Ozzycda

Response to Criticism

2012-01-26T20:55:00.000-08:00

I want to start by thanking the Youtube user, who shall go unnamed for now because I don't have their permission to mention them by account name, for responding via comments on my video "Book Review: Exodus in the Quran" by Margaret S. King which can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1dAtwhbgs&feature=channel_video_title

This is a video I made almost a year ago after I completed my comparative religion class. At the time I wanted to study the historicity of the Exodus and actually did my term paper on the subject which can be read here:

http://ozzycda.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-term-paper-for-comparative-religion.html

I considered Ms. King's book while doing research for the paper which was part academic research part personal journey as far as my own personal understanding of religion. Needless to say I was pretty surprised by the lack of responses to the video in question and also by the term paper as it appears on my blog. I realized that perhaps people were either ignoring what what I was presenting or just didn't have the knowledge to critique or respond. However I am glad that recently a user from Youtube has finally responded. I want to be clear that I am not interested in debating this subject in the context of trying to prove that someone is "right" or "wrong". Rather I wish to understand this subject to the best of my ability, admitting from the start that I am a student and a seeker of truth.

This post will be a response to several comments made by the user as the appear on the video's comment section. I do hope the user finds the time to respond to my responses and inquires regarding this topic. The format shall be the users comment followed by my response. So let us begin!

1. The user:

1, you make a claim that King is not a biblical scholar. What do you know about her? I doubt you have any knowledge of her education or experience. As for evidence, I will mention them in several posts. Biblical scholars and archaeologists now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Exodus never took place from today's Egypt. You claim the Quran says biblical history took place in Palestine. Show me where in the Surahs, not the English commentary. King is fluent in Arabic.

My Response:

You are totally right I don't know a lot about Ms. King's background since I only know what I read from her book. Funny I can't really find any information about her online, perhaps you could point me in the right direction? What does the academic community think of her work? Has she been peer reviewed in any history, comparative religion or archeological journals? I certainly know from her blog, which sadly has lost its content, deleted by her?, that she really doesn't think much of the current or past biblical and Islamic/Quranic academics so I can only imagine what they think of her.

I would say that with regard to the evidence from the Quran, I don't need to show you commentary "in english" just encourage you to look at any Tafsir classical and modern that indicates that Muslims have always viewed the Quran as referring to "The Promise Land" as being Palestine/Land of Israel and Egypt being, well Egypt and not Mesopotamia.

The User:

2. As for your comment that the Flood story was known in Europe and China, and not only in the Near East. Really? During the third millennium BCE? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The Egyptian-like civilization in Ur that existed during the early to mid-third millennium BCE had ties to the Indus Valley where civilization began to stir around 2500 BCE. The Sumerians were trading with the Far East. Sumerians and Egyptians began writing at the same time.

My Response:

Yeah really! In fact you can check out this list here of flood stories from around the world from areas that had civilizations just as old as Mesopotamia. Also the question aries of how did they get the flood stories? Again, as I said in my video, I really think it is a amazing thing for King to assert not once, but multiple times in the book, that there are no flood stories outside of the Middle East. Really? Chicken and the egg indeed. Or perhaps missing the whole basket and chicken coop perhaps?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

The User:

3.As for the sacred golden bull worshiped by the Israelites, the Quran states the Israelites lived among the Sumerians. The only golden bull that fits the description in Hebrew texts and the Quran is what we find buried with the Egyptian-like rulers in Ur. Where was Abraham from? Ur. Did the advanced civilization exist in Ur during the biblical time frame? No! Biblical scholars now know that the scribes who wrote the Torah fudged the chronology and lied, confirmed in the Quran.

My Response:

Where does the Quran state that the Israelites lived among the Sumerians. Again I am not convinced by King's book that the "Egyptians" are actually Mesopotamians. Is there a clear cut verse in the Quran that mentioned the Sumerians? Also I know you mentioned it here, and King does as well, but is there any other evidence, outside of her book, that discusses these archeological digs in Mesopotamia that yield the evidence she mentions in the book. Such as the golden calfs and the stones with names written upon them?

I don't see how Abraham being fro Ur confirms that chronology has been fudged or that he came from some advance civilization. Is it possible that he came from Ur where the Chaldeans were from and still fit the chronology of the Bible? I mean I am totally willing to concede that the writers of the Torah, writing in the 6th Century BCE could have placed him earlier then their current time and perhaps was not as early as originally depicted before textual/historical analysis. But I am still not seeing how Abraham being from UR completely proves King's assertions about the Exodus.

The User

4. If you could read the Arabic words in the Quran and the Hebrew words that describe the Israelites during their early history, they take us to Mesopotamia and to the ancient Akkadian and Sumerian languages. Moses's real name was Musa. That is an Akkadian name. Ibrahim's name is Sumerian. Jacob's name "Isra'il" is Akkadian. In the Quran's story of Joseph and the ladies of the household, the words in the Quran show a Hurrian origin. Hurrians were in Mesopotamia.

My Response:

Moses' real name being Musa is only because that is how it is pronounced in Arabic, am I right? Again assuming that the Arabic equivalent is the correct one, why should I make that assumption? I can find one scholar of language saying that Abraham/Ibrahim can be traced back to Akkadian but only one scholar, the rest confirm the name being of Hebrew of Arabic origin. Moses is rooted back to Hebrew and Musa as Arabic. With regards to the names do you have any sources outside of King's book that suggest that the names are all successfully derived from Akkadian/Sumerian? Or is there a large number of scholars who understand the names to be Hebrew/Arabic only?

Also you mention the story of Joseph and the ladies of the household, can you explain how you come to the conclusion they are Hurrain in origin?

The User:

5.Joseph's title in "Egypt" was Akkadian, not Egyptian. Adam's name is Akkadian. Akkadian was the lingua franca of the entire Fertile Crescent before the "nations" that the Israelites lived in were decimated by the invading Sea Peoples. After centuries of recovery, the lingua franca became Aramaic. Ezekiel states the Israelites lived among the Hittites, Hurrians, Amorites, Jebusites, etc. The Jebusites and Amorites lived in Mesopotamia not Palestine. Solomon was of their lineages

My Response:

Again I need to see evidence for Joseph's title being Akkadian, same as Adam, I can find nothing just looking around that confirms what you are saying.

The User:

6.The Quran states that God warned the Israelites twice that they would be punished for the warfare, pagan practices, and disobedience to their prophets. The first warning matches the invasion of the Sea Peoples, the second is clearly the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. As for your comment on Elijah, Jews believed their prophets and devout scribes ascended and descended from the heavens. The Quran states otherwise. Are you a promoter of myths?

My Response:

Interesting historical application. What do you mean the Quran states otherwise about prophets ascending to heaven? Where in the Quran does it deny this for Elijah? I stated in my video that King says Elijah died, that is false! Promoter of myths? I would say I promote them in the context of Joseph Campbell, comparative religion/mythology and Jungian psychology. Not sure what else you mean by that statement.

The User:

7.Your comment on Zarathustra shows chronological ignorance. Zoroastrians, like many sects in the Near East, were of Israelite origin and can be traced to Mesopotamia. Israelites didn't influence Zoroaster. He was Israelite. The name "Jew" describes the people of "Judaea" who considered themselves to be Israelite. Zoroaster didn't influence Judaism, as you say, which as a word was coined after the Christian era. The word Judaism didn't exist before then. Chicken or the egg?

My Response:

Well this is interesting. I am showing chronological ignorance? No my friend, what I stated in the video was that many scholars have placed Zoroaster before the theological time frame that show the influence upon Israelite religion. However to be fair, I will say that scholars have no consensus regarding the dating of Zoroaster. That does not mean I am ignorant, it just means we can agree to disagree. However I would argue that the Bible seems obvious that it wasn't until the post-exile period and during that we have the concept of the Devil and evil playing a more active role in Jewish theology. Prior to that, dualism was something that was not found prior to the exile period where the Israelites would have been exposed to Zoroastrian teachings and theology. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

The User:

8.All these arguments are in King's book, and yet you overlook them all and nit pick about nonsensical points. King also matches the Quran's descriptions of the inventions of Suleiman and Daoud (Solomon and David) with the Mesopotamian environment of the late third millennium BCE, not Palestine in the biblical period or at any period. Suleiman invented glass, and glass had its origin in southern Mesopotamia during the Dynasty of Akkad. The horse training originated there too.

My Response:

I agree these were in her book, however, as I stated in the video I only had time to pick a few of her points and discuss them. Either way, one could have accused me of nitpicking if one does not keep in mind what I said in the video. With regards to the invention of glass I agree that associating this invention which we know historically can be traced to Mesopotamia is a major point. However that does not mean the Quran is historically accurate. We know that the Quran refers to the ruler of Egypt who contends with Moses as Pharaoh and yet this would be historically inaccurate considering this is a New Kingdom phrase and not earlier as history would suggest. So again, I am not surprised to see this historical blunder.

The User:

9. Herodotus wrote that the original Red Sea was the Persian Gulf, and there is one sect in southern Iraq that claims the Exodus took place exactly where King describes it in the "sea of reeds" or "yam suph" of the southern marshlands of Iraq. The Quran confirms the "yam" near the "bahr" or major waterway, and describes Musa (Moses) near "Bahrain." Suleiman hired pearl divers, known in the Persian Gulf, not the Palestinian environment. The Quran describes him in Babylon.

My Response:

Which sect? Sources outside of King's book that confirms this? Or sources she uses to prove this? Which Surah describes these major waterways? Pearl divers? I recall this point King makes in the book but where is this derived from again? How does the Quran describe Solomon in Babylon? Chapter and verse please.

The User:

Another critique of your arguments: You say Canaanites worshiped bulls, but Canaanites were not known by that name during the Akkadian Empire. No golden bulls in Canaanite societies that match the biblical descriptions. Chicken or egg? The Hyksos were the ancestors of the Jews of Judaea, ruling as pharaohs between 1650-1550 BCE, not slaves. They originated from upper Syria, Mesopotamian lands. They settled in Palestine to avoid the Assyrians. Jerusalem was a generic word.

My Response:

I am confused as to why I am putting Cannaites and there naming in comparison to Akkad. Does the Bible imply that I need do this in order to fit some chronology? You might have to elaborate on this point. I am familiar with the Hysos and included them in my term paper which I linked at the beginning of this post.

The User:

As King shows, ancient Egyptian texts referring to the early to mid-third millennium BCE claim the today's Egypt was not the land of their origin, but that land was in "Asia," and that land was totally destroyed by the primary deity, who unleashed floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and completed altered the structure of the land. Nothing remained, not even a nail, on the surface of the earth. Look at today's Egypt. Do you see the pyramids? Still standing.

My Response:

Which Egyptian texts did King refer to in the book? Also did this story take place before the building of the pyramids or after? That would probably help to determine the validity of its historicity. Also, need I take this Egyptian text as historical proof or myth?

The User:

Hebrew literature and the Quran confirm that God destroyed the landscape of the Egyptians, and the Quran states that He left no buildings, as a lesson for future Egyptians so they would know His power. Hebrew texts and the Quran confirm the structures were of mudbrick, not limestone like the earliest pyramids of today's Egypt. Egypt obviously occupied a far larger territory and lived side by side with the Sumerians. Logic dictates. Archaeology confirms the Quran.

My Response:

Which verse in the Quran says God destroyed the landscape of the Egyptians? They might have lived side by side with Sumerians but how does that prove the events of the Exodus took place there? So far I am not convinced by any of your points of Ms. Kings that through archeology any of these assertions are made valid and true. I want to point out a point I made in the video. If the Quran, as Ms. King asserts, was suppose to clarify and help us understand the truth of events, namely the Exodus story, then why did God, the author of the Quran, use words such as Egypt, Pharaoh, Egyptians etc. when discussing the story? Wouldn't it have been easier to be much more straight forward and say Sumer, Sumerian, Akkadian, Red Sea, etc. Why the smoke and mirrors so that a person only in the 21st century can tell us that every past scholar has it wrong and that these events took place somewhere else? That is my major issue with your argument and with hers.

The User:

One correction to what I wrote below. Ibrahim's name was Akkadian, not Sumerian, and the Akkadians and Sumerians lived side by side as far back as the fourth millennium BCE, so Ibrahim (Abraham) most likely lived during the early part of the third millennium BCE. The Akkadians originated from the Arabian Peninsula, and there you have your connection to Mecca. Anyone reading the biblical version of the story should realize that the Jewish scribes lied about their history. Logic must prevail.

My Response:

Evidence for the Akkadian originating in Arabia and therefore having any connection to Mecca?I agree that I cannot take the Bible at literal historical value for much of what it says, but again I still cannot see the clear cut evidence that King claims makes it totally clear that the events of the Exodus took place in Mesopotamia. I agree that logic must prevail, but logic backed by evidence is something I need.

I would just end by restating to points I made in the video and once already here on this post. I don't see how King's assertions about the language, the names of the Prophet's etc, perhaps being linked to Sumerian and Akkadian actually proves that the events took place in Mesopotamia. As I said in my video, if someone's name is rooted in another language, does that prove that that person was 1)from that place of origin and 2) the events depicted in the Bible and Quran took place in that area. I would say no, that is not sufficient evidence to prove that assertion.

I would also say again, if the Quran as Ms. King states, came to confirm and clarify the beliefs and events of the past, then why does God, the author of the Quran, still refer to the events as taking place in Egypt? Why this painfully obvious historical inaccuracy of calling the ruler of Egypt Pharaoh when historians and archeologists know that is a New Kingdom title and not something used by the King's of Egypt prior to that era. These are major questions that need to be asked and considered.

Having read King's blog, which again is down for some reason, I noted that she basically argues that all major scholars of the past and current ones, this includes biblical, both Jewish and Christian and non-religious, and Muslim scholars have been wrong this whole time. Yet now, she holds the answer, the truth to these events. I find this rather fishy, and again would ask if she ever intends on putting her work under peer-review. I think until other academics have had a serious look at her book, her claim that she possess the truth, and her alone, is what makes me the MOST skeptical about her writings.

Book Review: god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens

2012-01-16T20:21:00.001-08:00

So I have to confess that I started to read Hitchens' books after his death. It was strange, when I found out that he had passed away I actually hit by incredible sadness and a total sense of mortality. This might seem ironic since Hitchens was an Atheist and also he was not my favorite of the "Neo-Atheists"/ 4 Horsemen. I actually had more respect for Richard Dawkins, although that might be changing due to certain statements made by him in recent years. All that aside, I found this odyssey into "god is not Great" to be one that has been a long time coming.

Let me start by saying that I found it amazing that I actually agreed with Hitchens on several points in this book. Indeed someone needed to discuss the "dark side" of organized religion and what religions have done throughout history. Besides covering those specific topics, Hitchens, who did command a great amount of knowledge of history and current events, he was a journalist of renown, manages to not only expose typical recycled arguments but sheds new light on many topics.

For example he shows how even someone like Mother Theresa might not have been the most honorable person ever to walk the planet. He also refutes the argument that secularism/non-religious societies are why we had people such as Stalin and Hitler. These two parts show how Hitchens had such a brilliant command of history.

The core of Hitchens' message that I got from his book was that he certainly did not think religion should have any power in secular society, in other words a total separation of church and state based on the dreams of the Founding Fathers. I would have to agree with him on this point since I do like the way our country is set up, and really admire what the Founders were trying to do with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. At one point in the book Hitchens makes it clear that he doesn't care what people personally believe just as long as they don't try forcing these beliefs onto other people. Again I would have to agree with him on this point. He then goes on to show all these examples from history when religious people or faiths have had total control over civilizations and the negative side effects to such a situation. Now I would have to say that there are plenty examples where religious people and groups have done noble things, and indeed Hitchens discusses these persons and thus would not have denied this fact. However I think it is important for him to point out all the negative elements as I doubt many people, including myself, actually knew this information.

Now here is where I disagree with Hitchens. The nature of religion and scriptures. I think Hitchens really takes exception to literalists of religious texts and as a result his book really targets a specific group/percentage of religious people. In my opinion I really few organized religious people has being members of three camps of thought.

1. "The Sunday Church going type"-This group, and this goes for any religion by the way, are people that go to their house of worship when the need to, for example Friday, Saturday or Sunday and that is about it. They are Christian by name or when asked on a survey they check Muslim. These people are typically raised in the religion they practice. In other words their religion is important to them but it is something that has been so ingrained that it is just something they do, take for granted or is simply that is just a percentage of who they are as a whole. Religion might not be the most important thing to them.

2. The convinced devotee- These are people, raised or converted, that are very passionate about their religion. They live it and are very happy and convinced that their religion is perfect for them on a personal level. They might actually think that other religions or points of view posses core truths that are very similar to their own faith. You know, the type of people you see at a interfaith meeting. They might not view their scripture literally, but might see it as a metaphor or allegory.

3. The Dogmatist- These are the type of religious people who not only believe their religion is the ONLY correct path but everyone else is either terribly mistaken and/or going to Hell. Truth has only been conceived by one religion, the rest are totally full of shit. There is also no way their religion has anything "wrong" with it, it is totally perfect from the beginning to the current moment. Oh, and you better believe they read their scripture literally, all of it.

Now in my humble opinion I think Hitchens had a huge beef with the third type of religious people. These are the people, as his examples throughout the books how, that would probably do very negative things to society if they were in control and had access to the codes......

Having said all the above, I would have to say that I view the nature of religion and scripture as expressions of the human psyche, very much along the lines of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. They are not meant to be taken literally 100% of the time. There are deeper meanings to them then just surface readings which most people usually do. Perhaps this should be a fourth category of religious people? Perhaps..... Due to my views on the subject I find that I can both agree and disagree with Hitchens' points and positions throughout his book. Yes on a domestic/societal level I agree with him a lot, but when it comes to personal beliefs and importance of religion and scripture of our species, I would have to disagree with him.

I think Hitchens simply wanted human society to evolve and keep going with the tradition of the Enlightenment and the ideology of the Founding Fathers. Separation of Church and State and not a mixture of the two. I certainly would have to agree with him on all of these points. However he cites Sigmund Freud a lot and I have to say I really go with Carl Jung more when it comes to understanding religion in a psychological context.

All in all I really do think this is a book that everyone interested in the history of religion should read, regardless of ones personal background. You will learn a lot, it might challenge your beliefs, but isn't that healthy? Even if you come out of it, as I did, still thinking that religion is an important driving force for our species, you will probably appreciate the journey.

RE: Question for Muslims

2011-09-15T21:48:00.001-07:00

So the Council of Ex Muslims of Britain have posted this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApURzv8fCFY
Now some of you upon watching this video might ask, why bother? What is the point of engaging each one of these questions? I guess I cannot help myself. Part of me feels like being a playful and yet serious smart-a**. I say that because I think the one issue with this video is its overgeneralization of the makers expectations about how Muslims would answer these questions. Now I am not saying the maker of the video actually intended to think this, but upon hearing and reading the questions it is very clear. Basically this video should have been titled "Questions for Orthodox Sunni Muslims" or something of that sort. Many people call themselves and consider themselves Muslim, myself included, and yet do not feel that that actually adhere to every single doctrine or idea issued by the Orthodoxy. So with that I will answer these questions as a person who is a Muslim, Mu'tazaliah in Aqeeda, Shafi in Fiqh, Mevlevi in Tasawwuf, and Jungian with my approach to psychology. More importantly then lables I wish to answer each question in compelete honestly based on my understanding of theology, philosophy, psychology and metaphyiscs and how I personally view these subjets. Shall we begin?

1. Does God's stated purpose of creating man so they worship him seem worthy of an immensely intelligent and all-powerful being?

Answer: I have no idea, God is so beyond our understanding and full comprehension I cannot even begin to understand, if that is indeed his stated purpose, why.

2. If God is self-sufficient, and does nothing in vain, isn't creation the height of vanity?

Answer: Same as number one.

3. If creation is for our benefit, then what is the benefit to those who will burn forever?

Answer: What if someone were to take the view of the afterlife as Ibn Sina who taught that heaven and hell are simply symbols produced by each person's psyche and that the real afterlife is one that is a union or return(the meaning of religion) to God? In other words, people will not burn forever. Also, in Shafi Fiqh, and Aqeeda discussed in The Realiance of the Traveler states that those who had one ounce of true faith even if they committed sins and will be in hell, will only be there for a small time before being admitted to paradise. Other early Muslims thought that not everyone will be in hell forever, but hell will be emptied.

4. What's the point of God's test when he knows the outcome? Is it just so he can have a reason to punishment & reward?

Answer: In Mu'tazliah theology, the idea of being "tested" or "predestination" is not accepted. Rather the free will of creation is what God will judge.

5. What's the point of God's test when he knows the outcome? Is it just so he can have a reason to punishment & reward?

Answer: Same as number 4.

6. If God wanted us to freely choose to worship him - then why threaten us? Does someone with a gun to his head really have free choice?
Answer: I feel that my views as illustrated above would just be repeated in this answer. However the idea of putting a gun to someone's head and then asking if they have a choice to either accept or reject the threat, seems to me to be that yes they still have a choice. Yes they are being threatened but they can still either choose to either accept or reject what the threat is entailing.

7. Why does God cause so much suffering to humans? Is it part of God's test to prompt them to turn to him in obedience and worship? Isn't that like a con-man who causes a problem then offers to fix it for you?

Answer: I don't think God causes suffering for humans, but humans cause suffering to themselves. Some times nature causes suffering for us, such as floods and natural disasters, but I don't pin this sort of thing onto God.

8. Why would God give humans the ability to reason - then punish them for rejecting beliefs reason cannot reconcile?

Ansewr: This is a tough one. It is my personal opinion, that since God created us and knows how some of us think about reality, it would seem unfair for him to punish those who reject religious belief because it does not make sense to them or because using their reason they reject religion outright.

9. Why does the human body look suspiciously like it was the result of a long cumulative process of evolution resulting in imperfections and vestigial organs and genes - and not the result of the instant and perfectly planned creation of Adam and Eve?

Answer: Because of Evolution through Natural Selection? Which someone like myself has no issue believing in even though I do believe in religion and God.

10. Which is more evil, the imperfect creature who commits evil or the perfect entity which created evil?

Ansewr: I don't believe God created evil or injustice.

11. Is being good because you fear God, really being good?

Answer: Well if you ask Freud that question he would probably have said that yes due to being raised by our father because of society, we develope the Super Ego. We do a lot of good things and maintain morality because a part of our psyche tells us we should and prohibits us from doing negative acts. Is this because of fear? Perhaps it is. However since you are asking this for Muslims to answer, I would say that Muslims do good things not completely out of fear.

12. Why did God send all known prophets, miracles and books to one area of the world and at a time when people were superstitious and gullible?

Answer: According to Sahih hadits there were prophets sent all around the world before the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). I also don't think it is fair to just say that all people were simply superstitious and gullible during these anicent time periods.

13. Why did God only protect the Qur'an from corruption? Couldn't he have protected the Bible and prevented billions claiming he has a son?

Answer: I assume he could have if he wanted too. However he wanted to protect the message of the Quran and made no such promises for the written text of the Bible. Keep in mind many Muslims believe in the message of the Torah revealed to Moses, the Gospel to Jesus and the Psalms to David, and these messages are not necessairly viewed as being identical with what Jews and Christians refer to as the Holy Bible/Tanakh.

14. What was so special about prophet Jesus that God made him born to a virgin? Took him up to heaven before he was crucified? And is going to bring him back again before the day of judgment?

Answer: What was so special that Adam had no mother and no father? The Quran itself says that in the eyes of God both Adam and Jesus are equal since he simply said "Be" and they were. The motif of the virgin birth, death, resurrection and return are prevelant in scriptures around the world. The real question should be why is that? Also it would seem strange that at least aspects of this motif, the virgin birth, special prophet and return, would be absent from Islam. In Jungian Analytical Psychology, Jesus Christ is a symbol of the Self and thus is important for us to consider on a psychological level.

15. Do you believe it's acceptable for a husband to hit a rebellious wife?

Answer: No, and scholars of Islam don't think that way as well. See my video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBQzdY3oJy8&feature=channel_video_title

16.Why do so many characteristics of Allah like anger and vengefulness seem like human ones?

Answer: Hmm well perhaps because the person who expresses these revelations were human and it was for a human audience who had to make sense of these things from a limited human capacity, mind and psyche.

17. Why does the Qur'an say don't ask questions about things, when the answer would trouble you. Should followers of other religions also not ask questions about their religion when it might trouble them?

Answer: I am sure the majority of Muslims do not view any verse in the Quran as actually saying one cannot ask questions about theology. If that were the case then many scholars, such as Imam Ghazali, would not have lead the lives they lead in pursuit of knowledge based on questions that might have troubled them even if it was based on theology. All members of all religions have the right to ask questions about their faith that might trouble them, that is a part of life.

18. Why will God never forgive Shirk? What are they really guilty of? Ignorance? Being born to the wrong family?

Answer: God, according to Islam will not forgive Shirk because he does not want something else worshipped that is not him. They would be guility of breaking the laws of God. If it is ignorance or being raised in a way that conflicts with this, then in my opinion, they would not be punished since how would they know they were breaking laws?

