banu Nadir and Taif when
he laid siege on them. In the Qur'an he made his alias Allah to approve
that crime.
|
As
we have seen above, apart from fighting the battles imposed upon them,
the prophet and the Muslims had another law to follow: Muhammad, God’s
mercy be on him, was a messenger (rasul) of God. The law of the Almighty
concerning his chosen messengers has always been that He never allowed
their immediate addressees the privilege of living beyond a certain limit
of time in case they went on rejecting their messages. It was on the basis
of this
law that the people who received the message from Noah and refused to
accept it were ultimately drowned. Likewise, thousands of people were
killed during the time of Moses for committing polytheism while he was
around. Similarly, in the case of the last prophet, after the true message
from God was made manifest to his immediate addressees they were,
according to the same divine law, condemned to be killed on the expiry of
a specified deadline.
|
The stories of Pentateuch and Joshua are fables. The
Deuteronomy that is allegedly one of the books of Moses, contains
his obituary stating that Moses was a great man whose tomb is lost and no
one knows where he is buried and that since him no other prophet as great
as him has risen among the Israelites. Now how can one write something
like this about himself? The Old Testament is a book written by a few
rabbis around 700 BC, when the Jews were in captivity. It is hot air and
bravado of a vanquished people who were oppressed and made up these
stories about how they were once powerful chastising others. None of that
is true. Please read the book Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman. Muhammad’s
crime are real. They actually happened. And you want to justify real
crimes with fairytales? Assuming the stories of the Bible about the
genocides of Moses are true, you can’t
justify one wrong with another. We must denounce both of them.
|
Viewed
from this context provided by the Qur’an, which, I insist, is the only
valid context for any serious student of Islam, what was done by the
prophet and his companions was not a criminal act of killing, it was the
Godly act of
removing people from the scene according to His rules. Do you want to
blame God for killing people?
|
First
of all you have not given a single proof to the claim that Muhammad was
the prophet of God. So the question is moot! It is like I ask you
“Do you deny the money I gave you?” when in fact I gave you no money.
Secondly, even if he did these things as instructed by Allah, that is
enough to conclude that Allah is evil and he can’t be the almighty
compassionate creator of the world. It defies his wisdom to create humans
knowing that they would become unbelievers to then punish them in such a
savage way. Only Satan can be so careless about destroying what God has
created.
|
To sum it up, since
I am convinced through my rational reading that the
Qur’an is the word of God and that Muhammad is His messenger, what the
Qur’an says is what God wills. If you disagree with what the Qur’an
says,
limit yourself to sorting that problem out rationally. The prophet only
implemented God’s will. The reports of how he did his job have reached
us
through less-than-fully-reliable human sources of history. Those reports
too, therefore, should be read through the scrutiny of the Qura’nic
message,
which is the only fully authentic divine text under the sky.
|
You are convinced through your rational reading? If
so share those rational proofs with us too. We can’t wait to see that.
|
I
hope that given the above-stated explanation, I don’t need to go into
details to explain why the prophet married several ladies. The answer is
that he was, like some of the earlier prophets were, allowed to do so by
God. The reason is that the messengers of God needed to have special
privileges to have families for them to be able to accomplish the task of
effectively establishing the dominance of the message they were sent by
God
with. In order to enable the prophet to provide comfort to the families
and
tribes who lost their dear ones on account of the implementation of the
law
explained above, the prophet was given the privilege of resorting to
polygamy.
|
First you say you don’t have to justify anything
that Muhammad did and have decided to believe in him no matter what,
uncritically. Then you go on to give your justification as to why he
married and had sex with so many women. Do you really buy your own
reasoning? Did Muhammad have to have sex with a score of young girls to
accomplish his task as a messenger of God? Did Jesus fail fulfilling that
task by being celibate? Why did Muhammad have to have sex with these women
and how by having sex with them he was providing comfort for families?
Which families were comforted when Muhammad used to have sex with these
young girls? The families of most of these girls who were the shares of
Muhammad from the booty were massacred. So explain please about this
comfort because you have left me dumbfounded. This
logic beats me.
Who said messengers of God need to have privileges? If so
what sets them apart from charlatans and conmen like James Jones, Shoko
Asahara and David Koresh? Shouldn’t a prophet of God act with self
restraint and dignity to set a good example? What example did Muhammad
set? Isn’t he the reason why Muslims are so barbarous, backward and
uncivilized? They all try to emulate their prophet and demand special
privileges wherever they live.