19. The quran criticizes idolaters for following the religion of their parents. Are you any different?

Anwser: Actually no, not personally. I am a convert to Islam, my family raised me Roman Catholic.

20. You believe other people are following false, corrupted or unfounded beliefs? Are you certain you're not also?

Answer: I think we should always be open to discussion, doubt and perhaps changes that we might go through regarding what we put faith in. I know that my personal theology has changed over time and still continues to grow and change. I think we can only be certain of ourselves on a subjective level, since the objective is so beyond our psyches.

As the song says: "Never cared for what they know, and I know..."

Responding to Portlandhardstylers

2011-08-22T22:02:00.001-07:00

Nice music...
So I read your entire post on facebook, and I have to confess from the start that I will not cover every point you made, mainly because I do not feel qualified to do so. You took my example of Malcolm X and Dr. King and gave a very interesting commentary on the them, the civil rights movement and how it relates to today. I thought it was interesting that you said the civil rights movement was an failure in a success. I have to admit I don't know if I can agree with that, however I totally admit my personal background and bias probably prevents me from seeing what it is you are referring to. From my personal understanding and studying of the civil rights movement, it brought progress that was long overdue in our American society. Is more needed? Can we progress even more then where we ended up post the 1960's? Yes! So I can say that we need to have more progress as far as social justice goes.

I want to try and understand your two other points and perhaps you can say more about them in your response. You say that due to stereotypes, which I assume you mean stem from the civil rights era, people can brush off minorities based on these stereotypes. Your third point is we have black history month etc, and you view that as hidden segregation. Well I have to confess I have never seen these things, at least the history months, in such light, but perhaps I am naive. I guess all I can really say, given my limited understanding of this topic, is that we have come a long way, but we need to keep progressing when it comes to civil rights and social justice. How we will achieve these goals, is of course, subjective.

I will be making a video on Jung's Psychological types, wherein I hope to explain his views on personality. In fact, there will probably be more then one video on the subject, there is a lot of ground to cover. Yes, I do consider myself "Jungian orientated" when it comes to schools of thought in psychology. You are an ENFJ? That is awesome! I am personally an Introvert, who uses Intuition and Feeling primarily. However I see that you are also primary when it comes to Feeling and Intuition so we are only different when it comes to the Extrovert and Introvert. I have never taken the Myers-Briggs Test, however I have studied personality in one of my psychology classes. Since we see things from different points of view, I am sure this means we will keep having interesting discussions in the near future!

What this means is that Extroverts tend to see objects outside of themselves and deal with the objects as they appear. Introverts typically take the object "into themselves" and try to understand the depth of the object on a subjective level. Again, I will be making a video on Psychological Types in the near future so stay tuned for that.

As far as it appearing that I was agreeing with you, in a way I am, but not in the way in which you explained it. I am willing to confess, that the current global, political situation right now is one of external movements, usually harsh in nature, and we are not really hearing about the peaceful movements. That is not to say, that the peaceful, non-violent philosophies are outdated, but rather as I said with the "swinging", at this current moment, the external/harsher style is popular, but that could very well change in the near future. Also, never forget that regardless of huge social movements there will always be those who, because of their personality, view the world and how to progress it for social justice, in a way that runs counter to the current trending majority. How humans express themselves on a social level is always changing and will change again.

Thank you for the Ramadan Mubarak, much appreciated. I am not sure what your religious background, if any, you have for yourself, but I hope you are doing good and whatever inspires you, I hope it continues to do so. Sorry if I overlooked anything, you did a great job in presenting your response, and I don't feel I have done it justice with this response. Look forward to seeing your response on Youtube, or wherever you decide to post it.
Peace

Am I Crazy?

2011-06-08T18:33:00.000-07:00

So I can understand the reactions I have been getting from various people who read my blog and watch my Youtube channel. Ever since I started expressing my new found thoughts on theology and psychology I have been met by a number of interesting reactions. Many people, although not fully embracing what I have been saying, have been understanding and supportive. Another camp of people have expressed interest but don't really seem to care either way. There are those that have responded in a more critical level, attempting to explain that my views and expressions are in error and that I should rethink what I have been saying and understanding based on the research I have been conducting since the beginning of this year.

Even when I was a Christian I had specific way of understanding my faith in God and my religion. I would read the Bible, but I never allowed my faith to solely be derived by the scripture alone. I was aware of the use of History, Psychology and Anthropology to fully understand why I had faith. A large part of the reason I began doubting Christianity was not only the issues I had with the doctrine of the Trinity and divine incarnation of Jesus, but also the issues the Bible has with internal contradiction on a level of text but also contradictions with history. The more I investigated these issues the more my faith in Christianity began to leave.

In reading into the Psychology of Religion, most psychologist have determined that there are a number of levels of belief, in other words why people have faith in a religion/God. Many people follow a religion or belief in the lowest, most simplistic level, one of simple tradition and being raised in that said tradition. One can understand this particular level of belief based on why a child believes in Santa Claus. If you ask a child why he/she believes in Santa, it will appear to be rather simple. Mommy and Daddy have told the child that Santa is real, seeing an empty tree with no presents, and setting out cookies and milk. The next morning, presents are under the tree, the cookies and milk are gone, and the parents explain that this is all done by Santa. In other words a believer at this level has faith in what they have grown up with and not really considering the why of the affair, just the immediate experience gathered from the happenings. This is a type of reaction when a religious person at this level, when asked why they have faith, simply respond: "because I do," or something simple to that effect. The idea of understanding their faith outside of scripture, is a surprising one, that might, for some, not feel as solid as just professing faith.

The higher level of belief is when a person derives their faith from outside scriptural sources, or for some use reason along with understanding their personal theology. Many religious persons do this in their daily lives. Among certain Christians and Muslims the interpretation of sacred scripture in light of science aids believers in feeling their text is speaking about topics which we as humans have come to a factual understanding via other areas of knowledge. Others, use archeology, the discovery of documents, clothing, structures that we know relate to scripture, boosts ones faith. Reading historical records that describe events that correlate to sacred text, gives us the foundational understanding that scripture is speaking of events that occurred in our species historical development. Why does any of this matter? In my opinion, and this is also the opinion of psychologists of religion, that when we use outside scriptural sources to aid in our understanding of religion, it makes us feel closer to our beliefs, gives us that boost of knowledge with which we can understand the traditions of whichever religion we follow. I have always felt this way, and this is why my views on any religion, regardless of a particular one I currently follow, must remain consistent.

My research on the Exodus, as seen in my previous post, utilized outside scriptural sources to aid in my understanding of faith. My major tool in this area is history and archeology. Much of what we know about our past is found in the historical records and artifacts found in digs around the world. Without these areas of study we would not have a record of our species developments and history. This is why the lack of historical evidence for the Exodus is so amazing. This is another reason why I cannot personally read the story of the Exodus in a literal fashion, but have decided to read it metaphorically. One of my favorite discussions with a user on Youtube regarding this topic challenged my use of history with regards to understanding scripture. I was then asked if I wanted to take the verses of the Exodus in the Quran metaphorically, then how could I explain away the verse that states that Allah swt would preserve Pharaoh's body so that future generations would know the truth of the events of the Exodus. I smiled at this, realizing that a perfect opportunity to understand my point of view further, had been given to me by this point. If I am to take this verse literally, then without history or archeology how am I to know which dead body I am suppose to be able to see with my own eyes that fulfills this verse? The answer is: impossible. One must know history and archeology in order to follow this verse literally. Although my own true opinion of looking at this verse metaphorically does not mean I have to go see a mummy in a museum to gain an understanding of what the verse is trying to convey.

The fact is that many religious persons, not just Christians and Muslims, although they might be in the lead, use many areas of study to create foundations of belief. Scholars and intellectuals of all religions have been doing this for centuries, so I am not saying that I am being totally original in this context. However what I have learned is that many people would rather trash these subjects when they do not suit their perceived ideals as opposed to considering the alternative ways of looking at "the truth." If you are going to take scripture on a total literal level then you must be prepared to ignore the overwhelming evidence that contradict that view point. If you choose to do this, that is of course one's own choice, however it does leave one on a very small road to travel. Science is used a lot in societies current debates about reason and religion. I will say more on this is future posts, but I bring it up now because many Muslims and Christians use it in relationship to understand the Bible and the Quran. If they are allowed to do this, at their own risk of a literal reading, then why can't I use history, archeology, psychology and philosophy in the same light? Perhaps its because my conclusions run counter to the "orthodox" position, and that might be why I am in such negative light with many persons. I will discuss orthodoxy in the future, but for now it should be noted that many people do use outside scriptural sources to aid in their understanding of faith. Once and understanding of that need is established for oneself, then we can begin to understand others.

My term paper for Comparative Religion

2011-04-25T19:19:00.000-07:00

Land of Milk and Honey
There are myths and stories that leave a lasting impression on a culture or religious ideology. These stories are meaningful to us as a species for a variety of reasons. We can relate to them and in so doing we can use them as guideposts for our own personal actions. They are stories that we all know, told to us by teachers, priests, grandparents or even popular culture. We are so use to hearing these stories, religious ones included, that we at times forget to ask a simple question: does this story have any aspect of real history in its plot? Or even more profound: did this actually happen? We take these things for granted, especially stories contained in religious scripture. We are told that these events literally happened in history and that they need to be viewed in that way. This is most true with the story of the Exodus. Due to the story being placed in recorded history we feel obliged to accept it as historical fact. What if we begin to doubt the way the story is presented to us in the Bible and the Quran and ask ourselves for much needed proof? When we decide to use resources outside of scripture to attempt to answer these questions, we find shocking discoveries that shake the very heart of religious foundation and views on belief. The question of is the Exodus a historically documented event is an important one, who's implications intertwine the three Abrahamic Faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. How we view stories, literally or symbolically is another aspect of the question that needs to be considered based on the evidence provided. To begin pondering these major questions and implications we need to begin with the facts.
What we know about the story of the Exodus and the personhood of Moses can be found in the pages of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The book of Exodus chronicles the story of Moses' infancy, his youth and growing to manhood, and his final confrontation with evil and liberation of the Hebrews. The story has been dramatized many times, the two most noteworthy Disney's "The Prince of Egypt" and hollywood film "The Ten Commandments" starring Charlton Heston. These two films have helped solidify this story into the minds of popular culture that lines from it appear in rock songs and have been used in comedic parodies. It would be good to begin with the story of the Exodus as it appears in the Bible to get a sense of what we know based on the scripture, and what has been assumed or added later by various scholars. We are told in chapter one of Exodus that the Hebrews had been living in Egypt but since Joseph, from the book of Genesis, had died, a new Pharaoh had risen to power who did not respect the Hebrews and forced them into slave labor. He feared that the Hebrews would overpopulate the area, causing a new majority, so he decreed the killing of the first born: "Pharaoh commanded his entire people, saying, 'Every son that will be born-into the River shall you throw him! And every daughter shall you keep alive!"(Exodus 1:22). Moses' mother set him as a baby in a reed basket and sent him down the Nile where he was saved by the daughter of Pharaoh. He was raised in that royal house and in his youth, killed an Egyptian who was abusing a Hebrew. The shock of this murder and fear of retribution caused Moses to flee to the land of Midian(Exodus 2-3). There with the people of Midian Moses met with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Burning Bush. It was revealed to him that he was a Hebrew a Prophet of God and that he would be sent to Pharaoh to demand the freedom of the Children of Israel. With the aid of Aaron, his brother, Moses performed miracles that caused terror in the hearts of Egyptians. Plagues of various kinds, a staff turned into a snake and the river Nile turned to blood would not cause Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go. It was not until the last miracle, the death that came to the firstborn of Egypt, that Pharaoh allowed Moses to lead his people out of Egypt.(Exodus chapter 11). At the last moment, as Moses and the Children of Israel neared the Red Sea, Pharaoh pursued them with his army, having changed his mind to let the Hebrew slaves free. "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and Hashem moved the sea with a strong east wind all the night, and He turned the sea to damp land and the water split."(Exodus 14:21). Moses and the Hebrews crossed the dry land, but the sea swallowed up Pharaoh and his armies, causing the Children of Israel to be free from bondage at last.
The Bible is not the only holy scripture that contains the story of the Exodus. The Holy Quran, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the 6th century C.E. contains the story of Moses. It is the most repeated and discussed story in the entire text of the Quran, showing its prominence and importance. Muhammad and Moses are closer to each other in figure and life, and so it is also necessary to see how the Exodus is treated in the Quranic text and what unique passages make its rendition of the story different from the Biblical version. The majority of the story in the Quran is the same as the Biblical account, however there are a few unique verses and passages that need to be considered. In the Quran chapter 28:38 depicts the following conversation between Pharaoh and his court members: "Pharaoh said:'O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself..." In another place Pharaoh is again depicted of being God incarnate, "I am your Lord, Most High"(Quran 79:24). Two other verses in the Quran call Pharaoh "Lord of Stakes"(Quran 38:10-13/ 89:6-13). These two titles, being a god and being a lord of stakes, are unique to the Quran and they shall be examined later. Another unique passage from the Quranic version is that Allah destroyed the great monuments of Pharaoh: "We leveled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected(with such pride),"(Quran 7:137). One of the greatest passages in the Quran with regards to the miracle of the Exodus can be found in chapter 10:90-92: "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee!" This passage is referring to the remains of Pharaoh after he and his armies were drowned, claiming that his body would be preserved so that future generations would know the truth of the miracles of the Exodus and take heed.
The next question that needs to be asked is whether the story of the Exodus is recorded or contained in none-scriptural books. We first turn to the Egyptian historical records to see if there is any mention of the story of the Exodus, Moses and the Children of Israel. Historians have hypothesized that the Exodus took place at two potential times in history. The first time period proposed is during the reign of Ramses the 2nd between 1293-1185 BCE. This is mainly due to the following verse from the book of Exodus: "Those bosses forced them(the Hebrews) to build the cities of Pithom and Ramses..."(Exodus 1:11). Historians have assumed that due to the name of the historical city of Ramses mentioned in this verse that naturally means the Exodus took place during the reign of the Pharaoh bearing the same name. If this is the case, and the Exodus did occur during Ramses' reign then we are in luck. With archeological and historical records we have a detailed account of the events that shaped his reign. We find no historical evidence in the Egyptian records that Ramses kept Hebrew slaves, forced them build any monuments, or as Josephus states, "built the pyramids"(Antiquities of the Jews 9:1), since pyramids were not being built during his reign or the New Kingdom period in general. No account of these absent slaves being lead by one leader on a mass Exodus out of Egypt and most importantly that Ramses died by drowning in the Red Sea. According to The Chronicle of the Pharaohs Ramses died at the age of 92 in the year 1212 BCE,(Clayton pg. 155). The author concludes, "Needless to say, none of these events(of the Exodus) are corroborated by ancient Egyptian records..."(Clayton pg.151). The Bible itself does not corroborate this time period, but in fact proposes a second one. "According to 1 Kings 6.1, the exodus occurred 480 years before the fourth year of King Solomon's reign. Solomon ruled from about 970 to 931 B.C. That would mean that the exodus occurred around 1446 B.C."( Learning pg.128). If the Bible is true, then that would place the story of the Exodus during the reign of Amenhotep the 2nd. Yet there is no evidence of the Exodus occurring during his reign as well,(Clayton pg. 112-113). Due to the usage of the title Pharaoh, a New Kingdom title for the King of Egypt, in the Bible and the Quran, this has lead scholars to assume that the Exodus must have taken place during the New Kingdom period.
Sigmund Freud was one such person who attempted to prove that the Exodus story took place during the New Kingdom period. In his book Moses and Monotheism he noted that Moses' name is Egyptian in origin and not Hebrew. He also notes that during the New Kingdom period the Pharaoh Akhenaten first introduced the concept of monotheism into Egyptian culture. He abolished the old established polytheistic pantheon of gods and introduced the worship of the one god Aten, who's symbol was the sun. Freud proposed that Moses was a priest of the cult of Aten, and upon the Pharaoh's death, when the religion was usurped by the polytheistic gods of old, he turned to the Hebrews, who's religion was similar to his own. The problem with Freud's theory and the idea that the Exodus happened during Akenaten's reign is simply that it is based on a hypothesis, with no historical evidence at all,(Clayton pg. 120-127). Akenaten's reign was well documented considering that the Egyptian people destroyed all public symbols associated with him and his pro-to-monotheistic cult. Still, historical records pertaining to his reign survived and yet nothing about the Exodus is contained in their annals. An interesting point is that according to the book of Exodus the city that was supposedly built by the Hebrews was Pithom which is Egyptian for "House of (the sun god) Atum,"(The Learning Bible Commentary pg.130). In his book History of Religious Ideas vol.1, Mircea Eliade discusses the religion of the Egyptians in detail, including the cult of Atum under Akenaten. There was never a time in Egyptian religion, even during extreme changes in theology, that the Pharaoh ever proclaimed to be the only god that his people should worship. Nor is the title of "Lord of the Stakes" ever used as well. These two facts cause a major historical problem for the Quran's version of the Exodus story. Since the two time periods hypothoized by the Bible and the scholars who have studied it have not yield any historical results, we now turn to other historical sources to find any evidence for the Exodus.
Starting with Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian, who wrote a two part retelling of the story of Moses, he attempts to base the Exodus in recorded history. He admits at the very end part two: "Such was the life, and such was the death of the king, and lawgiver, and high priest, and prophet, Moses, as it is recorded in the sacred scriptures,"(On the Life of Moses,2). Here Philo admits that his retelling is spawned from the Torah with no real additional historical information. The same can be found in the histories of Josephus, in his book The Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus' major source was the Hebrew Bible and he does not shy away from admitting that is his major source. However he does cite other historians that came before him, one of which was the Hellenistic Egyptian historian Manetho,(Josephus pg. 891). Manetho chronicled the history of Egypt, but most of his original histories have been lost. It was quoted by Josephus in an attempt to place the text of the Exodus and the Hebrew scripture at large in recorded history. "Josephus is citing the records of neighboring nations in proof of the antiquity of the Jews,"(Waddell pg.77). According to Waddell and other scholars it was not unusual for historians to take the chronicles of past historians and twist in them in an attempt to make their groups history that more based in fact and reality. Josephus writes: "...in Manteho...many Hyksos brought with them from Asia their tribal god, which was assimilated by the Egyptians to Seth..."(Waddell pg.77). Josephus is relying on the history of the Hyksos to draw a parallel to claim that this asian group is none other then the Children of Israel. Margaret S. King in her book The Exodus in the Quran also points out these parallels but instead of naming this group as the Hyksos she titles them the Asiatics. Who were the Hyksos? According to Menetho they were a mercenary tribe from Asia who settled in the northeastern region of Egypt. After much hostility between the two groups, the Hyksos were forced out of Egypt and into Canaan after a long siege conducted by Thummosis,(Josephus pg.778-779). According to Waddell's commentary on Menetho's histories, the Hyksos were finally once again expelled from Egyptian society,(Waddell pg.95). The issue with Josephus and other historians using the history of the Hyksos to parallel the Exodus story is that the events do not match up one hundred percent of the time. There are parts of Hyksos history which do not match the Exodus at all, and thus would force a reader to cherry pick and ignore vast amounts of history to force this parallel.
This sort of forced parallelism can be seen in the context of the Ipuwer scroll. This document is an ancient Egyptian papyrus is also known as "The Admonitions of Ipuwer." They contain a chronicle of disasters, natural and supernatural that cause much terror and death in ancient Egypt. Margaret S. King also cites this scroll as proof that the Exodus actually took place, saying that the writer of this document was recording literal events. Again the problem is that there are many events in the Ipuwer scroll that do not occur in Exodus, so once again we forced to cherry pick key events and discard the rest because they do not match up with Exodus story. Also the scroll is many years before the two hypothesized time frames mentioned above:"the 'Adminitions of Ipuwer' has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme of 'order verses chaos.'"(reshafim). The majority of those who have studies the scroll know that this is not referring to the Exodus either due to content, theme or the historical time period in which it was written. "Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus...Similarity between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews....But to conclude from such parallelism that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make,"reshafim). Once again we find historians, modern and ancient taking historical documents and cherry-picking aspects that fit their sacred texts' stories in an attempt to fit them into the historical record. In so doing they run into this sort of fallacy and do no service in aiding in the discovery of the truth of these events.
Researching the historicity of the Exodus has been one of the most eye opening experiences in my life. I entered this comparative religion class with the thought that I would "own it". My reasons for thinking this way is that I have been studying comparative religion since I was a Sophomore in high school and I am now 21 years old. Once I realized that through studying the ancient Mesopotamian religion and its obvious influence on future theological thought I knew I had to research this topic. Starting with Otto Rank's work on the birth of the hero, I realized that the infancy of Moses was not unique, but a common mythological motif. My research into the life of Moses lead me to realize that there was no concrete historical evidence for the literal reading of the stories found in the Bible and the Quran. I was faced, as a Muslim convert from Christianity, with a major dilemma. I had used history to criticize aspects of the Bible which had lead me to doubt its claim of divine inspired word of God and Christianity's teachings. I found that if I used such arguments against one faith, I must be consistent and do so with any religion that I came across. To not do so would prove me a hypocrite. I learned in this class, along with my readings of Carl Jung that I need not totally abandon my faith and love of religion, Islam in particular. With much thought and research I realized a symbolic reading of the text, coupled with Jungian psychology was the best way for me to appreciate not only the story of the Exodus, but sacred scripture in general. The debate about who owns the truth or if we have to take these stories literally soon fell into the shadows and I was able to marvel at the commonalities that exist in all symbols and tales that permeate from all cultures, religions and traditions. I feel that this journey of researching the Exodus, on a literal and symbolic level has taught me many valuable lessons. I do feel that Moses has indeed lead me to the Promise Land, the land filled with milk and honey.

Bibliography

1.American Bible Society. The Learning Bible Contemporary English Version. New York, American Bible Society, 1995,2000.

2. Freud, Sigmund. Moses and Monotheism. New York, Vintage Books, 1939.

3.Al-Hilali, Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud Din, and Khan, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin. The Noble Qur'an. Madinah, K.S.A, Darrualislam, 1996.

4. Scherman, Rabbi Nosson. Stone Edition-The Chumash. New York, The Artscroll Series, 1998, 2000.

5. Whiston, William. The Works of Josephus. Peabody, MA, Hendricksons Publishers Inc., 1987.

6. Younge, C.D. The Works of Philo. Peabody, MA, Hendricksons Publishers Inc., 1993.

7. King, Margaret. The Exodus in the Quran. Susiana Press, 2007.

8. An introduction to the history and culture of Pharaonic Egypt. 2011. 4 April 2011. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

9. Waddell, W.G. Manetho-an English Translation. London, W. Heinemann, 1940.
www.archive.org 10 March 2001, 11 April 2011,

Response to a hater

2011-01-11T00:35:00.000-08:00

NOTE: This is not written by me but has been posted with the permission of the author.

Bigotry Has No Place in Education

by Al-Bayan on Dec 18, 2010 • 6:41 am No Comments

By A.R. Bassa

Can you imagine a so-called ‘Imperial Wizard’ of the Ku Klux Klan allowed by a community college, or any academic institution even attempting to pass itself off as legitimate, to teach a course in African-American history, without qualification? The school would be unrelentingly condemned worldwide and a mandatory media circus would ensue whether or not it remedied the situation. Good thing nothing like that ever happens, right? I invite you to additionally think along any of the following lines: an unrepentant Serbian war-criminal teaching a Bosnian history course; a proud Turk teaching a course in Armenian history bereft and in denial of genocide; a neo-Nazi teaching a class on ‘What is Judaism?’; or even a high ranking member of the Taliban teaching ‘American-studies’. Unsuspecting students seeking knowledge would only learn ignorance and hate. Perhaps in oppressive societies where minorities are demonized routinely, basic civil liberties cast aside and human rights disregarded, dark hegemonic ideologies can be taught in academia under false guise—not in America of course.

Lane Community College, of Oregon’s second largest city, Eugene, was set to offer a non-credit course deceptively titled “What is Islam?” This course was proposed and set to be instructed by a man with no credentials in religious studies or legitimate education in Islam, Barry Sommer. The course was subsequently cancelled, before a session was held, after LCC administrators learned a bit about Sommer and took the right course of action earlier this month. LCC offers around 300 non-credit courses in their Continuing Education program, often led by people other than college staff, aimed at “(enriching) the lives of the residents in and around Lane County,” according to its website. Forming and instructing one of these courses is not hard, there are only a few bureaucratic steps and a minimal number of students willing to register in order to get the course offered.

Sommer resides in a quiet trailer park in the local Eugene-area. He runs an anti-Muslim blog titled “Islam Today Oregon” where he skews news-stories regarding terrorism and Islam to provide only a negative one-sided view of the faith. He also produces a local cable access program similarly titled “Islam Today.” His grammar and spelling are unfit for anyone hoping to teach at a college-level. Browsing through his blog one will notice a myriad of errors. His deplorable English and scholarly-fraud is not limited to his blog; he is also an author of a seemingly self-published online book “From the Mouths of Our Enemies,” which he dedicates affectionately to infamous anti-Muslim blogger Robert Spencer. Similarly to his blog and TV-show, his book is nothing more than faux-scholarly bigotry. He is unequipped to teach at all, let alone a course on theology he has no grasp on.

Aside from being an intellectually-deprived writer, Sommer is also president of the Oregon chapter of a national anti-Muslim hate group known as “ACT! for America”. The national group is headed by Brigitte Gabriel, who is quoted as making false claims like “Every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim,” and “a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day — this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.”

From just a small glimpse into Barry Sommer’s works and affiliations, it becomes obvious that he would only provide poor instruction and a skewed bias to students of his would-be class had LCC not mended their mistake. Administrators only realized their mistake after being contacted by a local TV station that Sommer had informed of the course. In a statement provided to another station, KVAL, LCC administration noted that the “noncredit class titled ‘What is Islam’ …reached the attention of administration after a phone call from a local television station…The station had been contacted directly by the person who proposed the course.” They reviewed the course and “determined that it was in the best interest of students and the community to step back, pause for careful consideration, and engage our faculty in how to best provide a rich learning experience,” the statement continued. Additionally LCC’s Continuing Education program describes that “Instructors are practitioners in the subjects they teach,” and Sommer is no practitioner of Islam.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) learned of Sommer’s proposed course after he sought and recieved media mention for it. They took action immediately issuing a statement to LCC administration as well as a press-release on the matter. The class was, however, cancelled before CAIR’s statement was received. In the statement, CAIR-Washington Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari advised that Sommer be replaced “unless the goal of this course is to promote anti-Muslim bigotry.” Bukhari, in a phone-interview, expressed most concern in Sommer’s education, “I want to see his educational background,” he said, “He’s been claiming that he’s been studying Islam for (more than 10) years,” he continued “There are many ways to study a faith.” The LCC situation “irks us and should irk every rational person,” Bukhari expressed.“In mainstream society we don’t want bigotry in education. It shouldn’t be acceptable to have people who hate Islam, teach it. That’s not education.”

In answering whether he hated Islam to a local reporter, Sommer replied “That’s kind of a loaded question…I have absolutely nothing against Muslims, but I have a problem on how Islam is defined today by its leaders.” Unfortunately Sommer believes that 1.57 billion Muslims today are led by the minuscule percentage of radicals responsible for about 6% of terrorism in the US and .4% in Europe, according to the FBI and Europol respectively. This fetish for misleading people about Islam is most definitely rooted in a deep-seated hatred for it. It’s harrowing that he almost got away with producing institutionalized Islamophobia but somewhat comforting that his efforts were ultimately thwarted. Sommer is not giving up easily though, and the American Center for Law and Justice is threatening LCC with legal action on his behalf; the right-wing legal-group wants Sommer and his course reinstated. The ACLJ’s threats are baseless as they are under the false impression that LCC’s decision was pressured by CAIR, though LCC administration asserts that their decision was entirely through internal review.

This situation at LCC is merely a footnote in the rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment enveloping America, and many nations in Europe. Bukhari believes that Muslims should be vocal in defense against this, “Stand up for your rights, take a stand,” he advised; promoting writing op-ed articles, letters-to-the-editor, and comments on online news relating to Islam. “There are basically organizations, groups, out there that have interns or volunteers go (online) and comment (falsely) on articles about Islam” he warned; further recommending “(getting) maybe 10 Muslims to go debunk negative commentators.” Bukhari stressed the importance of media involvement, he continued to advise “(responding) to reporters, write positive letters to reporters to balance the negativity” they receive from bigots, when they do fair articles about Islam. “It has a huge impact and it’s very easy to do,” he added “Mainstream discourse is off, our job is to respond to that, to make sure our narrative gets out.”

Original link:

http://albayanmag.com/2010/12/18/bigotry-has-no-place-in-education/

Review of Jung's "Freud and Psychoanalysis"

2010-11-13T21:38:00.000-08:00

The fourth volume of Jung's Collected Works is one that shows his defense of Freudian Psychoanalysis and then the evolution of him turning away from a Freudian point of view. The earliest essays are ones of a defensive nature against those who critique Freud's views and explanations for misconceptions surrounding some of the key themes of psychoanalysis. It is not until the major essay "The Theory of Psychoanalysis" which is actually a transcript of a lecture given by Jung after the writing of his book "Symbols of Transformation" that we see the beginning divergence of Jung's personal approach to psychology from that of Freud's. I will be doing videos on Youtube discussing the Freud and Jung relationship which lead up to their breaking apart from each other and both writing two large works, Jung's "Symbols of Transformation" and Freud: "Totem an Taboo". However this short essay, while being out of order on a chronological level can still be discussed here without the reader having any prior knowledge of the above material. I will attempt to summarize the material found in this paper, however I should note that there will be key moments where I will not cover the material since specific topics will be covered in greater detail in later works that I will be doing here on this blog or on my Youtube channel.

Jung begins by discussing the earliest views of psychoanalysis such as Freud and Breuer's book "Studies on Hysteria"(which I have discussed in a video on Youtube), and also some of the views of anxiety, its roots derived from repressed sexuality and also hypnosis. He then discussed Freud's views on Infantile Sexuality and produces an alternative view of the earliest psychic experiences, namely the Nutritive Function. Jung does not deny that some of the earliest emotional experiences we have as infants is that of pleasure, however Jung rejects the notion that said pleasure is sexual in nature. Rather there is no biological or psychological evidence that this pleasure is derived from the sex drive, it is actually that of nutrition. We of course gain pleasure from the sucking on the breast and the food that is given to us, however this does not have any correlation to sexuality, but rather just the pleasure we get from eating something that is good an feeling full. We still experience this today when we feel satisfied after being hungry and feel comfort when a loved one is near, yet this is not something that excites us sexually in the least bit. It is the obviously idea that when we are young are need for comfort(platonic), survival and nutrition are the earliest things that drive us and not a wholly exclusive sexual libido.

Jung then discusses the Libido in the context of it either being purely sexual in nature or something else. Jung does not deny, like the man Freudians who charged him with this, that there is NO sexuality AT ALL in the libido. Rather he ventured an alternative view which established the idea that sexuality was not the ONLY part of the psychic energy within us but that there are other drives that make up any of the psychic experiences we have. Jung then moves away from Freud's "Stags of Infantile Sexuality" such as the oral, anal and phallic stage and replaces them with his own. These are:

1. Presexual Stage-the first years of life, focus is on nutrition and growth.

2. Prepubertal Stage- later years of childhood up to puberty, beginning of what will become sexuality.

3. Maturity- adult period from puberty on.

Another large factor that lead Jung to reject Freud's views on the subject of sexuality was his work with patients who were Schizophrenic. He analyzed their visions and hallucinations and could not find a overdose of sexual symbolism or even their reactions to what they saw an heard as being strictly sexual. Rather they were common to the motifs found in religion and mythology which lead him to expound on such concepts in this later works.

Jung of course agreed that we have not only a conscious part of our personality but also an unconscious as well. Also that through dreams one could understand the unconscious and what it is trying to tell us so we can integrate consciously its contents. He also found that having the patient and therapist discuss what the dream could mean, its symbols and content, was the best way to understand the topic at hand. Furthermore he did not agree with Freud that the images as presented to the patient in the dream were just a mask for the real(sexually repressed) meanings behind them. Rather the visible and "masked" content BOTH held importance and of course not every symbol had to do with a repressed sexual wish-fulfillment. He also discusses the merits of the Association Tests(see my previous article on Jung for more details) and its revealing of complex's in patients.

The refutation of the dominance of the Oedipus Complex, the symbols seen in the unconscious and the topic of Transference will be discussed in later articles and videos. This is just a brief summary of the large essay that is in this volume. The rest of the essays are simple and are either expounded upon in Jung's later works, so that I will cover them in detail another time. This present volume falls into the category of being "historical" in the understanding of Jung's theory and not necessary to have a large grasp on.

Quran Surah 5:73-75-a closer look

2010-11-02T13:28:00.000-07:00

Salamu Alaykum(Peace be upon you)
So if you are like me and have seen the recent Youtube video exchange between Mr. Islamanswersback(aka Shadeed Lewis) and the Christian by the screen name Nakdimon, you know that there has been some debate regarding the Quran's stance of the Trinity and who makes up the Trinity. Now the Christian argument that the Trinity actually contains the Virgin Mary and that this is somehow taught by the Quran is not a new one. However we find that Christian apologsists and polemists tend to bring it up every once and awhile in a attempt to prove that the Quran is somehow false and wrong on a theological level. I have watched both Shadeed's and Nakdimon's videos on the subject and found myself wanting to do my own research totally independent of their own. Granted I will probably be repeating some of the arguments that they BOTH made, which would be natural considering that we are dealing with the same material. However I will say at the beginning that I agree with Shadeed when it comes to this topic. His argument can be summarized as the following: The Quran does not say Mary is a part of the Trinity, the Prophet Muhammad(Pbuh) did not teach this concept according to the authentic Hadith and the Prophet's Companions did not teach this either, thus there is no reason for any Muslim to think that Islam actually teaches such an idea. I would say this is a solid and straight forward argument which can be seen in full here:

Mr.Islamanswersback's video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D71bRk4Nw

Now I would agree with Shadeed that the first place an educated Muslim should go to, to understand the meaning of the Quran is to first check on the greatest Tafsir of the Quran which is the Quran making Tafsir on itself. This is known to anyone who has ever been to a class on understanding Quranic exgesis and also anyone who has read a textbook on the subject. We find, as Shadeed shows in his videos, that the Quran does not say anywhere that the Trinity includes the Virgin Mary. There are only two places the Trinity is mentioned and it simply as Allah swt saying don't say it or believe in such a concept. In fact, again as Shadeed says, Allah swt does not even tell us makes up the Trinity, he simply condemns the concept on a theological level. Next we ask the question did the Prophet and his companions teach that the Virgin Mary was a member of the Trinity? The answer is no. There is no authentic hadith that states such a concept. So therefore we have to then go to the next level of source for a Muslim to understand the meaning of the Quran and that is the scholars of Tafsir. Now I can see why Shadeed felt that he didn't need to deal with the Tafsirs, since his original argument is well founded and sound. However once the Nakdimon brought up the Tafsirs, in my opinion, one should look at the evidences provided.

Now I want to be very clear at this point, I am not attempting to say that Shadeed needs my help regarding this topic, he does not, he is an excellent debator and can hold his own. Nor am I saying that I am actually trying to refute Nakdimon personally, I am not. I am simply going to examine the Tafsirs and see what they say as the texts of those documents are presented for us as plain as on our own computer screens. I will also be referring to Tafirs that are not online but are in published print format that I personally own to broaden the topic much more then Nakdimon took it. It is my goal and hopes that we can actually see what the Tafsirs see and then ascertain if it is a fact that the Tafsirs teach that the Virgin Mary is a part of the Trinity and that therefore the Quran is actually saying this and therefore we as Muslims, all 1.7 billion of us actually think this on a theological level.

We will first begin by looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas(May Allah swt be pleased with him) regarding his views on this subject. The link for what I will be copying and pasting here can be seen here:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=73&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

The follwing is the text of this Tafsir 5:73-75:

(They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three) this is the claim of the Marqusiyyah; they claim that there is a father, a son and a holy Spirit; (when there is no God) for the dwellers of the heavens and the earth (save the One God) who has no son or partner. (If they desist not from so saying) He says: if the Jews and Christians do not repent of what they are saying (a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve) the pain of which will extend to their hearts.(73)
(Will they not rather turn unto Allah) repent of their claims (and seek forgiveness of Him?) by declaring His divine Oneness. (For Allah is Forgiving) of he who repents and believes, (Merciful) towards him who dies repentant.(74)
(The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger) sent to people, (messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food) they were both servants who used to eat food. (See) O Muhammad (how we make the revelations) the signs that Jesus and his mother were not gods (clear for them, and see) O Muhammad (how they are turned away) through lies!(75)

Now when we look at the text of the Tafsir itself we an see clearly that Ibn Abbas actually gives us the formula for the Trinity as plain as day: that it contains the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is no mention of the Virgin Mary at all being a member of this Trinity. We also see by verse 75 that the mentioning of Mary in is to show that she is not divine and like her son were human in nature. Again not even Ibn Abbas, and for that matter Tabari's Tafsir since he used Ibn Abbas' to back up his own views, show that the Virgin Mary is part of the Trinity.

We now turn to the Tafsir of Al-Jalalayn which can be seen via link here:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=73&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

The following is the text of the Tafsir for chapter 5:73-75:

They are indeed disbelievers those who say, ‘God is the third of three’, gods, that is, He is one of them, the other two being Jesus and his mother, and they [who claim this] are a Christian sect; when there is no god but the One God. If they do not desist from what they say, when they declare a trinity, and profess His Oneness, those of them who disbelieve, that is, [those] who are fixed upon unbelief, shall suffer a painful chastisement, namely, the Fire.(73)
Will they not turn in repentance to God and seek His forgiveness?, for what they say (the interrogative is intended as a rebuke); God is Forgiving, to the one who repents, Merciful, to him.(74)
The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers passed away before him, and so he passed away like them, for he is not a god as they claim, otherwise he would not have passed away; his mother was a truthful woman, [siddīqa means] extremely truthful; they both used to eat food, like all other human beings, and one who is such cannot be a god because of his compound being and fallible nature, and because of the [impurities such as] urine and excrement that he produces. Behold, in amazement, how We make the signs, of Our Oneness, clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away!, [how] they are turned away from the truth despite the proof being established.(75)

Now here I will admit that this Tafsir does say that the Virgin Mary is a member of the Trinity. One cannot deny this considering that it is plainly seen there in the text. However it should be noted that one who reads these Tafsirs needs to understand the nature of the Tafsirs themselves. I have made a video talking specifically about this Tafsir which can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Z201dqMn0

In this video I explain that this Tafsir specifically according to other scholars and the ranking of authoratative commentary is viewed as not being the most authoratative mainly because Jalalayn tended to go with his own views and not back up them up using the Quran, Sunna and other past Tafsirs which would have made it more authoratative according to the views of Tafsir scholarship. Therefore we must ask the question, who us authority, as later scholar of Tafsir, is he making such a claim? Even if he did believe the Quran to teaching this we should also note one letter which totally points to the understanding of this commentary. That letter is: "a". Yes because on a careful reading of the text of the Tafsir it clearly says "and they [who claim this] are a Christian sect", meaning not ALL Christians, but a sect within Christianity is saying this. Now I am not saying that the Sheikh is historically correct to make such an argument, more research would have to be done to see if any Christian group outside of the Orthodoxy thought this on a theological level. However he is making the historic and theological claim that "a Christian sect" believed this and not all of Christians.

With regards to verse 75 again Jalalyan simply states that because of the natural need to eat food and then use the toliet Jesus and Mary were human beings and not divine, going in line with the past Tafsirs of higher authority then his own.

The next Tafsir we will look at is Ibn Kathir's which can be viewed for yourself via this link:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14362

Now I am not going to copy and paste all of Ibn Kathir's material on this subject, because it would take up a lot of space, however if you follow the link and read along with my comments you will see what my points are. He begins by discussing the views of three specific Christian groups: Monarchite, Jacobite and Nestorite, for saying that Jesus is simply God. He goes into detail by using the ultimate Tafsir, the Quran upon itself, to show how Jesus is not God and never claimed to be God. However regarding the Trinity specifically Ibn Kathir writes the following:

(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the third of three.") Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, "This is similar to Allah's statement towards the end of the Surah,

(And (remember) when Allah will say: "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah' He will say, "Glory be to You!")[5:116]. Allah replied,

But there is no god but One God.) meaning there are not many worthy of worship but there is only One God without partners, and He is the Lord of all creation and all that exists. Allah said next, while threatening and admonishing them,

We can see from Ibn Kathir that he quotes two scholars who have two views about the verse's meaning about the Trinity. The first is Mujahid who only says this was revealed about the Christians. The other scholar is As-Suddi who does say that the verse is implying that because certain Christians took Jesus and his Mother as gods besides Allah they made Allah a third in a Trinity. However it should be noted that Ibn Kathir does not way in and express is own opinion but simply quotes two scholars' views on the subject. Again it should also be noted that both scholars quoted state that the Quran says Trinity=Virgin Mary is a member, nor do they say the Prophet taught such a concept. We are left to wonder how the As-Suddi came up with such an idea, even though he does point out another verse which condemns the claims that worshipping the Virgin Mary was okay in the eyes of God Almighty.

The major point that needs to be rememberd here is that Ibn Kathir quotes two scholars, one who does not define the Trinity, and another who attempts to do so. So we as Muslims are left to wonder, who is right? What was Ibn Kathir's views on the subject, did he hold an opinion of his own? This sort of evidence leaves us to seek out other areas and as I have already noted the idea of the Virgin Mary being considered by the vast majority of Muslim scholars and laymen to be a member of the Trinity is not something that is believed. When cannot make a solid argument by using Ibn Kathir's Tafsir because he simply states the opinions of two scholars and leaves it alone. To make an argument out of such a netural presentation in my mind would be the wrong thing to do. We can discuss the two different opinions and see what makes sense to us on a subjective level, but to say that this is a total answer to our question in my opinion is wrong.

Ibn Kathir's views on verse 75 is in line with the other Tafsirs.

I will now continue with the other Tafsirs I own in a attempt to show what other scholars have said regarding this topic. When I checked the commentary done by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Asad they did not state anywhere that the Trinity included Mary, but simply pointed out the flaw in certain Chrisitan theology that Jesus is divine and so is his Mother via verse 75. Yet the Trinity is never included in the discussion of the Virgin Mary. Something two scholars of their status would have covered if this was such a huge debate or concept in Islam. When I looked up the commentary done by Mulana Muhammad Ali this text was a glaring answer to this question:

"It should be noted that the name of Mary is never mentioned in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity. But as the Christians, especially the Roman Catholics, invested Mary with Divine character, as being the mother of God, the Quran often mentions hr along with Jesus as being an ordinary mortal."(pg. 270 "The Holy Quran" note 73a. Here the Mulana is clearly stating that the Quran does not teach that Mary is connected to the Trinity. His views on verse 75 are the same as the above Tafsirs.

The last Tafsir I would like to reproduce for you all is the one done by Sheikh Maududi. It shoud be noted that the following is not just commentary on verses 73-75 but also on verses 77, however the entire commentary is relevant to this discussion. The entire text will be reproduced here and a link at the very end will allow you to read it all for yourself.

The text of the Tafsir done by Sheikh Maududi:

"100. In these few words the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ is repudiated. The nature of the Messiah is clear from the indications given here; he was merely a human being. He was one born from the womb of a woman, who had a known genealogy, who possessed a physical body, who was subject to all the limitations of a human being and who had all the attributes characteristic of human beings. He slept, ate, felt the discomfort of heat and cold and was so human that he was even put to the test by Satan. How could any reasonable person believe that such a being was either God or a partner or associate of God in His godhead? But the Christians continue to insist on the divinity of the Messiah, whose life has been portrayed in their own Scriptures as that of a human. The fact of the matter is that they do not believe at all in the historical Messiah. They have woven a Messiah out of their imagination and have deified that imaginary being.

101. This refers to those misguided nations from whom the Christians derived their false beliefs and ways, particularly to the Hellenistic philosophers under the spell of whose ideas the Christians had veered from the straight way they had originally followed. The beliefs of the early followers of the Messiah were mainly in conformity with the reality they had witnessed, and conformed to the teachings they had received from their guide and mentor. But they later resorted to an exaggerated veneration of Jesus, and interpreted their own beliefs in the light of the philosophical doctrines and superstitious ideas of the neighbouring nations. Thus they invented an altogether new religion not even remotely related to the original teachings of the Messiah. In this connection the observations of a Christian theologian, the Reverend Charles Anderson Scott are significant. In a lengthy article entitled 'Jesus' Christ', published in the fourteenth edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, he writes:

. . . there is nothing in these three Gospels to suggest that their writers thought of Jesus as other than human, a human being specially endowed with the Spirit of God and standing in an unbroken relation to God which justified His being spoken of as the 'Son of God'. Even Matthew refers to Him as the carpenter's son and records that after Peter had acknowleged Him as Messiah he 'took Him aside and began to rebuke Him' (Matthew, xvi. 22). And in Luke the two disciples on the way to Emmaus can still speak of Him as 'a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people' (Luke, xxiv. 19). It is very singular that in spite of the fact that before Mark was composed 'the Lord' had become the description of Jesus common among Christians, He is never so described in the second Gospel (nor yet in the first, though the word is freely used to refer to God). All three relate the Passion of Jesus with a fullness and emphasis of its great significance; but except the 'ransom' passage (Mark, x. 45) and certain words at the Last Supper there is no indication of the meaning which was afterwards attached to it. It is not even suggested that the death of Jesus had any relation to sin or forgiveness.

A little further on he writes:

That He ranked Himself as a prophet appears from a few passages such as 'It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem'. He frequently referred to Himself as the Son of Man; but while this must be maintained in face of influential opinions to the contrary, the result for our purpose is less important than we might expect, for the possible meanings of the phrase are as numerous as the sources from which it may possibly have been derived. They range from simple 'man' through 'man in his human weakness' and the representative 'Man' to the supernatural man from heaven foreshadowed in Daniel. If we had to postulate one source and one meaning for the phrase as used by Jesus of Himself, it would probably be found in Psalm Ixxx., where the poignant appeal to God for the redemption of Israel runs out on the hope of a 'son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. The same author adds:

Certain words of Peter spoken at the time of Pentecost, 'A man approved of God', described Jesus as He was known and regarded by His contemporaries. He was 'found in fashion as a man', that is, in all particulars which presented themselves to outward observation He Appeared and behaved as one of the human race. He 'was made man'. The Gospels leave no room for doubt as to the completeness with which these statements are to be accepted. From them we learn that Jesus passed through the natural stages of development, physical and mental, that He hungered, thirsted, was weary and slept, that He could be surprised and require information, that He suffered pain and died. He not only made no claim to omniscience, He distinctly waived it. This is not to deny that He had insight such as no other ever had, into human nature, into the hearts of men and the purposes and methods of God. But there is no reason to suppose that He thought of the earth as other than the centre of the solar system, of any other than David as the author of the Psalms, or did not share the belief of His age that demons were the cause of disease. Indeed, any claim to omniscience would be not only inconsistent with the whole impression created by the Gospels, it could not be reconciled with the cardinal experiences of the Temptation, of Gethsemane and of Calvary. Unless such experiences were to be utterly unreal, Jesus must have entered into them and passed through them under the ordinary limitations of human knowledge, subject only to such modifications of human knowledge as might be due to prophetic insight or the sure vision of God.

There is still less reason to predicate omnipotence of Jesus. There is no indication that He ever acted independently of God, or as an independent God. Rather does He acknowledge dependence upon God, by His habit of prayer and in such words as 'this kind goeth not forth save by prayer'. He even repudiates the ascription to Himself of goodness in the absolute sense in which it belongs to God alone. It is a remarkable testimony to the truly historical character of these Gospels that though they were not finally set down until the Christian Church had begun to look up to the risen Christ as to a Divine Being, the records on the one hand preserve all the evidence of His true humanity and on the other nowhere suggest that He thought of Himself as God.

The same author also observes that:

He proclaimed that at and through the Resurrection Jesus had been publicly installed as Son of God with power; and if the phrase has not wholly lost its official Messianic connotation, it certainly includes a reference to the personal Sonship, which Paul elsewhere makes clear by speaking of Him as God's 'own Son' . . .

It may not be possible to decide whether it was the primitive community or Paul himself who first put full religious content into the title 'Lord' as used of Christ. Probably it was the former. But the Apostle undoubtedly adopted the title in its full meaning, and did much to make that meaning clear by transferring to 'the Lord Jesus Christ' many of the ideas and phrases which in the Old Testament had been specifically assigned to the Lord Jehovah. God 'gave unto Him that name that is above every name - the name of "Lord"'. At the same time by equating Christ with the Wisdom of God and with the Glory of God, as well as ascribing to Him Sonship in an absolute sense, Paul claimed for Jesus Christ a relation to God which was inherent and unique, ethical and personal, eternal. While, however, Paul in many ways and in many aspects, equated Christ with God, he definitely stopped short of speaking of him as 'God'.

In another article in Encyclopaedia Britannica (xiv edition), under the title 'Christianity', the Reverend George William Knox writes as follows about the fundamental beliefs of the Church:

Its moulds of thought are those of Greek philosophy, and into these were run the Jewish teachings. We have thus a peculiar combination - the religious doctrines of the Bible, as culminating in the person of Jesus, run through the forms of an alien philosophy.