There is a hadith that says when Muhammad raided the
town of
Bani Jaun
, he entered in a house and Jauniyya, a young girl, accompanied be her wet
nurse was brought to him. The Prophet said to her “Give me yourself as a
gift.” The girl responded “Can a princess give herself to an ordinary
man?” Muhammad raised his hand to strike her, when she exclaimed, “I
seek refuge with Allâh from you,” and he stopped. [Bukhari Volume
7, Book 63, Number 182] Was this also ordered by God?
|
Again,
someone who doesn’t believe in the Qur’an should try to
concentrate on the basic question of why he doesn’t believe in it. I
insist
that the process demanded for believing in it is a completely rational
process. However, without accepting the book as God’s, if somebody
criticizes others for leading a life in accordance with it, he is like the
person who claims that all people who get married in the church are
fornicating because he doesn’t believe that the church has the authority
to
allow people to have a physical relationship with anyone else.
|
Actually one should not wonder why he does not
believe in any book. You should rather ask yourself why do you choose to
believe in a certain book. If the belief in the Qur’an is rational, then
share that with us in a rational way. So far we have not heard anything
rational. When Dr. Zaheer claimed that his reversion to Islam was rational
and explained the details, it was clear that it was anything but rational.
|
I would like to
reemphasize that the act of killing humans is not allowed
under any circumstances save the ones the Almighty has spelt out. After
the
messenger of God has completed his mission and left this world, no one
else
has a right to kill a fellow human except for the two reasons (i.e.
killing
and creating disorder) mentioned in the beginning of this message. For
those
reasons too, only a formal state has the right to take action. If Muslims
are killing fellow humans today in the name of religion it is, according
to
their own book, as if they are killing the entire humanity. The solution
to
the problem is to inform Muslims about the correct understanding of Islam.
The solution is not to condemn Islam to extinction. While the former
solution is difficult but achievable, the latter is impossible and
disastrous.
|
Muslims kill today for the same reasons you say they
should. They think anyone resisting Islam is opposing it and anyone who
opposes Islam is creating disorder. Therefore his blood is halal. Muslims correctly
understand Islam. Assuming others don’t, obviously you believe that you
do. The way you described Islam for us is shear evil. Islam is correctly
understood and that is why the Muslim world is in shambles and there is so
much killing going on. The solution is in the eradication of Islam.
In FFI we are trying to understand Islam correctly. We
have an open forum where everyone can post and express his/her point of
view freely. Truth can manifest only when opposing ideas collide. For the first time in history, we are analyzing Islam
critically without the fear of being killed. For the first time truth and falsehood
are placed next to each other for the world to see. Up until now, falsehood
in Islamic countries had succeeded because truth had been censored and
those who spoke it were put to death. Falsehood needs censorship, truth
doesn't. We must know the truth for
only truth will set us free.
However, reform is only a chimera. Islam
cannot be reformed. Take a look at what you wrote. Are you a reformed
Muslim? Is this the kind of
reform you are talking about? I am afraid it is not good enough. You are
saying anyone who criticizes Islam must be put to death, anyone who is an
idolater must be put to death, and the people of Book must become dhimmis
and pay religious tax. If your reform includes censorship of thoughts, and killing
the apostates that is not reform. When you censor thoughts you are
invariably helping lies. Truth does not need the heavy hand of censorship
to prevail. It actually needs freedom of thoughts to prevail. It's only
lies that needs protection through censorship of opposing thoughts.
Muslims don't need reform. It is Islam that has to be reformed and that
requires throwing out most of the Qur'an.
You described Islam very well and what you described is
evil. This debate is a clear poof that Islam cannot be reformed,
however, it can be eradicated. We cannot tell Muslims
that Muhammad was a messenger of God but please do not follow him because
then you would be acting like a criminal. We can however show them that this man was a
charlatan psychopath and that it is not befitting for rational and decent
people to believe in a fiend like him. The
eradication of Islam is within our reach and with the truth out, it is
inevitable.
Why do you think it would be disastrous to get rid
of a lie? The disaster is in believing a lie. Islam is the disease of the
mind and the society. Would it be disastrous to get rid of a
disease? Please tell us what disaster will take place if everyone
realizes that Muhammad was a conman and decides to throw the Qur'an, this
book of asininity and violence, into dustbin? This is absurd. It's an unfounded fear.
It is only the addiction to Islam that makes you think you depend on
Islam.
You will be far better without this disease and addiction.