The Doctrine of the Trinity. The Jewish sources furnished the terms Father, Son and Spirit. Jesus seldom employed the last term and Paul's use of it is not altogether clear. Already in Jewish literature it had been all but personified (Cf. the Wisdom of Solomon). Thus the material is Jewish, though already doubtless modified by Greek influence: but the problem is Greek; it is not primarily ethical nor even religious, but it is metaphysical. What is the ontological relationship between these three factors? The answer of the Church is given in the Nicene formula, which is characteristically Greek, . . .

Also significant in this connection are the following passages of another article in Encyclopaedia Britannica (xiv edition), entitled 'Church History': The recognition of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos was practically universal before the close of the 3rd century, but His deity was still widely denied, and the Arian controversy which distracted the Church of the 4th century concerned the latter question. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 the deity of Christ received official sanction and was given formulation in the original Nicene Creed. Controversy continued for some time, but finally the Nicene decision was recognised both in East and West as the only orthodox faith. The deity of the Son was believed to carry with it that of the Spirit, who was associated with Father and Son in the baptismal formula and in the current symbols, and so the victory of the Nicene Christology meant the recognition of the doctrine of Trinity as part of the orthodox faith. The assertion of the deity of the Son incarnate in Christ raised another problem which constituted the subject of dispute in the Christological controversies of the 4th and following centuries. What is the relation of the divine and human natures in Christ? At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 it was declared that in the person of Christ are united two complete natures, divine and human, which retain after the union all their properties unchanged. This was supplemented at the 3rd Council of Constantinople in 680 by the statement that each of the natures contains a will, so that Christ possesses two wills. The Western Church accepted the decisions of Nicaea, Chalcedon and Constantinople, and so the doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures in Christ were handed down as orthodox dogma in West as well as East.

Meanwhile in the Western Church the subject of sin and grace, and the relation of divine and human activity in salvation, received special attention; and finally, at the 2nd Council of Orange in 529, after both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism had been epudiated, a moderate form of Augustinianism was adopted, involving the theory that every man as a result of the Fall is in such a condition that he can take no steps in the direction of salvation until he has been renewed by the divine grace given in baptism, and that he cannot continue in the good thus begun except by the constant assistance of that grace, which is mediated only by the Catholic Church.

It is evident from these statements of Christian scholars that it was exaggerated love and veneration of Christ which led the early Christians astray. This exaggeration and the use of expressions such as 'Lord' and 'Son of God' led to Jesus being invested with divine attributes and to the peculiar Christian notion of redemption, even though these could not be accommodated into the body of the teachings of Christ. When the Christians came to be infected with philosophical doctrines, they did not abandon the original error into which they had fallen, but tried to accommodate the errors of their predecessors through apologetics and rational explanations. Thus, instead of returning to the true teachings of Christ, they used logic and philosophy to fabricate one false doctrine after another. It is to this error that the Qur'an calls the Christians' attention in these verses"

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=5&verse=67&to=77

We can see from the above that Islam does not teach as a whole majority that the Virgin Mary is a member of the Trinity. What is clear from classical scholars to modern ones is that certain Christians may of claimed her to be a member, but that this is certainly not what all Christians believed or still believe to this day. Furthermore many do see the giving of divine attributes to both Jesus and his mother as being a sinful theological concept, one that Catholics and others to this day believe.

The last point I would like to make is that when a subject such as this falls to the feet of the scholars of Islam(specifically Tafsir) to make a verdict on, the said verdict can only be established and binding on all Muslims if there is a majority consensus opinion on this subject. It would appear, unless other evidences can be provided, that the majority of Muslim scholars understand the Trinity as Christians present to us. We may discuss variant views that do crop up in the Chrisitan community, but at the end of the day Allah swt clearly condemns the Trinity without discussing who those members are. Each verse needs to be looked at carefully and with as much evidence provided as possible to ascertain what the text is clearly saying instead of reading into the text something that is not there.

I hope this small article can at least add another point of view regarding this topic, it is one that needs to be discussed, but also one, like with all topics of scripture, handled with care.

Thanks for you time and consideration.

Introduction to Carl Jung

2010-10-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

I was going to wait until I had fixed my issues with video technology and then talk about Carl Jung, but due to demand via friends and subscribers I have decided to just start my discussion of Jung on this blog. To begin with I will discuss a biography on Jung that I read several months back and some of the things about him I did not previously know until reading this book. For those of you reading this who do not know anything about Jung or even a small amount I would advise you to read this article on him provided by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

Those who have read read my blog long enough or/and have watched my videos on Youtube know my feelings about Wikipedia(it can only be trusted if there are proper citations and references) so I use it purely as a link of general introduction. I will also list the following biographies which I own, and sadly have not had the time to read in full:

"A life of Jung"-Ronald Hayman
"Jung the Mystic"-Gary Lachman
"C.G.Jung His myth in our time"-Marie-Louise von Franz
"Jung A Biography"-Gerhard Wehr

"Jung A biography"-Deirdre Bair is the biography that I read in full and will be making my brief observations on. In the future when I read the other biographies I will make subsequent articles discussing any sort of bias or new information gathered from these books as well. I have to say that I agree with Peter Gay's assessment that this biography done by Bair is probably one of the most well researched biographies I have ever read. However it is this well researched biography that I feel is also the flaw with it. I felt at times that Bair went into too much detail about small players in the drama that was Jung's life, giving them at times whole pages about their background and major points. This gave her bio a tedious feeling at times which I think she could have done away with with s serious editing process. However when it came to covering and discussing the major aspects of Jung's life I felt she was spot on with her information and research.
The topics I learned about Jung that was totally new to me was the topic of Jung having a mistress(Toni Wolff) whom Emma Jung(Carl Jung's wife) was fully aware of and ultimatly grew to respect and live with. This polygamus relationship was not openly discussed with strangers but was from all counts a healthy one.
The other major topic that I was not aware of prior to reading this bio was the charge that Jung was anti-semitic. From what I can tell and this is the conclusion drawn by Bair, is that he was not and there is no evidence to prove that he was. He just happened to be a member of one of the psychological association based in Berlin during the rise of the Nazis but only kept his role in this group so that he could actually help Jewish psychologists maintain their jobs. Also many of his interviews and works were taken out of context to attempt to prove that he was hateful of Jews. One example is that when talking about cultural psychology he spoke of a Jewish and German psyche, which many ignorant people interpreted as meaning that Jews were unlike Germans and that they had totally different psyches. However anyone who has read the works of Freud(a Jew) knows that Freud spoke of different psyches from a cultural context. Are we to say that Freud was a hater of Jews? I think not. It is also clear that Jung until the day he died denied being a Nazi and continued to be close friends with his Jewish friends, colleges and students.

I would recommend this biography to anyone who wants a extremly indepth look at Jung's life, however if one wants one that is shorter and not so tedious at times, one of the above bios would do the trick.

I would like to now summarize and discuss the first four volumes of Jung's collected works which I have read and finished over the course of the past three months. I will not go into full details about every aspect of these volumes just the parts that I feel stand out and should be noted. I have been told by a number of people(including a Jungian analyst) that the early volumes of the collected works are more of historical importance and not one of current Jungian thought. This makes sense to me given the content of these early works contain information that would not be totally relevant to practicing and understanding Jung's original theory. However my personal view on this matter is to understand Jung and to that extent any psychologists views, one should read all of their work or at least as much of their work possible to get a full picture of where they were coming from. This is why I personally have been reading Jung and Freud's work in the order in which they were written, not an easy task, but one that has been utterly amazing and enlightening. I would further say that for one to have a total grasp of Jungian psychology one must also have a full understanding of Freud's theories since Jung himself was fully read in his works. That is why I have been reading Freud's works and will be posting more articles on what I have found therein.

In this article I discuss in brief the first three volumes of Jung's collected works, leaving the fourth volume for another post since it has gained more details worth discussing.

Collected Works Volume One: "Psychiatric Studies"- This volume begins with Jung's paper entitled "On the Psychology of the so-called Occult Phenomena" which turned out to be his Phd dissertation. In this case of a young woman who claimed to be a medium and who conducted seances that groups believed proved that she has the mystical ability to summon and communicate with the dead. Before observing this seance in particular Jung had witnessed and recorded his reactions to many. It was however this case that he picked to write on and has thus immortalized. Through his observations and interviews with the patient(medium) he concluded that the apparent phenomena was explained by phyiscal and mental disorders(somatic and psychological). The details of this case are tedious at times and thus I will only mention here the brief summary if anyone wants to know the details one would have to read the case for oneself.

Another concept that Jung coined in this volume is that of Cryptomnesia. This concept denotes the mental phenemona when one feels like he has read or heard something but is not sure how he knows such information. It is then recalled that he must have heard or read this information in the past, but said information was lost to the unconscious and through consciously seeing the same or similar information, the sensation of knowing is recalled to mind. The Wikipedia article below will give a better introduction then myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia

The following are the other titles that Jung wrote that is contained in this volume:
"On Manic Mood Disorder"
"A case of hysterical stupor in a prisoner in dentention"
"On simulated insanity"
"Medical opinion on a case of simulated insanity"
"A third and final opinion on two contradictory psychiatric diagnoses"
"A medical opinion on a case of simulated insanity"
"On the psychological diagnosis of facts"

What these papers and indeed the volume have in common is that they are purely psychiatric in nature, proceeding Jung's total investigation into psychoanalysis. He does indeed mention Freud and some of his theories in brief, but he was still far from applying psychoanalysis and Freudian at that to his own case studies and theories.

Collected Works Two: "Experimental Researches"- This entire volume deals with the Word-Association Test that was invented by Jung and some of his colleges at the Asylum he worked at. The tests were given to not only insane patience but normal neurotic persons as well. The goal of these tests was to record the response time and the words that a person thought of and wrote down next to individual words that were given by the therapist. The outcome would show if the patient was suffering from a particular problem that might even be unconscious to the person and only revealed by the word associated during the taking of the test. Thus this volume shows the extensive research done by Jung on the many persons he adminstrated the test too all suffering from a variety of complexs. It should be noted that these tests gave birth to the polygraph(lie dedector test) used by police officers and federal agents. The below link to Wikipedia will provide more introductory information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Association

Collected Works Volume 3: "The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease"- Jung did extensive research and work on Dementia Praecox or as it would be later renamed Schizophrenia. For the basic information on this mental disease and the general theories surrouding it, which is covered by Jung himself in his book, see this article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

I want to discuss here not the theories of WHY the disease can manifest themselves in humans but what Jung thought of the images seen and heard by such a person under this suffering. Jung viewed the hallucinations experienced by such patients as not only proof of the Unconscious but also the importance and collectiveness of symbols that are contained in that part of the psyche. That the symbols manifesting themselves were similar if not spot on too the symbols expressed in myths, legends and fairytales with the same reactions and interpreation of meaning found in those already exsisting symbols. The disease manifest itself when the psyche, the unconscious in particular, overwhelms the conscious part of the mind thus allowing the person to see the symbols that would normally be seen while dreaming. In essence the images seen by a schizophrenic while awake are the same images normal persons see in dreams. They are both equally as important to understanding the personality of the persons experincing such symbols. That is why Jung had success in treating and understanding his patience because he talked and got to know his patients and through their manifest symbols he could understand them even better then ignoring such images. To understand mythology, religion and symbolism one can fully understand the mind of a schizophrenic.

This concludes the summary of the first three volumes of Jung's collected works, in my next post on this subject I will summarize Jung's fourth volume "Freud and Psychoanalysis". Thanks for reading and please post questions and comments in the comment section on this article.

The Uncanny and other minor works of Freud

2010-10-22T10:58:00.000-07:00

So I have been reading a lot of Freud and Jung, making my way through the goal of reading their works in chronological order in which they were written. I sometimes get so sucked into their works I forgot to step back, reflect and then type up something about my thoughts on this blog. So since I posted my last article about Freudian Slips, I have completed three books by Freud, three by Jung and a biography on Jung. After finishing the most recent book by Jung it felt like this was a perfect place to catch up on the blog.
This article, as you can tell from the title, will be about one collection of Freud's minor works and also a brief mention of lectures he gave at Clark University. I hope Inshallah(God Willing) to make a Youtube video on Jung, his biography that I read along with the first three books in his Collected Works which I read. When that video is going to be made I am not sure, but hopefully, Inshallah, sooner rather then later.

Freud wrote a number of minor works which has been collected by Penguin Classics into a book entitled "The Uncanny". I will only speak on a few of the essays included in this book since a lot of them are expanded upon by Freud himself in works I have already discussed here or on Youtube. The first two go together and are named "Screen Memories" and "The Creative Writer and Daydreaming".

Both of these papers have something in common and that is to discover the explanation for why we remember certain childhood memories that are usually fragmented and why is it that creative writers tend tap into the same mental experience that children do when they are "at play". What these have in common is that the source of both of these experiences The Screen Memories are again fragmented memories from our past that we are at times unsure of if they are actually legitimate or contain exaggerations or content that our imagination created to aid in the gaps of memory. Freud would argue that why certain memories that were forgotten from consciousness and then emerges from the unconscious would be important to look at and analyze. Obviously the triggering of that content would be important for the person and also if certain images were created by the imagination, why were they created? I have to give Freud credit for not soaking this paper full of sexuality as being the main reason for this phenomena. He does mention masturbation at some point in the paper but it is not the crowing part of the piece.

In his paper on creative writers and daydreams Freud discusses the various levels of daydreams, fantasies and dreams and how and why they are produced in the human psyche. When a child is at play he creates and acts out fantasies with which he physically interacts. The creative writer does not act the fantasy but instead formulates it in his mind and then puts it down on paper. At some point, according to Freud during adolescence , we stop "playing" in the sense of childhood play and instead starts to fantasize. Freud summarizes fantasies of the mind into two catagories: the personaity attempting to elevate itself and the erotic.

Freud then moves on to what he calls as proof for these things found in the writings of authors. He says that romances are a given, since they contain obvious erotic/love/romance situations regarding the plot and characters. He then says that in the example of adventure novels and short stories that the elevating of the ego is clear since the main character is a projection of the author's personaity into the story. So the author, if he puts the main character into harms way, will save him in the sequeal or the next chapter. This really makes me wonder if Freud actually ever read Shakepear, anyone thinking of Hamlet or am I alone in this? I think with dreams, Freud saying they are nothing but Wish-fulliments and residue from the previous day, anyone who has had a daydream or has written a creative story, can refute Freud and his narrow assertions. Also when we get to Carl Jung's views on Active Imagination we will see just how narrow Freud's views really are regarding this topic.

The last paper in this collection I will comment on is the work entitled "Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of Childhood". This is the first work of its kind for Freud, since he attempts to psychoanalyze an artist, Da Vinci, based on a childhood memory and his art. In other words he does not have this patient on his couch but is rather going off of assumptions based on indirect evidence and objects related to the person. We will see in future posts/videos that this was not uncommon for Freud to do, to analyze a person who was not actually in his presence. I will not go to exhaustive detail on this subject since I will leave it to the reader to pick up this work and have a look for him/herself. In summary Freud looks at each major art work done by Da Vinci and his early childhood memory and claims that he was a homosexual and deeply disturbed man who had mother issues considering the women depicted in his artwork. I think the major flaw with this topic that we are attempting to get into the mind of a historical figure which would be very difficult since analysis requires such an active participation with the patient. This is such a limited scope into the mind that I cannot see how we can take the findings seriously. I think making guesses regarding historical persons is one thing but actually claiming you know the mental processes of that person is guesswork if nothing else.

The other book that I just want to mention in brief is the transcript written by Freud for his lectures he gave at Clark University entitled "Five Lectures on Psycho-Analysis". This was the first major lecture serious given by Freud where he first presented his ideas on the structure of the Psyche, importance of dreams and the Oedipus Complex. It is worth reading for anyone who is interested in the evolution of Freud's theory on psychology.

Freudian Slips

2010-09-30T22:41:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder why we begin to say one thing but end up saying something totally opposite or not what we had in mind originally to say at all? Perhaps these slips of the tongue mean more to us then just being simply random or jumbled mistaken phrases or words. Freud was of the opinion that any slip, be it oral or written, is not a random event, but meaningful for one's understanding of themselves. Freud did not believe in chance, since his views of Psychology was rooted in a psychodynamic biological context. So nothing is meaningless, everything is rooted in our Unconscious and the slips are a window into that part of the psyche.

Unlike dreams which manifest while we sleep, slips occur at times that when analyzed, can be another road to the unconscious. The slips signify a thought or part of our psyche that we have repressed but are trying to bubble up for us to encounter and deal with. They occur because we at a conscious level do not want to deal with that they might reveal about us and our personalities. Freud wrote of these concepts in his book, "The Parapsychology of Everyday Life". This book is filled of excellent examples of slips of different kinds, which everyone can relate to on a conscious level. I do agree that slips do occur and that everyone has probably experienced it. However do I think that Freud's views on the origin and meaning of slips are totally correct? No I don't.

Freud believed that each slip could be traced back to a repressed wish that was repressed due to psychosexual emotions and feelings. The slip is what the unconscious wants to say, to have made clear to the conscious mind. It might be as simple as one words, which when investigated leads to a larger understanding of the root cause of that slip. I certainly believe and understand that we have psychological slips of the tongue and pen, but I don't think they are all rooted in sexual energy from our unconscious. Anyone who has experienced a slip of any kind, and thinks about why the said what they said, can see that it might be rooted in something totally random or not even sexual at all. Something totally neutral in its origins and manifestations. I think they might be important, but I think many of the slips are simply random psychology "hiccups" that really have no reason behind them at all. I think it is great for someone to investigate such slips, but one need not worry about them as much as Freud implied.

Having said all of the above, I encourage anyone to read Freud's book on the subject and come to their own conclusions on what significance, if any can be found in the understanding of slips.

Freud's Three Essays on Sexual Theory

2010-09-28T18:15:00.000-07:00

As I discussed in my video entitled "The Case Study of Dora and the Oedipus Complex" on Youtube, Freud did not limit himself early on in his career to just the study of dreams. His second major work after "The Interpretation of Dreams" was his book "Three Essays on Sexual Theory". In this large work he explained his views on human sexuality from a psychosexual point of view. I will attempt to summarize his thoughts as they are revealed in this work, and how modern Human Sexuality and Sexology views these topics today in light of modern understanding of the human condition. Do modern Sexologists still hold Freud's ideas as valid? Or have the altered and reformed his views in light of new theories and ideas? These two questions will be answered in this article, but first let us see what Freud thought concerning human sexuality.

In the first essay Freud examines each type of sexual perversion that can appear in human beings. He defines two concepts early on: one-sexual object, "the person exuding the sexual attraction" and two-sexual goal, "the action towards which the drive urges". Freud was of the opinion that normal sexual activity was between a man and a woman, usually limited to sexual intercourse. Anything beyond this is considered to be a deviation or a perversion and not normal to the human sexual activity. Freud listed the following as common perversions:

Sexual Deviation:
A) Inversion-Absolutely Inverted-The sexual object can only be found in the same sex.
Amphigenically Inverted(psychosexually hermaphorditic)-the sexual object can be found equally in both genders.
Occasionally Inverted-Under certain circumstances, the sexual object can be taken from the same gender.
The reason for inversion is due to the failed attempt of the Libido(sex drive) to successfully connect of be fulfilled in the normal sexual object. This energy does not go away, so through repression, it is projected onto another sexual object. Freud was also of the opinion that not all inverts goals are uniform, whereas one may have the need of anal intercourse, another may be just fine with masturbation and oral sexual acts.

Sexual Perversion
B) Sexual Immarture People and Animals as Sexual Objects:
The following were considered by Freud to be beyond the normal scope of our species. He admitted that although Inversion is is a deviation from the species norm, they were to be considered normal humans. However these perversions were not to be considered normal in any sense of the term.

(Sexual use of Mucous Membrane of the Lips and Mouth)-Is a sexual perversion wherein the sexual object is focused solely on the mouth and lips and no other area of a partners body.

(Sexual Use of the Anal Orifice)-Sexual object is that of the anus.

(Fetishism)-The Sexual Object is that of of random objects or specific parts of the human body.

Fixations of Temporary Sexual Goals:
(Touching and Looking)-Wherein the sexual goal is confined to the looking and touching of another person.

(Sadism and Masochism)- Sadism is when the Libido energy attempts to dominate the ego and is projected onto a sexual object instead, with which to control and dominate in a sexual fashion. Masochism is the opposite, wherein the ego is sought to be mastered by the Libido energy and is therefore projected onto a sexual object so that in a sexual act, the person can have the sense of domination.

While Freud did not go into detail into each and every kind of perversion, they are all summarized by the Libido being projected onto an object that is not normal for our species.

In the second essay Freud discusses the psychosexual stages of development in detail, which I will summarize here.

The Oral Stage-Sexual pleasure is first experienced when one is just an infant. The activity of sucking, chewing, licking and teething consumes the largest part of the infants life. The combination of food and pleasure makes this a very important part of the infants growing sexuality. If the Libido energy is catheixed or fixated on this stage, we will notice a grown person teething, biting or sucking on objects, hands etc. even in adult life. After the initial infancy, a young child continues to suck its thumb to achieve the same sexual gratification. The Aggressive Drive is manifested at this stage in the context of an infat biting its mother's breast.

The Anal Stage: This stage unfolds during the 2-4 year of age. It is marked by the child's partents directing them to what becomes their first source of independence. This is the stage inwhich the child learns to use the toliet on its own, and the idea of holding in or letting go of feaces. The idea of using the toliet also exposes the child to the concept of being dirty. Depending on the child's fixation this can lead them to accept the dirtyness of useing the toliet or become frightned by such an idea. Later in life an adult who is obessessed with control and cleaning is one who is fixated on this stage. One can also be dirty in a nerutoic fashion can also be fixated on this stage. Money is a conscious and unconscious symbol that represents this stage due to it being dirty and an object to be held onto or given away.

The Phallic Stage: At age 3 a child, both male and female, realize their own unique sexual organs and their lack of having the oppisite gender's. This is the time of the formation of the Oedipus Complex(in boys) and the Electra Complex(in girls). See my video, link provided below, for a detailed discussion on these complexes. It is at this stage that a boy fears castration, due to realizing that a girl lacks a penis. Similarly a girl developes Penis Envy, when she realizes that she lacks a penis of her own.

The Latency Period: During the ages 5 and 6 the child's Libido energy goes from the parents, after successfully conquring the two complexes listed above, and shifts that energy to skills, education, friends and hobbies. It is at this stage that the sexual desires of the phallic stage are repressed by the SuperEgo.

In the third essay Freud discusses The Gential Stage and the beginning of puberty. It is at this stage that the Libido enegry returns to the sex organs and both girls and boys realize their own individual sexuality and seek to express it on members of the opposite sex. Homosexuality was viewed by Freud as being a sign of underdeveloped Libido energy. Normal sexual behavior and perversions can begin to manifest themselves at this point in a person's life.

Modern Sexology:
I cannot fully comment on the stages of Psychosexual development of childhood, but I will discuss here modern human sexology's views on why we act the way we do due to our various manifestations of sexuality.

Modern Sexology splits human sexuality into two camps:
1. Normal Oreintation: this camp has been established by Alfred Kinsey and his data he obtained during the 1950's and 60's. He, through data obtained through individual interviews, and analyzing human condition discovered that there was no such thing as "normal hetersexual" oreintation as outlined by Freud. He established what became "The Kinsey Scale" which goes from stricrtly Heterosexual, to Bi-Curious, to Bisexuality, back to Bi-Curious and then to strictly Homosexulity. Sexologist today do not have the definate answer to why anyone is a particular orientation, but they do suppose a combination of enviormental, genetic and early sexual experiences. It is known now by Sexologists that oreintation is normal for a species and is not something that takes a person out of the realm of the normal psychosexual condition. There are just variances, but not a perversion as viewed by Freud.

2. Paraphilia-Everything outside of these orientations, such as Necrophilia, Bestality and Fetishes are all considered to fall under this camp. These are not normal in psychosexual origin and can almost always be traced to a purely negative psychological expereince that was attached to a sexual concept. No one is born with a Paraphillia but one is firmly established with an Orientaiton and it has a permanent existence for a person.

Even sexual acts outside of the usual sexual intercourse, coitus between two hetersexuals, is considered normal but the studies of modern Sexologists.

This concludes my amature attempt at summarizing Freud's theory of human sexulity coupled with the views of modern human sexuality. We have come a long way from Freud's narrow views and a lot has ceratainly changed in light of modern sexology.

Youtube video mentioned in this article can be seen by this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l3cWkuC-5I

Websites that should become your frequently visited list

2010-09-19T20:42:00.000-07:00

Salamu Alaykum(peace be upon you) everyone, just thought with the increase of Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise, I figured sharing with all of these awesome websites that contain fullscale refutations to such attacks would be a good idea. Check out the links below to keep updated and still in the know:

Websites that deal with political and social hatred towards Muslims:
http://www.loonwatch.com/
http://spencerwatch.com/

Webistes that expose lies and attacks against Islam on a theological level:

http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/1048
(This article on seekingilm directly relates to the video I posted here on my blog refuting the article written by Nonie Darwish, it is a must see with additional information exposing her for being a fraud and being utterly ignorant when it comes to Islam.)

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/
http://www.muslim-responses.com/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/
http://www.islamicsearchcenter.com/

More articles and videos on coming soon from me Inshallah(God willing) I have been very busy with work and school, sorry for the hold up.
In the meantime enjoy these excellent websites and educate yourselves with this important information.

Responding to an email

2010-06-07T22:16:00.000-07:00

Videos on Women in Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBQzdY3oJy8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf8jqal43eY&playnext_from=TL&videos=YZ7mwBFixd4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7UBTTd3eB4&playnext_from=TL&videos=SVrdEBFA62o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dl_MoYy0WI&playnext_from=TL&videos=iRxl4jWenGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxre6qIGYm0&playnext_from=TL&videos=ae_20mYUzjw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmHJzCNZC4Q&playnext_from=TL&videos=lR5rZIqLCQc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFUoIjeueT4&playnext_from=TL&videos=cvOug3g_hkU

Article on Divorce:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543322

Videos on Jihad and Fighting in Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU5mes6ls_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjrfo8quomU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_v8l973RXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgO7j4ckwyo

Apostasy in Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUiEuKzKSDM

Ruh/Holy Spirit in Islam

2010-05-30T21:25:00.000-07:00

Accusation: Are Muslims confused about the concept of Ruh, and who the Holy Spirit is in the Quran?

All praise and thanks are due to Allah and peace and blessings be on Prophet Muhammad sas.

There has been some confusion due to the efforts of certain critics of Islam in attempting to lay the claim that Muslims are not sure of the identity of the Holy Spirit and its role in Islamic Theology. They purpose that for Muslim’s to claim the Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel, the angel of revelation, that they will run into problems in making such claims. The base for this concept is the assertion that if we read every single verse of the Quran that contains the word Ruh, or some variation thereof, it cannot possibly mean the Angel Gabriel and as such Muslims are forced into an intellectual corner. However, as we shall see, this claim by critics is a false one, as no Muslim with the knowledge of the Arabic of the Quran would make this claim, nor should critics with the same standards make such accusations. We will first begin with an explanation of the root word Ruh which can be understood from its entry found in Dictionary of The Holy Quran by ‘Abdul Mannan ‘Omar, which is powered by the top Arabic Linguistic sources, most notable being Edward Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon. To quote the Dictionary regarding the word Ruh:

“Ruh-Breath of life, Soul, Spirit, Inspiration, Revelation, Essence, The Quran, Joy and happiness, Mercy, Life-giving words of Allah, Prophet’s divine message(because of its life giving qualities), Angels, Arch-Angel Gabriel.”

Depending on the context and direct phrase being used, the above definition, along with the related words in the root or Ruh, Raha, all mean a variation of the above. Therefore it is obvious that not every time the word Ruh, or any variation of the root word Raha, will not mean the Angel Gabriel, however it should be noted that the word Ruh does mean the Angel Gabriel.

Some examples from the Quran as to the various meanings and contexts of the word Ruh can be seen in the following:

Ruh(Gabriel): 26:193, 67:12, 70: 4, 78:38, 97:4

Ruh-ul-Qudus:(sometimes translated as Holy Spirit or Spirit of Allah): 2:87, 5:110, 16:102.

Ruh( where it means soul, spirit): 15:29, 17:85, 58:22

The above index references are taken from The Noble Quran translated and commentary done by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. He also used the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir and Tafsir of Tabari in understanding the linguistics and interpretation of the Quran. With all of this in mind we can see from not only a scholarly perceptive and also the language of the Arabic, that there is no confusion regarding the meaning of the word Ruh and its root words. In fact it is clear from the context of each verse what the word is denoting, hence no error in reasoning on views of the word.

Now with regards to certain missionary tactics claiming that Ruh can mean Holy Spirit in the sense of the Christian Trinitarian theological position, we will see from the Arabic of the Quran that this cannot be the case based on a linguistic level. To quote from The Noble Quran by Muhammad Muhsin Khan on the phrase Ruh-ullah:

“According to the early religious scholars from among the Companions of the Prophet pbuh and their students and the Mujtahidun, there is a rule to distinguish between the two nouns in the genitive construction:

(A) When one of the two nouns is Allah, and the other is a person or a thing, e.g.(i) Allah’s House(Bait-ullah),(ii) Allah’s Messenger,(iii) Allah’s slave(Abdullah), (iv)Allah’s Spirit(Ruh-ullah) etc. The rule of the above words is that the second noun, e.g., House, Messenger, slave, spirit, etc, is created by Allah and is honorable with Him and similarly Allah’s spirit may be understood as the spirit of Allah, in fact, it is a soul created by Allah, i.e. ‘Jesus, and it was his word: Be!- and was created(like the creation of Adam).

(B) But when one of the two is Allah and the second is neither a person nor a thing, then it is not a created thing but a quality of Allah, e.g. Allah’s knowledge, Life, Allah’s Statement, Allah’s Self.”

Therefore we can see from as far back as the time of the Prophet and his Companions, the identity of the Angel Gabriel, and the understanding of the word Ruh and any variation thereof was clearly understood based on the linguistics and the context of the verses.

4:82 (Y. Ali) Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Carl Jung on Islam

2010-03-22T00:32:00.000-07:00

So a friend of mine knows how much I enjoy reading the works of Carl Jung. I not only want to be a Psychologist, and am currently majoring in the subject, but I also own most of his published works and have read a vast majority of books on his theories and by current top Jungian Psychologist, and Jung's students. Suffice to say I am obsessed with the topic, in a good way of course. My friend knows this, this is why he told me he read something that took him by surprise and assumed would do the same for me. It was a quote from Wikipedia, doubts begin right there, which seemed to depict Carl Jung equating Islam with Nazi ideology. I was stunned, considering how much I know about Jung's views on religion, and the multitude of people he has inspired, such as Joseph Campbell, it just seemed this quotation could not be authentic in the least bit. Upon investigating the said quote I found it had been footnoted as coming from the the 18th volume of the Collected Works of Carl Jung series. I personally do not own this volume, although I own many in this series, so I will have to take the quote as is. This is how the quote reads:

"We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.^[45]"

Now taking this quote into consideration one has to think two things. The first being, what is the context of this quotation, in other words what is Jung ACTUALLY SAYING in this quote, as opposed to what haters have been doing all over the internet by simply reproducing this quote on their blogs and/or websites without caring to go into deeper investigation. The second thing to consider is Jung's OTHER QUOTES regarding Islam and religion in general, and his various attitudes with regards to the topic. I guarantee not a single one of the haters and critics of Islam who have abused this quote have dared to do the above. Why? Because of course they would find quotes that they would not like, and thus shatter their agenda and abuse. However this quote is indeed voided of context, but thanks to all of us I have the book entitled "C.G. Jung Speaking" which includes and interview where Jung stated the following:

QUESTION: Do you consider it possible that Hitlerism might become for Germany a permanent religion for the future like Mohammedanism for the Moslems?

ANSWER: I think it highly possible. Hitler's "religion" is the nearest to Mohammedanism, realistic, earthy, promising the maximum of rewards in this life, but with a Moslem-like Valhalla into which worthy Germans may enter and continue to enjoy themselves. Like Mohammedanism, it teaches the virtue of the sword. Hitler's first idea is to make his people powerful because the spirit of the Aryan German deserves to be supported by might, by muscle and steel.

Of course, it is not a spiritual religion in the sense in which we ordinarily use the term. But remember that in the early days of Christianity it was the church which made the claim to total power, both spiritual and temporal! Today the church no longer makes this claim, but the claim has been taken by the totalitarian states which demand not only temporal but spiritual power.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that the "religious" character of Hitlerism is also emphasized by the fact that German communities throughout the world, far from the political power of Berlin, have adopted Hitlerism. Look at the South American German communities, notably in Chile" (From page. 124)

We should now examine what Jung is saying in both quotes. If one looks at them closely we find that he is actually NOT saying Islam is the same thing as Nazism. He does say there are similar concepts between the two, which we should think about closely and not put words in the mouth of Jung. If one knows his real attitude towards the religion of Islam, which we shall see plenty of evidence for in a moment, then what must he be talking about here. Was this a slip of judgment? A contradiction? Or was Jung speaking about Islam in a sense that was not religious but rather political? As in when religion is used in a political fashion? I would argue yes.

For example, in the first quote Jung says "we do not know if Hitler will found a new Islam". Found a new Islam? Surely Jung knew that Islam on a theological level from the point of view of Muslims has ALWAY BEEN AROUND, and further to the point Islam is a religion which was still around during the time of Hitler, in other words there were Muslims during the time of Hitler. So what does he mean by "found a new Islam"? He then compares Hitler to Muhammad, but does so in the context of a political figure. Jung was knowledgeable in Islamic theology and owned and read the Quran. He was familiar with the Hadiths as well, having quoted Sahih Bukhari on several occasions in his essay on Islam. I do not think Jung viewed Hitler as a person being inspired by God, such as the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) was. So what does Islam and Hitler have in common? They are both beliefs which many people follow and believe. They are inspired by a man, who is a leader of the said communities.

In the second quotation he again talks about Islam and Hitlerism. However it should be noted to further prove my point that in the interview response Jung speaks about early Christianity not only demanding spiritual obedience but TEMPORAL as well. In other words, Christianity was not just a religion on the level of spirituality but a religion that had its hands in the daily mundane world as well. However he is not saying Christianity is a problem, not currently and not even then. He does not say the same about Islam, and this is where we find his reason for drawing a parallel. The Nazi ideology has two things in common with Christianity and Islam, they are centered around either a single person or some sort of hierarchy, and the second is that the beliefs not only cover the spiritual aspects of the human condition but also the mundane as well.

Perhaps my reasoning can be seen as biased, but I very much feel this is what Jung was saying in these two quotes. I based this not only on the other quotations we have from Jung's published works, but also from the noted Jungian Psychologist and author J. Marvin Spiegelman in his article entitled "C. G. Jung’s Answer To Job:A Half Century Later" published by JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN THEORY AND PRACTICE VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006. It should be noted that Spieglman is the author a whole series of books that examines each major world religion in the context of Jungian Psychology. Needless to say, he is an authority on this subject. In the above mentioned article he writes his commentary on the statement made by Jung regarding Hitlerism and Islam and this is what he concludes:

"Jung had mentioned, in passing,that he felt the spirit of Islam in the military passion of the Nazis, without casting any aspersion on the religion of Islam itself. Rather, he sensed that passion, armed with divine mission, something missing from the West for some time, was a primitive invasion of soulless Europe."

This quote is just a piece of the puzzle used by Spiegelman to use Jung's "Answer to Job" as it relates to the 21st century issue of terrorism and religious extremism. It should also be noted that in his expert opinion regarding Jung's remarks, Jung was not saying anything negative about the religion of Islam, but rather was drawing very specific parallels. We will now see what Jung REALLY thought of the religion of Islam as seen in his works below.

In Jung's book "Psychology and the East"(volume two of Psychology of Religion), Jung recounts his journey to India. One of the essays which can be found on page 87 entitled "The Dreamlike world of India" show Jung expressing his utter positive attitude and amazement at the Indian subcontinent and their religious and ethnic culture. In a second essay entitled "What India can Teach Us" he concludes that the psychological and religious claimant is something that we in the West should take a page from. To be more specific on page 91 Jung discusses Islam in detail. He not only talks about the religion but the history and architecture, all subjects he greatly respects and admires. He even calls the Taj Mahal "the secret of Islam" and begins the entire discourse by saying "...Islam seems to be superior, more spiritual, and more advanced religion." Nothing negative is mentioned, nothing but awe inspiring and complete respect.

"Symbols of Transformation" formally known as "Psychology of the Unconscious" was considered by Jung to be one of his greatest achievements and indeed was the book that signaled his break from Sigmund Freud. He continued to edit and expand upon the text even later in his life, thus allowing himself room to change or adapt it based on his new found attitudes and thoughts. It should be noted that this is the text where Jung places the Quran on equal footing with the other religious and spiritual text that shape mankind's psyche. On page 193 he covers his discussion the Quran and two of the stories mentioned therein. The figure of Khidr was so important to Jung that he identified the Wise Old Man Archetype with the person of Khidr. Again there is no mention of negativity but complete respect and admiration for the religion of Islam and its text the Holy Quran.

In a book entitled "Jung and the Monotheisms-Judaism, Christianity and Islam" edited Joel Ryce-Menuhin, there contains several quotations by Jung and a Jungian analyses of the three Abrahamic faiths. One particular quotation I feel sums up Jung's views on Islam specifically and was a reaction he had when he was in East Africa. Jung was analyzing the dream of a patient living in Africa, and these are his comments:

"He was born among the Moslems. That is a very showy religion, and in Cairo and the coast towns one still sees very impressive sights, the afternoon prayer, for instance, when traffic stops, and the long rows of kneeling people bow low to Mecca. Whole streets are filled with them...The mosques are far more impressive then Christian churches, they are marvelous, as fine as the most beautiful Gothic cathedrals in the West. This religion has been misrepresented by prejudice teachers; we have a funny idea about Islam through bad education. It is represented by our theologians as dry and empty, but there is tremendous life in it, particularly in Islamic mysticism, which is the secret backbone of Islam."

When Jung wrote his famous autobiography "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" he discussed his travels to Africa and the Muslim lands he visited. He mentions meeting Muslims, and yet what is missing is any comment of negativity regarding them and the religion of Islam. This book was published right before the end of his days, certainly the right time for him to warn us of potential negative thought process regarding Islam. And yet we find nothing of the sort from his published works nor his personal journals and thoughts. This should be no surprise given the famous Jungian scholars and psychologist who he inspired. Spiegelmen has already been noted and mentioned, who wrote the book "Sufism, Islam and Jungian Psychology". Also Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee, noted Jungian psychologist and Islamic Mysticism scholar who wrote the book "Catching the Thread". Lastly Joseph Campbell who's third volume of the series "The Masks of God" discuss Islam on equal importance and footing with the other Western Religions. What do these men have in common? They speak of Islam in a positive light and even more importantly in the light of Depth Analytical Psychology, which was inspired by Jung and of course by the Collective Unconscious that is inside each and every member of our species and perhaps even nature as well.

I hope this article cleared up any misconceptions regarding this topic. It is sad that people have to stoop to the level of bigotry and anger towards any faith, and take a very important person like Carl Jung and abuse a statement he made, totally voided of the context it rightfully deserves. Jung felt that ALL RELIGIONS were important to the human psyche and condition. That they were avenues for humans to achieve a sense of inner peace and external peace with the entire world. It was only when religion fell into a strict, force-fed hierarchal form, that he felt it infringed on the individual and thus hindered the Individualization process which we all must go through in this journey called life. But one thing is for certain, he did not HATE the religion of Islam, nor did he view it has anything negative, but rather, like other Eastern based faiths, felt that the West should learn, accept and be tolerant of such belief systems. That way we as a species could know one another and live together in harmony. I would like to end with a quotation from the Quran which I think sums up nicely Jung's hopes for us as a global community:

"O mankind! We created you from a single pair of male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other not that ye may despise each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted with all things." Chapter 49, verse 13.

Surah 9-Blog Exclusive video

2010-03-08T13:52:00.000-08:00

Review of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins-Part 4

2010-02-22T20:44:00.000-08:00

In Chapter 8 Dawkins discusses the negative and evil actions done by people who profess to be of a particular faith. While I agree that there have been many actions and deeds that are immoral and evil committed by religious people, I would have to disagree with Dawkins with the idea that religion as a whole is to blame for the atrocities committed in its name. It is my firm belief that to understand any religion one must look at the theology and teachings of that faith as derived from its scripture or oral traditions. By simply shoving all religions under one umbrella in my opinion shows a real lack of understanding of each individual religion, which should be looked at in each of their own merits. It is obvious to theologians that the violent acts done by extremist do not represent the religion they claim to be a member of, nor do the religion's scriptures actually teach, nor advocate such evil actions. Once that has become apparent then one cannot blame the world religions for these deeds. If we look at the psychological theories of Eric Fromm we find that his analysis of human society shows the power of manipulation done by individuals on others and even large groups. However Fromm does not advocate an idea that religion is actually to blame for the product of evil in human society. In fact in his famous book "The Art of Loving" he even shows the overall positive nature of religion and the positive effect it has on human society. We find that in many of the Social Psychological testing and research done, it is never the conclusion that religion spreads evil amongst human society, but rather persons who, by using manipulative tactics, spread their personal power-hungry and insidious ideologies.

It is in this spirit that I wish to draw a metaphor to help further explain the way religion can be abused and misused by humans. Let us look at dynamite, an tool which was created to aid humans in act of manipulating the earth of building, as well as mining operations. That is the general and basic purpose of dynamite. However if someone were to suddenly grab a stick of dynamite and teach others that instead of using it for its actual intended purpose, it should be used to kill others, more specifically innocent civilians, would be then blame not only the dynamite in question, but also the person who manufactured the said object? I think most would come to the conclusion that it would be absurd to blame the dynamite and the maker, and this I feel is the conclusion for those who see it as absurd to blame religion for the evils done by people who claim to be members of those said religions.

It was at this point in reading "The God Delusion" that I began to wonder if Dawkins real issue with religion is not for those who follow it on a personal level, but rather the number of people that adhere to a religion that is organized and even to some extent have power in human society. This is just a guess on my part, but it was a thought that sprouted when reading this portion of the book. He seems to have an issue mainly with the Abrahamic faiths, and this also begs the question of why did he not go after the Eastern Religions/Philosophies? He states earlier in his book that he had no intent of going in that direction, yet it does beg the question of why the silence on that particular topic?

Near the end of the chapter Dawkins, in my opinion, almost concedes to the ideas I have pot forward, and maybe he did this subconsciously or even with out awareness. He talks about Madrases that have radical teachers that are teaching young Muslims in Pakistan a radical version of Islam. Interesting enough he focuses on the aspect of TEACHING people extreme or radical ideology, which again I would not disagree with him on, however this again leads us back to the earlier points above. Is it indeed religion, and scripture which advocates such evil deeds, or is it the minority of extremist that are in the position to influence others and teach them things that the religion itself does not advocate. This is a topic which can be analyzed by different disciplines from theology to psychology, and when that will continue an ongoing debate and discussion. However I feel that overgeneralzing and concluding that religion as a concept is the actual reason why there are so many evil actions committed by certain religious people.

END OF PART 4

Review of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins-Part 3

2010-02-15T19:50:00.000-08:00

In chapter 5: "Roots of Religion", Dawkins shifts his focus of religion to discussing the topic on a scientific and psychological level. He fist quotes several psychologists that would imply that the belief in God is purely psychological, and in no way has anything to do with faith. He also mentions Natural Selection, genetics, and the formation of Brain chemistry as having a lot to do with man's natural inclination to thinking of the universe and life through the eyes of a higher power.

What is interesting about this chapter in particular is that the whole time I was reading it and taking in the information, I kept thinking to myself 'well this is interesting, but none of this information actually disproves God, nor does it actually establish itself as being the end-all of information on the topic of historical evidence of God and the Psychology of Religion'. I noted several places where a perpetual stalemate of facts and evidence could be brought forward, which at the end of the day would need to be considered and then analyzed based on an individual level.

For example the topic of Natural Selection and Science somehow explaining that human condition of needing a belief in God, certainly not something I would totally disagree with, does not disprove God's actual existence. Also quoting a couple Psychologist who have come to the conclusion that belief in God is simply Psychological, and some would go so far as to say harmful to the psyche, would be ignoring the fast amount of evidence in the field of Psychology that says otherwise. Such examples can be cited as the works of Carl Jung, C.S.Lewis, William James and even Eric Fromm. These men all wrote books on the subject of religious and spiritual belief in the context of the human psyche as being a healthy and positive one. We see here a stalemate between psychologist on the topic of the Psychology of Religion.

The other point raised is that in human history, i.e. due to Natural Selection, there is a simple biological need for God. However this ignores that grand amount of historical evidence brought forth by such authors as Karen Armstrong, Houston Smith, Joseph Campbell and Robert Wright, that point to several major factors in the history of human society as it relates to believing in God and the supernatural, without just stating that it is due to Darwin and Natural Selection ALONE that humans believe in God. Again we have another stalemate.

In chapter 6 Dawkins discusses morality as it relates to believing in God and Science. He argues that we are moral due to Natural Selection and from a Darwinian perceptive, which are do not care to argue with considering my already stated stance on Darwin's theories.

Interesting enough I could relate to Dawkins on one level, as he recounted his various run-ins with Evangelical Christians either in person or through correspondences. I too receive a lot of hate mail and such on my Youtube account where it is almost a daily battle against the tide of bigotry and ignorance.

Dawkins does a great job of showing that Atheist can be good and moral people without believing in God or a higher power, and I would simply say that yes I would agree that obviously people can be moral without believing in God. However I feel that this entire chapter was simply giving Atheist a place to stand upon when it comes to morality, again nothing wrong with that, but does not actually disprove God.

In chapter 7 Dawkins goes on to discusses elements of scripture that he finds immoral and evil. He focuses his views on the Old and New Testaments and quotes many passages that do show many evil acts either commanded by God or done in the name of God as seen in the Biblical Scripture. I don't deny that studying this subject and being critical about it should not go ignored and the more we press on about the subject of what is the big picture of these texts, will help us better understand how modern day Jews and Christians and even past members of these groups interpreted their scripture. I would argue that the majority of Jews and Christians do not subscribe to these passages which do seem to preach blind hatred and faith, and for whatever reason find a way to get around them. Again this is more of an issue for Jews and Christians, and while I am not a member of either group, I do not feel that it is necessary for me elaborate further on this topic. However it should be noted that obviously the majority of Jews and Christians either ignore or reinterpret or feel that these negative verses have been abrogated.

However I also recognize that extreme Christians and Jews in today's society and in the past have used certain verses to decree the deaths of thousands, and I would agree is an issue that needs to be examined more closely.

Dawkins then goes on to discuss the concept of the Moral Zeitgeist wherein the idea is that as a whole species we are gradually becoming more morally progressive then we were in the past centuries. I have no disagreement on this topic, however I feel that it does not disprove God or in the believe in God. We are of course as a species more connected and thus on a global level we are all sharing common views on molarity and society, and yet I don't see this as somehow refuting religion.

Dawkins refutation of people claiming Hitler was an Atheist is amazing. This was probably my favorite part of the whole book, because I really do recognize a good refutation when I see one. He shows historical evidence that Hitler was a Bible believing Catholic all throughout his life, and even worse that the Nazi ideology actually contained extreme elements of Christianity. He also discusses Stalin, and does agree that Stalin was an Atheist, but he did not do what he did because of Atheism. In other words, Atheism did not make Stalin do what he did. I would of course agree that Atheism does not teach Atheist to be genocidal maniacs, this is of course obvious. Have there been Atheist who have done crazy screwed-up things, yes of course, but that is not a reflection on ALL Atheist or Atheism at large, this is my attitude for every group.

END OF PART 3

Having Issues with my videos?

2010-02-15T14:52:00.000-08:00

So apparently there is some technical issue that is going around Blogger and Google in general. Several bloggers including myself and noticed that some of our videos uploaded to our blogs are not working and contain a message saying "Currently Unavailable try again later"...or something to that affect. This has been issue, again I was unaware of, since January of this year. As many of you know the videos posted on my blog are videos that were hit by a bug on Youtube and as such they could be safely viewed here on my personal blog. Well apparently that is going to be an issue, until Google resolves this problem.

If you have issues with ANY of my videos, if its here on my blog or even on my Youtube account, have no fear you can watch ALL of them on MuslimTV, the link is here:

http://muslimtv.magnify.net/

Any videos uploaded by myself will have my screen name(ozzycda) attached to it and will be guaranteed to work. If you have any other issues or questions please feel free to ask. Thank you all for your ongoing support!

Salamu Alaykum

Review of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins-Part 2

2010-02-08T01:08:00.000-08:00

I think it is great that in writing this book, Dawkins is giving Atheist and other skeptics a chance to rally behind a voice that is speaking for them, one that they can put their common beliefs behind. Living in the West and enjoying the morals and ethics past down by the Founding Fathers, I think it is truly sad that Atheist are seen as scum of society, not to be trusted, and not even allowed the same benefits given to other groups. Dawkins gives many valid arguments to illustrate the reality that Atheist are not treated as equals in mainstream American society and that many in the population would not vote for an Atheist politician. Due to their lack of a belief in God they are seen as anti-American(thank you George Bush) and therefore are viewed with suspicion. Many of these same haters also think that the United States was founded and is a Christian Nation, and that Atheist, lets not forget other minorities, are therefore running counter to these standards. However these standards are based on a fiction and an attempt to rewrite history. As Dawkins proves and I of course as a student of History agree, the Founding Fathers had no intention of founding the United States as a "Christian Nation". Simply viewing the words of Adam, Jefferson and Paine, would prove that the Fathers were liberal Christians, Deist, Agnostic and Atheist. They would have been shocked and disgusted with the way the now Christian majority is viewing not only other religious people, but skeptics as well. I think if one actually believes in the values of America and the West at large, then one needs to stand up for the rights of ALL groups, instead of giving one group(in this case exclusively religious people, more specifically Christianity/Christians) the overwhelming support and leave everyone else to pick off the scrapes.