Muslims are triumphalists and constantly beat their chests saying
"Islam is the fastest growing religion," Now, the only way Islam
is growing is through procreation. If that is something to be proud of
then rabbits beat Muslims. However, once it becomes clear that many people
are actually leaving Islam, their zealotry will die and those Muslims who
are desperate to keep their income, will start talking about reform to
keep people from leaving. Killing will have no effect because now, the
apostates are in touch with each other and they know they are not alone.
They are also smart to know how to stay alive and promote their
cause.
So, what would be the result of this massive exodus?
The mosques will be empty and under funded, the Mullahs will have to find
a decent job to make their living and become productive. The madrassas
will be closed and the children will go to real schools to learn real knowledge.
The youths will not opt to become jihadis and suicide bombers but rather
become scientists
and entrepreneurs. Half of the Muslim population, the women, which is
today unproductive and is kept in ignorance will be free to enter into the
work force and compete with men. The governments, instead of making
"Islamic atomic bombs" to wipe Israel off the map or destroy
India, will start
cooperating with all the countries of the world to improve science and
technology and all this money that now is funding the military will
be spent for the well-being of the citizens. All these changes will
catapult these ex-Muslim countries into acme of power and glory. So, what
disaster are you talking about? The only people who would face
disaster will be the mullahs and those who make a lucrative living by
selling the lies of Islam to the foolhardy masses and are hard at work to
keep them in the dark. Everyone else will benefit.
Many of us have left
Islam and are far more happier. Now we live free without the constant fear
of the bogyman Allah and the hatred and distrust of the kafirs. Now we can
love all mankind as our brothers and sisters and truly feel we are humans,
part of the human race, without the constant paranoia that someone is
trying to destroy us. Now, we see no enemy around us. We are all members
of one human family and related to each other. The only enemy left is
ignorance that is keeping a big portion of humanity in slavery of mind and that
is what we
are fighting to eliminate.
Once the truth about Islam
spreads, first the non-Muslim world will start to wake up, then it would be
the turn of Muslims to see the light and come to their senses. Once
the elite starts seeing the light and start leaving Islam, the
masses will soon follow.
The elite is already leaving Islam. Soon we will have millions of Wafa
Sultans, Nonie Darwishs, Walid Shoebats, Ibn Warraqs, Ayan Hishi Alis and many others who have joined FFI and are openly condemning Islam. These are the lights of
mankind and particularly the Muslim world. Upon the heroic efforts of
these enlightened souls depend the peace of the world and the unity of
mankind. Kudos to all the valiant apostates of Islam, the lions and the lionesses
of the field of understanding. I sincerely hope that you will join
them too and lead millions out of the darkness of ignorance. Don't be a
slave of a psychopath charlatan. Muhammad lied. He can only lead you to
hell. Join the army of light, lead it to more victories, hoist the
standard of freedom, become a torch of guidance, make history and become
part of the history. This is the century that will be recorded in history
as the century of freedom from ignorance, the century of unity of mankind.
Make sure that your name is written in gold at the very top of this
glorious chapter of history along with the names I mentioned above.
|
Finally, I would like to comment
on your following statement: “Belief means
accepting a postulate without evidence. Once you have evidence, then it is
no longer a belief but a fact.” If that is the definition of belief,
then
Islamic beliefs don’t fall into that category. They fall into the
category
of facts which cannot be seen but the evidence of their existence is so
clear that those who deny them may fall into one of the following two
categories: They are either not prepared to accept the reality expressed
before them or they have not been properly informed about them. Can a
believer in a book which makes the following statements be a blind
follower
in any matter of his life: “Tell them: ‘Bring forth a book straighter
than
these two (i.e. Qur’an and Torah), I will be the first to follow it, if
you
are really truthful in your claim’” (Qur’an; 28:49). “Indeed the
worst
beasts in the eyes of God are those men who are deaf, dumb, and blind in
that they don’t use their intellect.” (Qur’an; 8:22) “Believers,
stand firm
on the principles of justice, bearing witness to it for God. And let not
the
enmity of a nation incline you not to be fair. Be fair, that is closest to
the God-fearing attitude. Indeed God is aware of all that you do.” (Qur’an;
5:8).
Khalid Zaheer
|
If Islam is fact, as you claim, now is your turn to
show us that fact. You may as well forget whatever I wrote, if you please
and just give us one fact that shows without any doubt that Islam is a
message from God. We are
waiting.
Kind regards
Ali Sina
<
Back Next
>
|