The following will be my thoughts on Chapter 4: "Why there almost certainly is no God":

Dawkins mentions six points which I will reproduced, summarized, and then comment on each one.

1. The Greatest challenge to human intellect is to explain the universe arising(design?)

I agree.

2. Humans attribute design to a designer(watch/watchmaker) and apply this to nature.

Indeed.

3. This is a false conclusion since a designer hypothesis needs to answer if there is a designer who designed him?

I would have to say that this point does not really grip or enthrall me at all. As a Theist, I do not think anyone designed the creator, but perhaps that is Dawkin's point, however I do not personally see an issue with saying that God has no designer, but that he is the designer of everything.

4. Dawkins explains nature and why it is the way it is, by Natural Selection:

Okay as a Theist who accepts Science and Biology, that is totally fine by me. I have no issue with these concepts(see part 1).

5. We don't posses the equivalent of Natural Selection for Physics as we do for Biology. Yet anthropic theory does satisfy for now.

I look forward to seeing such theories possible becoming reality in my lifetime.

6. Even if we don't have one for physics, the theories we do have are better then a Design Theory.

I would have to agree to disagree with Dawkins on this last point. I think it would be great to establish a theory for physics, but just saying that the already existing hypothesis are "better" then saying God created these laws of nature and the cosmos and used them to sustain and create everything, boils down to personal opinion.

Dawkins then goes on to explain the concept of Natural Selection as being the cause of life. Also Cosmological theories for the reason for the Universe being the way it is. For a Theist like myself who does not deny or has issue with such concepts and theories, this did not abrogate or infringe on my personal belief in God. I simply would say that God used these concepts to create the Universe and everything in it, whereas an Atheist would state that these concepts also did the same thing, but that this shows that one does not have to believe in God to explain the origins of species and the cosmos. Again it does boil down to personal opinion with regards to these topics.

END OF PART 2

Review of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins-Part 1

2010-02-07T22:50:00.000-08:00

I must say to start off with, reading "The God Delusion" was one of the most interesting experiences I have had in some time. I have read pro-Atheist or books written by Atheist authors in the past, but I think the sheer importance and magnitude has only been achieved by Dawkin's book. As stated in my video where I introduced the concept of me writing this article, and also in various other videos, I have a pretty neutral point of view when coming to the topic of Atheism. I do not have a default anti-Atheist thought processe, nor do I hate Atheist just because the deny the existence of God. Many of my closest friends are skeptics(and this includes at least three Atheist). I have had the privilege to speak with them on the subject of Atheism and Theism and why both sides of the fence have interesting arguments that support their relative opinions. I should also state that like with any other book I went into reading "The God Delusion" with an open mind, and yet with an analytical mind as well. When reading a book on any subject I try my best, of course this is not completely possible, to leave my biases behind and take in the information as if my mind your a sponge or a blank canvas. However I am critical of what I am reading and therefore do not allow the information to be given to me without considering what is being said and what evidences are being presented, and how they are handled. I went into this book thinking, 'well gee if Mr. Dawkins can actually present to me evidence that disproves the belief in God for me, then he deserves a medal'. I set out to see what and how Dawkins would actually prove that there is no God or that belief in him necessitates one being delusional. What follows is not a refutation. Rather it is my humble attempt to respond to the reactions, honest throughout, that I had towards this book. It should finally be noted that I am not speaking for ALL Theists nor am I speaking for ALL Atheists. So please do not expect two things from me: 1. That I am going to totally attempt a complete refutation of this book, and 2. that you will agree with me 100% of the time(this goes for Atheist and Theist, or whoever you are), I do not expect you too. However what I hope is that you will allow me to speak my mind freely and allow me to discusses my own personal thoughts on reading "The God Delusion". Let us begin this review shall we?

One thing I noticed right away when reading this book, was who Dawkin's target audience is and how he goes about reaching them. The first group are Theist, specifically those who deny Scientific advance, more specifically Natural Selection, and even more specific members of the Abrahamic Faiths( Judaism and Christianity mainly). The second group would be skeptics(more specifically Atheist), but he does touch on Agnostics and Deist, helping them stand up for their position on world views and what they themselves personally believe. It should be noted that I personally am not against Science or Scientific advancement. When I first learned about the history of Paleolithic Man in sixth grade, and Evolution in Biology in my Sophomore year of High School, I did not find any issue with these concepts with regards to by belief in God. I was then a Christian(around my Sophomore year I was beginning to doubt my Catholic belief), but all the same I did not find it hard to reconcile Science with belief in God. To this day, as a Muslim, I find myself in the middle ground when it comes to this debate that is now raging between Evolutionist and Creationists. I do not take the one extreme of the scale where I say that Science substitutes and abrogates the need for a belief in a higher power. Nor do I take the other extreme where I take scripture as a Biology textbook and therefore give Science the finger and ignore it in total. I rather take the middle ground(as Islam very much teaches) and think that Science and Theology and be reconciled if we as Theist are willing to think outside of the box and actually seek knowledge, which the Prophet(pbuh) has command us to do.

Having said that, I find that the majority of Dawkin's arguments stem from wanting to show are utterly ridiculous it is to be living in the 21st century and actually want to deny modern Science and take the Bible as the literal truth or rather take it as a book of Biology and Science. Therefore I found myself reading his refutations and arguments and thinking to myself, 'well thats great you have refuted THOSE Theist who hold that perceptive, but I don't disagree with you on any of this material, therefore you are not effecting my belief in God'. This was convinced me that the only Theist who's faiths are questioned or perhaps challenged are those like Sarah Palin and Pat Robertson. I can proudly say I am NOT like those two and therefore was not offended by most of what Dawkins was trying to say and prove. Let us go into some specific things that I noted down while reading his book and which I wanted to comment on.

Very early on in the book, Dawkins discusses C.S.Lewis' theological discourses as a Catholic apologists. He summarizes Lewis' concepts with this one simply phrase: "Jesus was God because the New Testament says he was." Now granted I personally don't agree with that statement, however I disagree with Dawkins taking ALL of what Lewis wrote about theology and rolling it up into such a simplified phrase. Now of course I recognize this is a moot point, and really not one that does any significant damage to Dawkins, however it should be noted that Lewis discussed MANY concepts on theology in many of his non-fiction works, all of which I own. I would recommend them highly to get a view on Catholic apologetics and how Lewis discussed the belief in God, certainly such a summary by Dawkins is not one that should be taken lightly.

Dawkins at one point in the book discusses and then goes about refuting the major classical arguments for the belief in God. These are: St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs, The Ontological Argument, Pascal's Wager and Bayesian Arguments. There are of course other classical arguments and other arguments that Dawkins tackled(such as Argument based on Beauty, Religious Scientists, Personal Experiences and argument from scripture), but those are the ones he choose to cover in his book. Now for Dawkins to truly make an impact on the beliefs of Theist, most Theist would actually have to put all of their reason for believing in God in these said classical arguments. Now I can't speak for ALL Theist, however the majority of the ones I know do not cite Aquinas and Pascal for their beliefs, but I do personally do not think of any of these classical arguments when I think of my personal belief in a higher power. This same conclusion came to me when I took a Philosophy of Religion class. We used the text book entitled "Introduction to Philosophy of Religion" by James Kellenberger, which gives the pros and cons of such classical arguments. I remember being in class and even sharing my thoughts with my classmates and Professor, and what I said was pretty much what I stated above. I was the only Muslim in the class, and I basically shared that I do not rest my belief in God, nor have I ever on any of these concepts. The closest I have come to any of these, was belief of God because of scripture. I do believe in God because of the Holy Quran and the Messenger-ship of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), but that was not always the case. When I was younger and even when I started learning about Science I always thought that Science really complemented the belief in God and if anything proved his existence and handiwork in the Universe. Therefore with Dawkin's refuting these above classical arguments, I say he deserves a cookie, and we can simply move on, because the negation of the above does not convince me that God does not exist, mainly for the reason is that I never put stock into these concepts in the first place.

Dawkins then covers the many examples of how people who are religious have done some pretty insane, if not down right evil actions against other human beings. I have of course as a member of the human race cannot disagree with him on these examples, nor do I stand up for extremist of any kind that attack innocent people or use religion to condone acts of evil. One example I did take exception to however was the issue of the Danish Cartoons and the controversy surrounding that event. Now I do not agree with the actions of the persons around the world that wanted to harm innocent people, and attacked people who had nothing at all to do with the cartoons. However it should be noted that many Muslim organizations around the world demonstrated peacefully and even protested in a peaceful manner. Top scholars and Imams did not condone the attacks on innocent people and civilians. Yet the mainstream media did not even discuss these groups, but did what they do best, focus on negative issues and aspects that sell ratings. I was hoping that Dawkins would have mentioned these good Muslims and persons who did protest in a peaceful manner, but he did not, not even once. I think that if one wants to discuss religious people, simply looking on the persons who go to extremes is not the best way of going about it.

The other concept that I took exception to in Dawkin's book was the person beliefs on Albert Einstein. His treatment of Einstein is that of illustrating the point that like other physicists, Einstein used the terms "God" and "religion/religious" as metaphors to denote the awesomeness and beauty of the Universe. While this may indeed be true for many persons in this field, including Stephen Hawkings as noted by Dawkins, this was not the only case with Einstein. It is true that he used the terms and certainly not in the way Theist would. Einstein did not believe in a personal deity, nor was he a practicing Jew. As Dawkins shows in his book, many religious leaders, mainly Christians, hated him and sent him mail voicing their outrage in his total denouncement of God in the way they understood him. However I felt that Dawkin's was alluding to the idea that Einstein, like other Physicists used these terms as metaphors and therefore did not believe in God...at all, as in being an Atheist. However if one looks at many other quotes from Einstein, not quoted in Dawkin's book, we find that Einstein's beliefs had a little bit more substance then what is revealed in "The God Delusion". A transcript for the radio show done by Krista Tippett on "Speaking of Faith" produced a segment in which the topic of Einstein and his beliefs were discussed. The is entitled "Einstein and the Mind of God: Einstein's God". The guest on the show were noted biographers and physicists Paul Davies and Freeman Dyson who discussed Einstein beliefs in God. Now the conclusion of their findings would indicate that Einstein was a Deist, or at least a Theist who did not put much stock into actually worshipping God. Deist would probably be the best term, for Einstein as he is quoted as explaining his Deism and how he view God. He saw the natural world and the Universe believed that laws that governed them were created and set up by God. However unlike a Theist, he did not think that God cared much for us and simply pushed the play button as it were and let all of this Universe and everything in it go about it's way. With this in mind one cannot actually say Einstein was a religious Theist, but we also cannot say that he was a Atheist or leaned towards Atheism. I therefore find Dawkin's treatment of Einstein, again a moot point, but none the less lacking with the full picture of his personal beliefs.

END OF PART 1

Books of Comparative Religion

2009-10-24T19:29:00.001-07:00

This is the list of books on comparative religion that I own/read:

The Death of the Messiah, 2 Volumes-Dr. Raymond Brown

The Stone Edition of the Tanakh

KJV Ryrie Study Bible expanded edition

Ancient Roots Translinear Bible

The Holy Bible-RSV

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures-Edited and commentary by Marvin Meyer

JPS Tanakh-The Holy Scriptures

The Jerusalem Bible-Readers Edition

NRSV-Catholic Edition

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The New Testament-Recovery Version

Holy Bible-NKJV

Holy Bible-NIV

The Jesus Papers-Baigent

Jesus for the Non-Religious-Spong

The Book of Mormon

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene-Translated and commentary by Lelouf

Abraham-Feiler

Unearthing the Lost words of Jesus-Dart and Reigert

The New Testament Code-Eisenman

Tao-Te-Ching-Lao-Tzu

The Gospel of Thomas-commentary and translation by Dart and Reigert

Religion for Dummies

The World Religions-Huston Smith

Holy Bible-ESV

Holy Bible-NLT

The Gospel of Judas-Edited by: Kasser, Meyer, Wurst, commentary by Ehrman

Reading Judas-Pagels and King

The First Messiah-Wise

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew-Howard

Essential Visual Guide to the Bible-National Geographic

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History-translated by Cruse

The Bible-Armstrong

The Revised English Bible with Apocrypha

The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered-Eisenman and Wise

The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English-Geza Vermes

The Holy Bible-RSV

Holy Bible, Scofield Study System-KJV

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the first Christians-Eisenman

James the Brother of Jesus-Eisenman

Who wrote the Bible?-Friedman

The Birth of the Messiah-Brown

Introduction to the Gospel of John-Brown

The Kabbalistic Tradition-edited by Alan Unterman

The Talmud, a selection-Penguin Classics

The Works of Philo-Translated by Yonge

The Living Bible

The One Volume Bible Commentary Edited by Dummelow

The Other Bible-Edited by Barnstone

The Gnostic Bible-edited by Meyer

The Lost books of the Bible and the forgotten books of Eden-L.B. Press

The Access Bible-NRSV including Apocryphal books from Catholic and Greek Orthodox

The Urantia Book

The Power of Now-Tolle

A New Earth-Tolle

A Buddhist Bible-edited by Goddard

From Jesus to Christianity-White

Misquoting Jesus-Ehrman

God's Problem-Ehrman

Jesus, Interrupted-Ehrman

The I Ching, the book of changed-Translated by Legge

Bhagavad-gita, as it is, translated and explained by His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

1,001 Pearls of Buddhist Wisdom by Desmond Biddulph

Peace be upon You-Karabell

Teachings of the Buddha-edited by Kornfield

What would Buddha d0?-Metcalf

Living Buddha, Living Christ-Thich Nhat Hanh

Crossing the Threshold of Hope-Pope John Paul 2nd

A short history of Myth-Armstrong

The Great Transformation-Armstrong

The Battle for God-Armstrong

History of God-Armstrong

A course in Miracles-Foundation for Inner Peace

The Book of Thoth-Crowley

The Changing faces of Jesus-Vermes

The Satanic Bible-Lavey

The Varieties of Religious Experience-James

All books by Carl Jung (Psychology and Theology/Religious, spiritual)

The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

Jesus, a story of enlightenment-Chopra

The Gospel of Barnabas-Forward by Iman Muhammad Armiya Nu'Man

The Stone Edition of the Chumash

The Works of Josephus-Translated by Whiston

The Five Books of Moses-Translated and commentary by Alter

The Book of Psalms-translated and commentary by Alter

The Buddha Book-Lillian Too

No doubt I missed several books that are in my library, this also can be said for the books on just Islam, which can be found on this blog.

Enjoy the knowledge!

Message from a Sock Account

2009-10-21T01:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

Books on Theology

2009-10-17T22:54:00.000-07:00

Many people have requested I post a list of all books I own/have read on the subject on theology. Be it Islam or comparative religion in general I have read a lot, and would like to take this opportunity to share with you all the knowledge I have acquired due to these wonderful books. Enjoy, and don't forget to read!

Islam:
The Glorious Quran-Tex translation and commentary by Abdul Majid Daryabadi
The Collected Lyrics of Hafiz of Shiraz
Atlas of the Quran-published by Darrualislam
Atlast of the Prophet's Biography
The Gift-Poems of Hafiz
The Bible, the Quran and Science by Maurice Bucallie
As-Suyuti's Medicine of the Prophet
The Prophet Muhammad-A Biography by Barnaby Rogerson
The Life of the Prophet Muhammad by A.H. Siddiqui
Muhammad-his life based on the earliest sources by Martin Lings
The Quran-Translated and explained by M.A.S.Abdel Haleem
Love of God- A Sufic Approach
101 Great Mystic sayings of Islam
The First and Final commandment by Dr. Laurence B. Brown
Muslim/Christian Dialogue by H.M.Baagil
Human Rights in Islam and common misconceptions by Abdul-Rahman al-Sheha
Help yourself in reading Qur'an(Arabic-English) Published by Darussalam
Christianity and Islam According to the Bible and the Qur'an by Naser Al-Moghamis
The Universal Spirit of Islam
The Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad by Allama Sir Abdullah and Al-Mamun Al-Shurawardy
Adam to Muhammad by Adbur Rehman Shad
Islamic Sufism by Wahid Baksh Rabbani
Abraham-the friend of God by Jerald F. Dirks
The Sublime Quran Translated by Laleh Bakhtiar
The Noble Quran Translated by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hillali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan
Jesus in the eyes of the Sufis by Dr. Javad Nurbaksh
The Muslim Jesus-saying and stories in Islamic Literature by Jarif Khalidi
Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
Who is our Savior? Allah or Jesus by M. Ghounem
When Christians as the Quran answers by Mohamed Ghounem
200+ ways the Quran helps the Bible by Mohamed Ghounem
The Meaning of the Holy Quran Translated and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
Essential Sufism edited by James Fadiman and Robert Frager
Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ammar Yasir Qadhi
The History of the Qur'anic Text by M.M. Al-Azami
Do's and Do Nots in Islam by A. Rahman Shad
Love's Alchemy Edited by Fideller
The Dictionary of Arabic-English/English-Arabic by Ellas
The Cross and the Crescent by Jerald F. Dirks
The Life of Muhammad-Sirat Rasudillah Translated by Gullaume
Reliance of the Traveler- by Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
The Holy Quran Translated by Mulana Muhammad Ali
The Choice by Ahmed Deedat
(All books by Ahmed Deedat are in my library)
Islam the religion of all by Muhammad Tawfiek Ahmad
The Truth about Jesus
Principles about Islam
The concept of God in Islam by Hasan abdul Hakim
The Quran and Modern Science by Dr. Zakir Naik
A Brief illustrated guide to understanding Islam
Recognizing Islam-religion and society in the modern arab world by Michael Gilsenan
Fortification of the Muslim through remembrance and supplication from the Qur'an and Sunnah compiled by Sa'id Ibn Ali Ibn Wahf Al-Qahtani
Commentary on the Forty Hadith of Al-Nawawi by Dr. Jamal Ahmed Badi
Lost History-the enduring legacy of Muslim scientists, thinkers and artists by Michael Hamilton Morgan
Jesus through the Quran and Shi'ite Narrations translated by al-Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen
The Holy Quran Explained by Allamah Nooruddin, translated by Amatul Rahman Omar
Dictionary of the Holy Quran(Arabic-English) by ibid
The Angels Knocking on the Tavern Door(Thirty Poems by Hafez) Translated by Robert Bly
Al-Maqasid Imam Nawawis Manual of Islam translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
The Quran: the Unchallengeable Miracle by Caner Taslaman
Children of Jihad by Jared Cohen
The Trouble with Islam Today by Irshad Manji
The Drunken Universe Translated with commentary by Peter Lamborn
The Other Islam by Stephen Schwartz
Sufism- an account of the Mystics of Islam by A.J. Arberry
Rumi the Persian Mystic by F. Handland Davis
Losing my religion- a call for help by Jeffery Lang
Struggling to Surrender by Jeffery Lang
Even Angels ask by Jeffery Lang
Imam Ghazzali's Ihya Ulum-id-din(The Book of Religious Learnings) translated in 4 Volumes by Al-Haj Maulana Fazlul Karim
The Doctrine of the Sufs(Kitab al-ta'arruf lit-madhhab ahl al-tasawwuf) translated from the Arabic of Abu Bakr al-Kalabadhi by A.J. Arberry
The Bustan of Sa'di by Sa'di Shirazi
Minhajul-'Abideen by Imam Abu Hamid Al Ghazali translated into english by Iqbal Husain Ansari
Tahafut-Al-Falsifah(Incoherence of the Philosophers) by Imam Al-Ghazali
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Sahih Bukhari Translated into English in 9 Volumes by Muhammad Mushin Khan
The Metaphysics of Rumi by Dr. Abdul Hakim
Rumi's World-the life and work of the Great Sufi Poet by Annemarie Schimmel
Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz edited and translated by R.A Nicholson
The Pocket Rumi edited by Kabir Helminski
Muwatta of Imam Malik translated by Prof. M. Rahimudin
Al-Lu' Lu' Wal Marjan Translated into English in 3 Volumes by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan
Understanding Islam by Jerald F. Dirks
Narrative of Prophets by Khawaja Muhammad Islam
The True collection Sunan Al-Tirmithi translated into english in 4 volumes by Haytham Kreidly
Sunan Abu-Dawud translated into english in 3 volumes by Prof. Ahmed Hasan
Sahih Muslim translated into English in 4 Volumes by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi
Muhammad by Karen Armstrong
Muhammad in the Bible by Prof. Abdul-Ahad Dawud
Jesus A prophet in Islam-Muhammad Ataur-Rahim
In the footsteps of the Prophet by Taria Ramadan
Answering those who altered the religion of jesus christ by Shaikul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah
Destiny Disrupted by Tamim Ansary
Introduction to Islamic Law by Alhaji A.D. Ajijola
The Bible and the Quran by Jacques Jomier
The Mathnawi by Rumi Translated by R.A.Nicholson in 6 volumes in english
Divan-i Kibar by Rumi translated into English in 22 Volumes by Dr. Nevitt Ergin
The Essential Rumi edited by Coleman Barks

The next post will be all comparative religious books I own and have read.

Responding to a Critic Part.2

2009-08-06T03:42:00.000-07:00

Responding to a Critic

2009-08-06T02:28:00.000-07:00

Why Islam?

2009-07-14T00:05:00.000-07:00

Several persons have requested that I talk about my conversion story, and in light of the many requests I have decided to type up a summary of how I came to Islam, and why. This will probably be unlike most "conversion" stories you have heard or read because I will not go into detail into "how I felt" or other emotional sides of the equation. It will of course come up, how could it not?, but the majority of my experience with religion stems from actual research and not a dream or some other theological vision that other converts claim.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic household, but both my parents were not strict in their faith and did not force me to be an active member in the Church. Did we go to church on Sunday? Yes. All the time? No. However I loved reading the Bible, and it was common even in my youth to watch movies about Biblical stories and even read large portions of the Bible here and there. However because of my upbringing I would have to say that my education of Catholic or even Christian Doctrine for that matter was probably very low, considering I never went to Catholic school, but obtained a mere secular education.

It was not until my Sophomore year of High School that I finally realized that I knew nothing about my religion. I took a online test to see "what faith are you?", which was produced be Beliefnet.com. My mom happened to see me taking the test, and when the question came-What do you believe God is?:
a. There is only one God and there is nothing like him
b. God Incarnates in some form human or otherwise
c. Not really sure
d. there is no God

I picked "A", which to my mother's surprise was obviously very unChristian. I would later find by talking to her afterwards that Christians believed that Jesus Christ, was literally God in the flesh, but also the Son of God, and also the 2nd person of the Trinity. I, to my horror, was completely ignorant of such things, and suddenly realized I knew NOTHING about Catholic of Christian theology. I set out at once to learn what I had been ignorant of most of my childhood. I first read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and other books on Christian Theology. Here I learned that Jesus was God Incarnate, the Son of God, and also learned about the Trinity. Even during this time, I found these concepts very confusing and at times hard for me to wrap my head around. I kept thinking to myself 'if God wants us to know about him, why does he reveal himself in such a confusing way?' However I did not give up and decided that year I was going to read the entire Bible, from start to finish, and that is exactly what I did.

Reading the entire Bible is no party let me tell you that right now. If you manage to get through the Torah then you are hit by the Historical books like 1 and 2nd Chronicles and Kings which are full of dull history and geneologies which could drive someone insane. However once passed the Historical books and into the Writings and Prophets it was a piece of cake. I also did research on other faiths during this time, but getting through the Bible was my main focus. I finally made it to the New Testament and finished it amazed. It was probably one of the most amazing events in my life, to read the entire Holy Bible. However amazement was not the only reaction I had.
I'll never forget reading the Book of Joshua and seeing how God ordered the Israelites to kill EVERYONE in certain Pagan lands just because that land was theirs. This was totally a contradiction to how I was raise to view God, who was full of love and kindness. This seemed like a totally different deity, but I also couldn't wrap my head around why God would actually sanction such horrible things. That is when my faith in the Bible began to crack. What also got me was the blatant absence of Christian Theology in the Bible as a whole. No where to be found where there verses that taught clearly who Jesus Christ was, and what his relationship to God was as well. Furthermore the lack of Theological passages talking about the Trinity as an actual concept was absent. This troubled me, and when I read the writings of the early Church Fathers (the first being The Confessions and The City of God by St. Augustine and also The Incarnation of the Word of God, by St. Athanasius), I realized that these theological precepts did not come from the Bible, but from these men. The Christian dogma was founded by the writings of men, that had no firm bases at all in the Bible. Therefore it was not God who was teachings these things, but men, not even Jesus Christ. That is when I left Christianity and became a Agnostic.

My period of Agnosticism(or as my best friend would call it) my period of "Christian only by name", was from my Sophomore year to my Senior year of High School. During that time I read on every major world religion, reading every major scripture as well. I read it all, I first read books on early Christianity, any book I could get my hands on. I still own the large multiple page list of books that I read in High school and trust me that list is ever growing, sometimes I even forget to write titles down. Huston Smith was a huge gateway to knowledge his book World Religions really taught me to look at each faith and scripture on its own merit and to respect all religions regardless if you belong to one, and I still try to maintain that to this day. I looked into Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confusicism, Judaism, Christianity, Satanism, Pagan faiths, Anamistic, Shamanism, even Scientology and Mormonism. I read all there respected scriptures, except for the books about Scientology I must confess did not reach my eyes at that time. However I felt well grounded and well read, more so then most people I met who had not even fully read THEIR respected text.
During senior year I read Misquoting Jesus, and this book seriously changed my view of the Bible forever. I still respected the Bible, and still do to this day, even though I am not a Christian. However I never bothered to think about the physical text of the Bible, and Bart Eharman's book taught me that the present Bible we have today is full of corruptions and errors that made the book very questionable. This further cemented me away from Christianity now that the text itself was something that could not be relied upon.

My first encounter with the Quran was when I bought my first copy at the used bookstore in town. It was during senior year, I saw it, knew what it was, and that bought a copy, because hey, I didn't own it. I brought it home and it sat on my shelf for weeks.

That was until I read Rumi. Rumi, the famous Muslim poet, caught my attention when I was surfing the internet. I read his poems and how he talked about God, and I found his poems hit me square in the, well the heart. I wanted to know what religion is this guy? Because surely a person who is talking like this, speaking in this way, must be in the right place. That is when I first found Islam. It of course was a faith I new about, but I wanted to know more about it, why was Rumi apart of it, and what was so special about this religion. So I did what I do best, I studied my brain out on the subject. Read the Quran in one week, and it was totally speaking about theology the way I had always wanted. Respecting and believing in ALL Prophets and only believing in ONE God. Jesus was just a Prophet, which sounded fine to me considering I had seen nothing contrary to this in the Bible. I read up on the life of the Prophet Muhammad and was amazed by his story, his life, and all that he did. I read beginners guides to Islam and then moved onto more extensive books. Totally engrossed myself in the religion. However I still was not sure if I Islam was it for me. I mean it sounded good, theologically grounded, and seemed to be the perfect fit. But I was in need of more convincing.

That was when I first saw Sheikh Amed Deedate on Youtube. I watched ALL of his lectures and debates, along with Dr. Zakir Naik. Do to the words of these men, I found myself challenging long held beliefs and for the first time in awhile, going back to the Bible to see if what they were saying was the truth. They brought Islam to life for me, not just in books, but seeing real people talking about theological concepts. I read the Bible and Quran side by side, and found the Quran winning on every topic, and saw the Bible sinking further and further away. That was when I realized that Islam was the religion for me. So one night, sitting at my desk I said to myself in English and Arabic: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger". I had become a Muslim at 17 years old.

After entering Islam I told my friends and most of my family who showed me love and support and I am still thankful to them all. They made the conversion process very easy. I learned to pray, fasted for the first time during Ramadan and gave to charity. I read more books on Islam and also on on other faiths as well, I still to this day do this, and will probably never stop. Studying comparative religion has become my hobby and one of my greatest pleasures. I enjoy talking to people about religion, regardless of the topic. My best friend is an Atheist, and yet we respect each other and can talk to each other about Theism and Atheism. I would like to thank him for teaching about Atheism and showing me to also respect those outside of the great World Religions.

I quickly become part of the Islamic community, online and in person. Creating a Youtube account and also speaking on Stickam I have had the honor to meet many great people from ALL backgrounds, and also created many friendships. Youtube has been a lot of fun, and I have learned so much, and also learned that every misconception regarding Islam can and is refuted, further cementing my faith in it. I also have done many lectures at my college, which of coursed enhanced my faith and experience.

During my journey I could very well have become an Agnostic, Atheist, Jew, or Buddhist, trust me at one time one of those did seem like the right path. It is funny now that I write this, that this whole adventure was sparked by a online quiz on the internet, asking me what my faith was. Even more funny was at that time, even though I didn't know anything about it, the final answer when the quiz was finished was one religion that quiz thought I was most likely apart of. The answer was:Islam
I guess Allah does work in funny ways after all.

Adam

2009-05-30T16:53:00.000-07:00

Responding to the article by Ahmadsquran3 entitled "Adam"
By Ozzycda

It never ceases to amaze me how much misinformation and outright lies one person can put into a article. Yet this is what we have in this article that I will be responding to regarding the subject of Adam(peace be upon him) in Islam.

HE Wrote:
According to the Bible, Adam (Man) was created from dust just as the following Quranic verse re-iterates. If this is the case, why then did the angel Gabriel deceive Muhammad by telling him that he was created from Alaq, meaning a blood clot or a leech?

My Response:
So according to our friend there is a apparent contradiction. He says above that the Quran DOES say that Adam was created from dust and therefore is in line with the Bible. However he claims that Surah 96 is referring to the creation of Adam as well, that he was created from Alaqa and therefore is against the Bible, and is also contradicting the Quran itself. For this theory to even be fact, our friend would have to prove that the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) or the the companions taught that Allah swt is actually referring to Adam in Surah 96.

Let us first look at the Surah and the relevant verses in their proper context:

Al-Alaq
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Read! In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists), (1) He has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood) (2) Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous, (3) Who has taught (the writing) by the pen. (4) He has taught man that which he knew not. (5)

So we can see from the above that Prophet Adam(peace be upon him) is not mentioned at all. It is referring in the generic sense that Allah created man from a clot(Alaqa). If this was truly referring to Adam then Adam would have to have been BORN, and gone through the embryological stages that a being goes through in its mother's womb, yet not a single Jew, Christian or Muslim believes that Adam was created in this fashion. So therefore based on LOGIC and theological understanding one could easily see that this chapter is NOT referring to Adam. Let us look at what the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir says on this subject:

The Honor and Nobility of Man is in His Knowledge

These Ayat inform of the beginning of man's creation from a dangling clot, and that out of Allah's generosity He taught man that which he did not know. Thus, Allah exalted him and honored him by giving him knowledge, and it is the dignity that the Father of Humanity, Adam, was distinguished with over the angels. Knowledge sometimes is in the mind, sometimes on the tongue, and sometimes in writing with the fingers. Thus, it may be intellectual, spoken and written. And while the last (written) necessitates the first two (intellectual and spoken), the reverse is not true. For this reason Allah says,

[اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الاٌّكْرَمُ - الَّذِى عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ - عَلَّمَ الإِنسَـنَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ ]

(Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous. Who has taught by the pen. He has taught man that which he knew not.) There is a narration that states, "Record knowledge by writing.'' There is also a saying which states, "Whoever acts according to what he knows, Allah will make him inherit knowledge that he did not know.'

So again Adam is NOT mentioned as being the one who was created from a clot(Alaqa). In fact the Tafsir is clear on comparing man(as in all of humanity) with our mutual father ADAM as being distinguished but not being created in the same fashion as his progencey. So therefore the above claim made by our friend seems to run stale.

He wrote:
Either way, they do not correspond to the Biblical record nor to the science of biology, especially since the followers of Muhammad assert, that the Quran contains ALL knowledge that a human being needs to know.

My Response:
Well as I just proved above that the story of Adam DOES correspond to the Biblical record. However what is this statement about the verses do not correspond to science of biology? I would encourage all of you to look at the following information to see Science and the Quran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw3do0TLv6o
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/

Also I have NEVER heard a Muslim scholar or layman say that the Quran is a science textbook or a biology textbook. To reference Dr. Zakir Naik "The Quran is not a book SCIENCE but a book of SIGNS." To make claims for the Muslim's attitude about the Quran shows a great amount of arrogance regarding the topic.

HE Wrote:
As usual in the Quran, his story is not 'told' in detail and what is 'recited' contradicts many important items that are described in the original story in the Hebrew Bible.

My Response:
Well if our friend is referring to his claims above, they have been refuted. If he is referring to OTHER supposed issues I would love to see them.

HE Wrote:
By the way, Adam's wife Eve, the 'Mother of Humaity' is not mentioned at all anywhere in the Quran.

My Response:
This is an amazing lie on the part of our friend. Lets look at what Quran and the scholars say about Adam and his WIFE. Notice are friend says that Eve is not mentioned at ALL in the Quran. Really? Lets take a look at the Quran and the Tafsirs:

Al-Araf
O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression." (19) Then began satan to whisper suggestions to them, in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said "Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest ye should become angels or such beings as live forever." (20) And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser. (21) So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that satan was an avowed enemy unto you?" (22) They said: "our Lord! we have wronged our own souls: if Thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy we shall certainly be lost." (23)

Amazing the above verse says that Adam should dwell in the garden WITH HIS WIFE. Hmmm I wonder who that would be? Lets see what the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir says:

Shaytan's Deceit with Adam and Hawwa' and Their eating from the Forbidden Tree

Allah states that He allowed Adam and his wife to dwell in Paradise and to eat from all of its fruits, except one tree. We have already discussed this in Surat Al-Baqarah. Thus, Shaytan envied them and plotted deceitfully, whispering and suggesting treachery. He wished to rid them of the various favors and nice clothes that they were enjoying.

[وَقَالَ]

(He (Shaytan) said) uttering lies and falsehood,

[مَا نَهَـكُمَا رَبُّكُمَا عَنْ هَـذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ إِلاَ أَن تَكُونَا مَلَكَيْنِ]

("Your Lord did not forbid you this tree save you should become angels...'') meaning, so that you do not become angels or dwell here for eternity. Surely, if you eat from this tree, you will attain both, he said. In another Ayah,

[قَالَ يـَادَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لاَّ يَبْلَى]

(Shaytan whispered to him, saying: "O Adam! Shall I lead you to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that will never waste away'') [20:120]. Here, the wording is similar, so it means, `so that you do not become angels' as in;

[يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ أَن تَضِلُّواْ]

((Thus) does Allah make clear to you (His Law) lest you go astray. ) [4:176] meaning, so that you do not go astray, and,

[وَأَلْقَى فِى الاٌّرْضِ رَوَاسِىَ أَن تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ]

(And He has affixed into the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you;) [16:15] that is, so that the earth does not shake with you.

[وَقَاسَمَهُمَآ]

(And he Qasamahuma), swore to them both by Allah, saying,

[إِنِّي لَكُمَا لَمِنَ النَّـصِحِينَ]

("Verily, I am one of the sincere well-wishers for you both.'') for I was here before you and thus have better knowledge of this place. It is a fact that the believer in Allah might sometimes become the victim of deceit. Qatadah commented on this Ayah, "Shaytan swore by Allah, saying, `I was created before you, and I have better knowledge than you. Therefore, follow me and I will direct you.'''

[فَدَلَّـهُمَا بِغُرُورٍ فَلَمَّا ذَاقَا الشَّجَرَةَ بَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْءَتُهُمَا وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِن وَرَقِ الْجَنَّةِ وَنَادَاهُمَا رَبُّهُمَآ أَلَمْ أَنْهَكُمَا عَن تِلْكُمَا الشَّجَرَةِ وَأَقُل لَّكُمَآ إِنَّ الشَّيْطَـنَ لَكُمَا عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ - قَالاَ رَبَّنَا ظَلَمْنَآ أَنفُسَنَا وَإِن لَّمْ تَغْفِرْ لَنَا وَتَرْحَمْنَا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخَـسِرِينَ ]

(22. So he misled them with deception. Then when they tasted of the tree, that which was hidden from them of their shame (private parts) became manifest to them and they began to cover themselves with the leaves of Paradise. And their Lord called out to them (saying): "Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you: Verily, Shaytan is an open enemy unto you'') (23. They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You forgive us not, and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers.'') Ubayy bin Ka`b said, "Adam was a tall man, about the height of a palm tree, and he had thick hair on his head. When he committed the error that he committed, his private part appeared to him while before, he did not see it. So he started running in fright through Paradise, but a tree in Paradise took him by the head. He said to it, `Release me,' but it said, `No, I will not release you.' So his Lord called him, `O Adam! Do you run away from Me' He said, `O Lord! I felt ashamed before You.''' Ibn Jarir and Ibn Marduwyah collected this statement using several chains of narration from Al-Hasan from Ubayy bin Ka`b who narrated it from the Prophet . However, relating the Hadith to Ubayy is more correct. Ibn `Abbas commented on the Ayah,

[وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِن وَرَقِ الْجَنَّةِ]

(And they began to cover themselves with the leaves of Paradise.) "Using fig leaves.'' This statement has an authentic chain of narration leading to Ibn `Abbas. Mujahid said that they began to cover themselves with the leaves of Paradise, "Making them as a dress (or garment).'' Commenting on Allah's statement,

[يَنزِعُ عَنْهُمَا لِبَاسَهُمَا]

(Stripping them of their raiment) [7:27] Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The private parts of Adam and Hawwa' had a light covering them which prevented them from seeing the private parts of each other. When they ate from the tree, their private parts appeared to them.'' Ibn Jarir reported this statement with an authentic chain of narration. Abdur-Razzaq reported from Qatadah, "Adam said, `O Lord! What if I repented and sought forgiveness' Allah said, `Then, I will admit you into Paradise.' As for Shaytan, he did not ask for forgiveness, but for respite. Each one of them was given what he asked for.'' Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim commented,

[رَبَّنَا ظَلَمْنَآ أَنفُسَنَا وَإِن لَّمْ تَغْفِرْ لَنَا وَتَرْحَمْنَا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخَـسِرِينَ]

("Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You forgive us not, and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers.'') "These are the words that Adam received from his Lord.''

[قَالَ اهْبِطُواْ بَعْضُكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ عَدُوٌّ وَلَكُمْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ مُسْتَقَرٌّ وَمَتَـعٌ إِلَى حِينٍ - قَالَ فِيهَا تَحْيَوْنَ وَفِيهَا تَمُوتُونَ وَمِنْهَا تُخْرَجُونَ ]

So we can see from the above that not only are the scholars aware of the name of the Adam's wife in Islamic Tradition we know that the Quran teaches and MENTIONS Eve the WIFE of Adam(peace be upon them both).

HE Wrote:
3: 59 This similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam: He created him from dust (Tturab) then said to him: "Be" and he was.

*** The reader should be made aware of the total falsities imbedded in the above verse.

Firstly, Jesus was definitely not created from dust since he was born from a woman as the Gospels - which are after all the primary sources - describe.

It is certainly not up to Muhammad's Quran - which was written over 635 years after the original events - to change the story, pervert it to suit its agenda and, adding insult to injury, claim that its version is the truth, based only upon the uncorroborated say so, of an unlearned and allegedly illiterate man, called Muhammad.

My Response:
Again our friend is making claims about the Islamic position that are not actually the Muslim point of view on these subjects. The Quran does not teach that Jesus was created from dust, this is clearly speaking of Adam. The comparison is not which material the prophet's were made out of, but the miracle that both Jesus and Adam were created by a supernatural fashion i.e. BE and they both were. My evidence for this is from Ibn Kathir:

The Similarities Between the Creation of Adam and the Creation of `Isa

Allah said,

[إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِندَ اللَّهِ]

(Verily, the likeness of `Isa before Allah) regarding Allah's ability, since He created him without a father,

[كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ]

(is the likeness of Adam), for Allah created Adam without a father or a mother. Rather,

[خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ]

(He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!'' and he was.)

Therefore, He Who created Adam without a father or a mother is able to create `Isa, as well, without a father. If the claim is made that `Isa is Allah's son because he was created without a father, then the same claim befits Adam even more. However, since such a claim regarding Adam is obviously false, then making the same claim about `Isa is even more false.

Furthermore, by mentioning these facts, Allah emphasizes His ability, by creating Adam without a male or female, Hawa' from a male without a female, and `Isa from a mother without a father, compared to His creating the rest of creation from male and female. This is why Allah said in Surah Maryam,

[وَلِنَجْعَلَهُ ءَايَةً لِّلْنَّاسِ]

(And We made him a sign for mankind) [19: 21].

Allah said in this Ayah,

[الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلاَ تَكُنْ مِّن الْمُمْتَرِينَ ]

((This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of those who doubt.) meaning, this is the only true story about `Isa, and what is beyond truth save falsehood Allah next commands His Messenger to call those who defy the truth, regarding `Isa, to the Mubahalah (the curse).

So therefore Muhammad changed NOTHING 635 years after the fact, but rather it is Ahmadsquran3 that is changing the stance of Islam on this matter.

HE Wrote:
Secondly, according to the Bible - which is obviously the original source of the creation story that the Quran is plundering - although it is true that Adam was moulded from dust, he was non the less, not given life by the word of God, BE, but by God breathing life into his nostrils as described in:

Genesis 2:" 7 And God formed Man from the dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the soul of life; and man became a living being"

My Response:
Ahmadsquran3 makes the claim that the Quran is in error because it states that Adam was created from the word BE and he was. He quotes Genesis to attempt to prove that Adam was given life not by being formed from dust but by God breathing life into him. Let us first discuss the concept of the WORD or BE being used in creation. I am surprised that our friend has forgotten the pattern by which God creates ANYTHING, by saying LET THERE BE and it was. Also with the teachings of Philo, later ripped off by early Christianity, the concept of the LOGOS or the WORD being used as a tool by God to create everything is a known fact in theology. Therefore there is nothing wrong with the Quran saying that WORD is BE during God's creation of anything.
But our friend is ALSO wrong about implying that the Quran does not teach that God breathed life into Adam's body. Let us see the verses below:

Al-Hijr
We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape; (26) And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind. (27) Behold! Thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape; (28) "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him." (29)

So the Quran as well as the Bible teaches that God breathed into him and this is what gave him life. Our friend is in error in telling Muslims they are wrong about this subject.

He Wrote:

Thirdly and moreover, since according to the Quran, the Torat was given to Moses by Allah, why then is its version different from that of the Quran?

How is it possible or even conceivable that the infallible Allah - if Allah is the God of Israel and Jesus - would give two contradictory versions of the same event? ***

My Response;
We find our friend using the authority of the Bible to prove the Quran wrong, yet he would have to assume that Muslims view the Bible as some sort of authority in our belief system. We do believe that the Torah WAS given to Moses(pbuh) but we believe that it was corrupted throughout time. So we do not believe that the current Torah is the same state it was in when God revealed it to Moses. In fact many Biblical scholars do not believe that the current Torah WAS from ONE person or source but by four different sources and peoples. See the following for that information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URt8UcuOTxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mnX80nwRJY&feature=related
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Origins_of_the_Bible/Authorship/Source_Criticism.shtml

So are Muslims alone in this belief? Nope not at all, in fact it has become scholarly FACT to assert the present Torah is NOT the Torah of Moses.
As I have proven above there is no contradiction or error and hence our friend's claims turn stale.

He Wrote:
96:1 Proclaim! (or Read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher Who created 2 Created man out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood

***In fact, the Quran describes several more very unusual forms of creation none of which are recited in the Bible.
{Click on Creation of Man in Definitions}.

My Response:
He claims that the Quran describes several unusual form of creation. Really? Unusual? See my sources above to show how "unusual" these claims our of the Quran. He again gives authority to the Bible by saying these descriptions are not in the Bible so therefore they must be wrong. Well perhaps his issue is that he using the Bible's claims, or lack thereof, regarding Science to criticize the Quran. See this source below with regards to the Science in the Bible:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Sources/

He Wrote:
What is most disturbing, is the fact that the very first verse that was 'revealed' to Muhammad, by allegedly, the angel Gabriel, is a total lie **

My Response:
What is disturbing, as I said at the beginning of the article, is how many lies and misinformation can be put into one article. Now I hope the truth can be seen and falsehood can vanish as it always will vanish.

Adam and Eve's Clothes

2009-05-30T16:52:00.001-07:00

Rebuttal to Ahmadsquran3's article 'Adam&Eve's Garments'
By Ozzycda

He wrote:

The number of verses that show important inconsistencies and contradictions in the Quran runs in the hundreds; one can show as examples only a few of the most blatant:

My Response:
I would love to explore these so called hundreds of contradictions and inconsistencies but I am sure Inshallah(God-willing) we will refute these allegations in another article. For now we are being told by Ahamdsquran3 that this is one of the most blatant. Well if this is an example of such a "error" then he really needs to step it up a bit as will be seen below.

He wrote:
7: 22 So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"

7: 27 O ye children of Adam! let not Satan seduce you in the same manner as he got your parents out of the garden stripping them of their raiment to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.

*** This is a remarkable verse since it totally contradicts 7:22.

In the earlier verse, Adam and Eve were naked and had to sew a garment of leaves to cover their 'shame'. Now, in 7:27, we are told by the angel Gabriel that they were actually clothed but it was Satan who disrobed them and exposed their 'shame'. In the space of five verses, the Quran, yet again, contradicts itself ***

My Response:
He claims that there is a contradiction due to the apparent error in that in 7:22 Adam and Eve were both naked then after they were tricked by Satan that is when they clothed themselves. Yet he says in 7:27 it is saying that it was Satan himself that took the clothes off of them, thus making it appear that Adam and Eve were already clothed BEFORE Satan tempted them. In order for there to be an error at all Ahamdsquran3 would have to prove that this verse was taught by the scholars of Islam, the Companions of the Prophet and thus the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) himself that this verse in this instance is referring to physical clothing. If he cannot establish that, then his argument falls flat on its face as we will see below.

Ahmadsquran3 uses on his website the commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali when he discusses certain verses from the Quran. I find it interesting that when it comes to this very verse he does not include the said commentary yet provides it for the rest of the verses. Why does he do this? Probably because he knows that it would lead his readers to realize that there is no error at all , but that he is twisting the Muslim understanding of this verse. Let us look at what Abdullah Yusuf Ali has to say about this verse:

1009. That is, by fraud and deceit- by putting you off your guard and telling lies. Adam's story here becomes an introduction to the later spiritual history of mankind: 7:20-22. In the Garden, Satan's deceit stripped off their raiment of honor and innocence. In this life, on a lower plane, he seeks to strip us of the raiment of righteousness. And he can take up positions on a vantage ground of worldly power or influence or riches, in which he and his confederates are not seen in their true colors. They may assume a fair-seeming disguise of disinterested friendship or high motives of patriotism or public spirit, or loyalty to ancestors, when beneath it there is nothing but spite and selfishness.

Please note above that Yusuf Ali makes it clear that Satan stripped off their raiment of honor and innocence. Indeed even looking at Muhammad Asad's commentary one finds him make it clear that they were stripped regarding their consciousness and how they viewed their surroundings.(See Muhammad Asad's The Meaning of the Holy Quran pg.235.) Let us look at another scholar's commentary on this verse:
Maulana Muhammad Ali-The Holy Quran:

27a. That the clothing of the body is not meant here is clear from the fact that all men are warned against a similar attack of the devil. As to the clothing of which Adam was divested, there remains no doubt, when it is seen that the devil tries to divest every child of Adam of the same clothing. Mujahid ibn Jabar(Tai'i) says: "It is the clothing that guards against evil, and by their sau'at is meant the evil that afflicted them on account of their disobedience"(Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal).

So we can see from the above as well that the scholars do not consider this verse to be referring to physical clothing with regards to Adam. Now of course some may argue that I am only using Modern Scholars, even though they are quoting classical sources, and that this is an attempt by Muslims today to rewrite the Quran. However, let us see what the classical scholars from their own writing had to say about this verse:

Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:

Warning against the Lures of Shaytan

Allah warns the Children of Adam against Iblis and his followers, by explaining about his ancient enmity for the father of mankind, Adam peace be upon him. Iblis plotted to have Adam expelled from Paradise, which is the dwelling of comfort, to the dwelling of hardship and fatigue (this life) and caused him to have his private part uncovered, after it had been hidden from him. This, indeed, is indicative of deep hatred (from Shaytan towards Adam and mankind).

Interesting thing to note here is that the Tafsir does not say that he was clothed or had clothing on him, but rather it is saying that before Satan tempted Adam his private parts were simply hidden from him. This might seem strange, but Ibn Abbas(may Allah swt be pleased with him) clears up any confusion in his own Tafsir:

Tafsir of Ibn Abbas:
(O Children of Adam! Let not Satan) Iblis (seduce you) make you slip with regard to obeying Me (as he caused your (first) parents) Adam and Eve (to go forth from the Garden and tore off) took away (from them their robe) the robe of light (that he might manifest their shame to them. Lo! he) Iblis (seeth you, he and his tribe) his soldiers, (from whence ye see him not) because your breasts are their dwellings. (Lo! We have made the devils protecting friends) helpers (for those who believe not) in Muhammad (pbuh) and in the Qur'an.

So we can also see from the above that Satan removed the LIGHT that was clothing their naked bodies. Hence once the light was removed their private parts become clear to themselves. This further backs the way Muhammad Asad renders his translation of the verse as dealing with their view or consciousness of the situation. So now we can see that no matter how you look at this verse one thing is very clear, the verse is NOT referring to physical clothing. The scholars of Islam did not teach that this was referring to clothing, nor the Companions of the Prophet, nor the Prophet himself. Finally because of this truth, there is no error on contradiction between the two verses.

He Wrote:
20: 121 In the result they both ate of the tree and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together for their covering leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey His Lord and allow himself to be seduced

*** It is intellectually inconceivable to believe, that the angel of Allah, if Allah is the God of Israel and of Jesus, could have recited such blatant lies and contradictions ***

My Response:
Well since I have proven that there is no lie or contradiction then I guess the above statement made by our friend here is no longer valid. But let us talk about the God of Israel revealing things that are error-ridden or contradictory. Has Ahmadsquran3 ever read the Holy Bible? If he has then he would be aware of the many issues within its pages. Not that I am saying that the Bible IS revealed by God, but I find it funny he would say that the God of Israel does not reveal blatant lies and contradictions. This is a false statement made by our friend, the Bible is NO stranger to errors or contradictions simply see the below links for more information on this topic.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bibles_unfulfilled_prophecies.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdul-rahman_klimaszewski/biblical_inconsistencies.htm

From Load-Islam.com Aricle on abused verses and Traditions

2009-05-26T14:57:00.000-07:00

By Ansar Al-'Adl (www.islamicboard.com)
Introduction
In our time, we find it becoming more and more common for some people to misquote verses from the Qur’an, or narrations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), in order to support their twisted presentation of Islam as a hostile and violent religion. The majority of these verses are either mistranslated, taken out of context, or misunderstood due to lack of basic knowledge. For example, Jihad is misunderstood by many people today as a “holy war”, hence, whenever it is praised in the Qur’an, it is seen in a negative light. Jihad in reality is a positive concept, not a negative one, and for this reason, one must read about Jihad before reading the rest of this article. An explanation of Jihad can be read here. This article intends to clarify the misconception that Islam promotes violence and hatred by re-examining the misquoted verses and narrations. As we shall see, once understood properly, it becomes apparent that Islam teaches nothing but peace, harmony and tolerance for all humanity. We have selected and quoted the verses/narrations in the way that they are circulated by the Islam-haters, so that the poor translation and other deceptive tactics of the Islam-Haters may be exposed.

Misquoted Verse #1
Qur’an 2:216 Jihad (holy fighting in God's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But God knows, and you know not.
The first mistake in this translation is that this Qur’anic verse actually does not use the word “Jihad”. This verse actually uses the word “Qitaal”, which refers to physical fighting. Fighting is ordained for Muslims in order to defend themselves and their rights, as well as the rights of others. The obligation to physically defend one’s rights, and to establish justice was elaborated on in the previously mentioned article on Jihad. It is sufficient to quote a verse from the Qur’an in this regard:
4:75 And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help."
It is most certainly a duty of all human beings to help each other from oppression and injustice. This is what Islam teaches. Commenting on verse 2:216, Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:
To fight in the cause of Truth is one of the highest forms of charity. What can you offer that is more precious than your own life? But here again the limitations come in. If you are a mere brawler, or a selfish aggressive person, or a vainglorious bully, you deserve the highest censure. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
Therefore, the fighting ordained by God in the Qur'an is the fighting to establish justice and security in the land, and this is a duty upon all human beings. We will always hope for peace, but we must realize that without justice, freedom, rights and equity, peace will never be able to survive. Likewise, on verse 2:216, Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes:
War, it has been truly said, is sanctioned by the law of nature – the constitution of man and the constitution of society – and is at times a biological and sociological necessity. Islam, the ideal and practical religion has allowed it, but only in cases of sheer necessity. (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
Islam has designated war as the last resort and only in cases of sheer necessity, in order for us to defend the rights of ourselves and others. Also, the picture becomes even more clear when we take into consideration the historical context of the revelation. Abdullah Yusuf Ali goes on to explain the historical context in his commentary on verse 2:217:
The intolerance and persecution of the Pagan clique at Mecca caused untold hardships to the holy Messenger of Islam and his early disciples. They bore all with meekness and long-suffering patience until the holy one permitted them to take up arms in self-defence… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
In light of the above quote, it becomes apparent that fighting has been especially ordained in conditions of severe persecution and hardship. Consequently, the Muslims are required to defend themselves from oppression and establish justice. To abstain from helping those under oppression is cowardice. Abdul Majid Daryabadi also explains the historical context of the verse:
Persecuted, harassed, afflicted, poverty-ridden, exiled, and small in number as the Muslims were at the time of the enactment of warfare, it was but natural that they were none too fond of crossing swords with the mighty forces that had conspired for their extirpation. Nothing short of express and emphatic Divine Command could urge them on to the field of battle [in order to defend their rights]. And yet the Islamic jihads are declared to be ‘designed by the Prophet to satisfy his discontented adherents by an accession of plunder!’ (Margoliouth). Such is this European scholar’s love of veracity! Such is his wonderful reading of history! (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an)
The commentary on this verse makes it very clear that Muslims have always understood this verse as the legal right to defend one’s rights from the forces of oppression, but never to transgress limits in defence.

Misquoted Verse #2
Qur'an 4:95 Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in God's Cause with their wealth and lives. God has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has God promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.
First of all, this is a very poor translation of the verse. Let us look at some notable translators:
4:95YUSUFALI: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward
PICKTHAL: Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who strive in the way of God with their wealth and lives. God hath conferred on those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each God hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary
MUHAMMAD ASAD: Such of the believers as remain passive' -.other than the disabled -cannot be deemed equal to those who strive hard in God's cause with their possessions and their lives:' God has exalted those who strive hard with their possessions and their lives far above those who remain passive. Although God has promised the ultimate good unto all [believers], yet has God exalted those who strive hard above those who remain passive by [promising them] a mighty reward
KHAN/HILALI: Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;
Now that we have quoted the most common translations, the source for the quoted translation seems questionable. Words such as “Jihadists” are purely media coined terms without any real meaning. In fact, the Oxford American Dictionary says about this term:
USAGE: There doesn’t seem to be a pressing need for this English-friendly form since the Arabic term for a holy warrior, mujahid, has already made it into English in plural forms (mujahideen, mujahedin), along with jihadi, a form more in keeping with Arabic morphology. Jihadist, however, is the preferred form for all writers who are vehemently anti-Arab or anti-Islam.
Having defined Jihad in the previous article, we can describe a Mujahid as someone who strives to uphold justice, perhaps risking his life in the process. So what do these verses say? They are elevating the status of those who are brave to stand up for truth and justice in the face of oppression. The verses elevate their status over that of those who cowardly hide from defending the rights of others, unless they have a disability, which prevents them from doing so. So the Islam-hater finds no support (for their distorted presentation of Islam) in these verses either. Moreover, the verse supports the interpretation of Jihad as any struggle for the sake of God because it has mentioned those who perform Jihad with their wealth by donating it for a good cause, such as humanitarian organizations. As Muhammad Asad writes about this verse:
The term mujahid is derived from the verb jahada, which means "he struggled" or "strove hard" or "exerted himself", namely, in a good cause and against evil. Consequently, jihad denotes "striving in the cause of God" in the widest sense of this expression: that is to say, it applies not merely to physical warfare (qital) but to any righteous struggle in the moral sense as well (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)

Misquoted Verse #3
Qur'an 33:23 Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with God and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting ). Some have completed their vow to extreme and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause, and some are waiting, prepared for death in battle .
Here the Islam-Hater has conveniently removed the brackets from the translation, so that the reader cannot distinguish between ideas of the translator and the words of the Qur'an. Let us help out by providing a translation without any additional ideas:
33:23. Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, of them some have fulfilled their obligations, and some of them are still waiting, but they have never changed in the least.
It is also clear that the Islam-hater has placed additional ideas into the translation, not supported by any translator. "fighting and dying", "prepared for death in battle", these are not the words of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is praising those early companions who remained steadfast in their faith and true to the covenant. This verse does not mention fighting or Jihad at all. That is one interpretation of this verse, as Ibn Kathir writes:
When Allah mentions how the hypocrites broke their promise to Him that they would not turn their backs, He describes the believers as firmly adhering to their covenant and their promise:
([they] have been true to their covenant with Allah; of them some have fulfilled their Nahbah;) Some of [the Qur’anic commentators] said: "Met their appointed time (i.e., death).'' Al-Bukhari said, "Their covenant, and refers back to the beginning of the Ayah.
(and some of them are still waiting, but they have never changed in the least.) means, they have never changed or broken their covenant with Allah. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
And Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes on verse 33:23:
In the fight for Truth were (and are) many who sacrificed their all – resources, knowledge, influence, life itself – in the Cause, and never wavered. If they won the crown of martyrdom, they were blessed… Other heroes fought valiantly and lived, always ready to lay down their lives. Both classes were staunch: they never changed or wavered. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
Their covenant is their promise to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to protect him and support Islam. Some of the Muslims had already fulfilled it by dying to protect their faith, while others were still fully prepared to do the same. The comprehensive nature of this verse is better understood when we consider the words of Shaykh Abdul Bary Ath-Thubaity, Imam of the Prophet’s Mosque, who said about verse 33:23:
The men about whom we are talking are not those who have sunk deep into the abyss of worldly pleasures, those who do not aim for high moral standards and turn away from their Lord. They are not those of imposing physical stature whose minds are devoid of any sense; for such people are most certainly not real men. The real men whom we are talking about are those whom Allah describes when He says,
“And the slave of the Most-Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness. And those who spend the night before their Lord, prostrate and standing. And those who say Our Lord! Avert from us the torment of Hell. Verily it’s torment is ever an inseparable, permanent punishment. Evil indeed it (Hell) is as an abode and a place of dwell. And those who when they spend, are neither extravagant nor niggardly, but hold a medium (way) between those (extremes).” (Al-Furqan 25: 63-67)(SOURCE)
This is what fulfilling one’s covenant truly means. It refers to fulfilling one’s Islamic obligations with devotion and sincerity, and

speaking gently even to those disbelievers who are rude and harsh. On the subject of martyrs, it would be wise to quote from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
God's Apostle said, "Five are regarded as martyrs: They are those who die because of plague, abdominal disease, drowning or a falling building etc., and the martyrs in God's Cause." -Bukhari #2829 (Volume 4, Book 52, #82) "Whoever dies protecting his religion, he is a martyr; whoever dies protecting his wealth, he is a martyr; whoever dies protecting his family, he is a martyr; and whoever dies protecting his blood (i.e. his life), he is a martyr." - (At-Tirmidhi #1421, Abu Dawud 4772, An-Nasa'i #4100 and Ibn Majah #2580)
These ahadith deals a severe blow to the misconception that martyrdom in Islam refers to those who die in battle only. As we have seen, the greatest manifestation of Jihad is when one is willing to sacrifice their life for the sake of God, and this can take any of the forms listed in the above narration. Dying in physically defending the rights of others is only one form.

Misquoted Verse #4
Qur'an 47:4 So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam .
Once again a poor translation serves the purpose of the Islam-haters very well. Let us examine a more accurate translation before analyzing the verse:
47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in battle, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
So we now see some grievous mistakes made in the poor translation quoted. 1. The verse makes NO mention whatsoever of "killing and wounding" 2. "Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam " is a complete addition to the verse and is not found anywhere in the Qur'an! 3. That verse does not use the word Jihad at all It is very clear that the context of this verse is in battle, and when in battle the defenders of humanity should attack the unjust oppressors until they are subdued. Professor Shahul Hameed comments on verse 47:4 by saying:
The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Makkah and to emigrate to Madinah. When the people of Madinah had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Makkans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight:
{And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:190)
This meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting; but to defend themselves against aggressors. That was how fighting was ordained; but we must know that once we fight, we fight to defeat the aggressors, so that we can live without fear of molestation and invasion; so that we can live in peace; so that justice is done. Remember God does not command any one to start fighting; rather He permits people to fight in self defence or for the defence of those who are attacked unjustly. (SOURCE)
The historical context again illustrates a condition of constant struggle and war. In such a condition, God reassures the believers that He is with them, and to therefore have full faith, strength and bravery in battle and not to cower from the enemy. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:
When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
Likewise, Dr. Maher Hathout writes:
Clearly, these verses are applicable in the heat of battle and against an aggressive combating force. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49)
Muslims are encouraged to restrain the enemy by capturing them, and to therefore minimize loss of life. Moreover, the verse specifically mentions that Muslims should subdue the enemies "until the war lays down its burdens", i.e. until the enemy stops fighting. Similar to this verse:
8:61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).
So the verse is very specific, in that it is limited to the context of a battle and the Muslims should only fight until the enemy is subdued or inclines towards peace i.e. they should not transgress limits. In the event of a battle, the verse guides Muslims to abstain from transgressing limits and only to fight the enemy until they are subdued or cease fighting. Shaykh Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid comments about the treatment of prisoners:
If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam... ...The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life. (SOURCE)
Therefore, Islam has laid out clear rules and regulations for Muslims to follow in the event of war, which is only used as a last resort.

Misquoted Verse #5
Qur'an 9:91 There is no blame on those who are old, weak, ill, or who find no resources to spend (on Jihad), if they are sincere (in duty) to God and His Messenger.
Some non-Muslims feel that this verse is proof that Jihad is a Holy War because if it were not the elderly and others would be able to participate. Consequently, this verse is falsely used in an attempt to negate any concept of non-military Jihad. First of all, we have already established that Jihad is of many types and does not necessarily have to be purely spiritual or purely physical. There are several disabilities that prevent a person from performing a certain Jihad. Being old or weak prevents one from participating in a physical Jihad to uphold good. Nor can the weak be expected to be a soldier fighting for justice, like those who fought the Nazis in World War II. Additionally, another form of Jihad is donating money/resources to the poor and needy. Someone devoid of those resources cannot be expected to do that, as the verse mentions. With regards to ill, an example would be if someone has a illness in which they have less control over their desires, then they cannot participate in the spiritual Jihad to control one's desires, like fasting during Ramadan. One who studies the Islamic Law already knows that those who are ill do not have to fast, which is an example of spiritual Jihad. The different forms of Jihad have been described in detail in Islam and is well-known to Muslims. For example, Shaykh Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid writes:
Jihaad may be with the tongue (by speaking out), or with weapons (which is qitaal or fighting) or with money. Each of these categories includes numerous subcategories. (SOURCE)
And Dr. Shahid Athar writes:
The word "jihad" means struggle or, to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered jihad. One of the highest levels of jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrongdoing is also a great jihad. One of the forms of jihad is to take up arms in defence of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked. This kind of jihad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state who is following the Qur’an and the sunnah. (SOURCE)
The other forms of Jihad are discussed in more detail in the article An Explanation of Jihad.

Misquoted Verse #6
And slay them wherever ye catch them.." (2:191)
A classic and popular example of what Muslim scholars, like Dr. Jamal Badawi, call a ‘cut and paste’ approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. The solution for the Muslim is to simply replace the verse in its context:
2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.
How many times do we see the above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as 'terrorist activities' according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you", "unless they (first) fight you there" - the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: "But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God". It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses 2:190-194:
These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated… Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Qur’an clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49, emphasis added)
The historical context is something that must always be considered where developing an understanding of Qur'anic verses. Without knowing the circumstances behind the revelation, one cannot apply the verse as accurately. Shaykh Salman Al-Oadah writes about the general principles in Jihad:
Jihad can never be fought for worldly gain, for conquest, or even for revenge. Muslims must only fight to protect the lives, property, and freedoms of people, especially their freedom to worship Allah when that freedom is forcibly attacked. They are never allowed to attack innocent people, even when they are themselves attacked by the countrymen of those innocents. Any people that go against this established principle of Islamic Law and murder civilians are fighting against Islam and everything that it stands for. It is ludicrous for them to call this fighting a jihâd, a word that means striving in the cause of Islam. They are in fact murderers in the light of Islamic Law and should be treated as such. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
There are strict and detailed laws in Islam, which Muslims must follow carefully. A military Jihad must be performed under these regulations. Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes about verse 2:190:
War is only permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
He then re-iterates the general principles behind Jihad in his commentary on verse 2:191:
In general, it may be said that Islam is the religion of peace, goodwill, mutual understanding, and good faith. But it will not acquiesce in wrong-doing, and its men will hold their lives cheap in defence of honour, justice, and the religion which they hold sacred. Their ideal is that of heroic virtue combined with unselfish gentleness and tenderness, such as is exemplified in the life of the Apostle. They believe in courage, obedience, discipline, duty, and a constant striving by all the means in their power, physical, moral, intellectual, and spiritual, for the establishment of truth and righteousness. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
This is the true focus behind Jihad, and Muslims must never lose this focus. Jihad is solely for the purpose of aiding humanity and bringing justice and freedom to the oppressed. Therefore, all actions must be in-line with this focus and the strict regulations governing Jihad. The focus is to defend, not destroy. One who focuses on the betterment and aid of humanity will realize that destruction will never achieve this. Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes extensively on verse 2:190:
2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you” – Violating the truce they themselves had signed. The Muslims, after having borne untold persecution with almost superhuman fortitude for years and years at the hands of the pagans of Makkah, are now for the first time enjoined to take to reprisals. ‘For a full thirteen years the Muslims were subjected to relentless persecution in Mecca. The Prophet and his followers fled for life to Medina, but the enemy would not leave them alone in their refuge. They came to attack them within a year, and the first three battles were fought in the very locality which will whether the Prophet was an assailant or defendant’ (Headley, The Original Church of Jesus Christ and Islam, p. 155). The Makkans had signed a truce and were the first to break it. The words ‘fight with those who fight you’ clearly show, firstly, that the Muslims were not the aggressors, and secondly, that those of the enemy who were not actual combatants – children, women, monks, hermits, the aged and the infirm, the maimed, and the like – had nothing at all to fear from the Muslim soldiery. It was in light of this express Divine injunction that the great Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged his troops into Syria, ‘not to mutilate the dead, nor to slay old men, women, and children, nor to cut down fruit-trees, nor to kill cattle unless they were needed for food; and these humane precepts served like a code of laws of war during the career of Mohammadan conquest.’ (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 185). Has not Islam thus, in prescribing war against those who break God’s law, who challenge His righteous authority, and who fill the world with violence and injustice, made every concession short of the impossible? Has any code of military ethics been so chivalrous, so humane and so tender towards the enemy? ‘The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr, in his instructions to the Syrian army, was’, says a modern Christian historian, ‘so unlike the principles of the Roman government, that it must have commanded profound attention from a subject people. Such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians’ sentiments of justice and principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of their conduct’ (Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, pp. 367-368). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
Muhammad Asad explains verse 2:190 in the following manner:
This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al-mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Quranic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
And on verse 2:191, he states the following:
In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab). (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
This extensive commentary on this verse should sufficiently address all confusion and misconceptions that resulted from misquoting this verse.

Misquoted Verse #7
But if they turn away, catch them and slaughter them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (4:89)
This verse has been misquoted like the previous verse, out of context. Here is the full passage:
4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them
So in the same manner as the first verse, this verse also only commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims. And in the event of a battle, the same laws of war are in place and a Muslim who transgresses limits should prepare for the punishment of God. In response to a question on verses 4:88-89, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the following:
Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
It is also important to note that the Qur'an clearly condemns murder. The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder,
6:151 Take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom. 17:33 Nor take life, which God has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas(retribution) or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law) 5:32...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people
So the Qur'an makes it very clear that Muslims cannot initiate an attack against others, unless there is an immediate threat of being attacked. The context of the quoted verses applies only to situations where the oppressors are killing Muslims. In this case, they have a right to defend themselves and others, especially the weak and oppressed.

Misquoted Verse #8
9:5 Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them.
This verse, often called "the verse of the sword", has been misquoted in a manner similar to the previous verses. First, we shall provide the verse in its context:
9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an 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. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:
This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur'an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur'an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)
Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:
The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)
If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse:
This verse is quoted during a battle. ...We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. ...Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:
"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Al-Qur'an 9:6]
The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore God's infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Qur'anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:
This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {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]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Qur’an, writes:
“It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an: 2/456, emphasis added)
Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:
If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says:
“There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]
In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:
“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]
So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:
“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13] (SOURCE)
Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only. We recommend that one reads Shaykh Sami Al-Majid's full article entitled There is no Compulsion in Religion.

Abrogated?
The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation. It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the peaceful verses in the Qur'an. However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur'anic concepts. In the Qur'an there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:
Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)
Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:
Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)
Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as 'naskh' were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of 'naskh'. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:
Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:
It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these 'mansookh' (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the 'Verse of the Sword' in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)
Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states the same thing in his article:
Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse "There is no compulsion in religion". He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:
Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)
This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur'anic commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy:
At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur'anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims "No compulsion in religion." Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur'an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur'anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that "In the Qur'an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only." (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under "Murtadd"). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added)
Therefore, when we discuss the merciful and loving verses of the Qur'an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the religion of Islam and can never be removed from it.

Misquoted Verse #9
2:217-218 They question you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say: Fighting therein is a great/grave (matter); but to prevent access to God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members and polytheism are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they make you renegades from your religion. If any of you turn back and die in unbelief, your works will be lost and you will go to Hell. Surely those who believe and leave their homes to fight in God's Cause have the hope of God's Mercy.
Again the translation has been altered and before answering the quote, we should provide a clear translation:
2:217 They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. 2:218 Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of God,- they have the hope of the Mercy of God. And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
We see now how detrimental it is for the Islam-haters to use authentic unaltered translations, as it exposes their methods of deception. The context of these verses refers to an expedition of a group of the companions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), under the lead of Abdullah bin Jahsh Asadi. The companions recognized a caravan from the Quraysh. Since the Quraysh had openly declared war on the Muslims and had persecuted them to the extent that they drove them out of their homes, and stole their property, the companions present, felt that they could retaliate. They killed one man of from the caravan, and took two as prisoners. When they returned to Madinah, the Prophet Muhammad disapproved of their attack during the Holy Month. But God revealed this verse as a reminder to the Muslims that while killing in the Holy Month was bad, persecution and expelling people from their homes because of their faith is far worse. So the verses make it very clear that in the face of the terrorist attacks of the polytheists, the Muslims should be brave and steadfast and turn to God for help rather than giving in and leaving the truth. As Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri writes on verse 2:217:
The Words of Allah were quite clear and said that the tumult created by the polytheists was groundless. The sacred inviolable sanctities repeatedly violated in the long process of fighting Islam and persecuting its adherents. The wealth of the Muslims as well as their homes had already been violated and their Prophet s.a.w.s. had been the target of repeated attempts on his life…Shortly afterwards, the two captives were released and blood money (compensation) was given to the killed man’s father. (fn. For details see Zad Al-Ma’ad, 2/83-85; Ibn Hisham, 1/605; Rahmat-ul-lil’alameen, 1/115. 2/468.) (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum; Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1996; pp. 205-206, emphasis added)

Misquoted Verse #10
2:244 Fight in God's Cause, and know that God hears and knows all. 4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and the unbelievers Fight in the cause of Evil, so destroy such minions of the devil!
Verse 4:76 is actually translated as follows:
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan
We have already established the purpose for which Muslims fight in our commentary on verse 2:216 at the beginning of the article. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on verse 4:76 by saying:
This verse is related to the two preceding verses (see 4:74-75) where it was stated that those who fight for God's cause would be rewarded whether they are victorious or slain. Fighting for God's cause includes the liberation of the oppressed, meaning the helpless men and women who are yearning and praying for freedom. The believers fight for God's cause, and the disbelievers fight for the sake of their idols. An idol may be taken conceptually. For example, evil or greed may figuratively be construed as idols. The believers should put all their trust in God the Almighty and Powerful and fear not the disbelievers and their evil plans. Evil plans are always inferior to goodness. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.50)
Verse 2:244 is informing the believers not to transgress limits because they should know that "God hears and knows all". So a true Muslim is God-conscious when defending the rights of others and does not overstep his limits in applying justice.

Misquoted Verse #11
9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:
These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad's messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut'ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)
In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:
All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)
Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)
The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:
Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)
The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:
The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:
The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi'i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people's means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)
Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,
"The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa'i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).
In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.

Similar Narration
Bukhari: God's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)
With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:
And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.
This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah wars. Similarly, we can see that today's governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society. We should note that the 'people' referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)
Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur'an explicitly states:
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion...
Also, we have already dealt with the claims that this verse was abrogated under our discussion of verse 9:5. Once understood in their correct context, these verses and narrations become clear.

Misquoted Verse #12
5:54 Allah will bring a people whom He loveth and who love Him, humble toward believers, stern toward disbelievers, striving in the way of Allah, and fearing not the blame of any blamer. Such is the grace of Allah which He giveth unto whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing. 48:29 Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another
Non-Muslims think that this verse tells Muslims to be harsh and cruel to non-Muslims. Let us first provide a better translation:
48:29 Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against disbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.
The Arabic word "ashidda" does not mean ruthless, but strong and firm. Ruthless is an unacceptable translation. Translations of ashidda:
Pickthall: hard; Yusuf Ali: strong; Daryabadi: stern; Khan-Hilali: severe; F. Malik: strong; Shakir: firm of heart; Arberry: hard; Irving: strict
Also, the disbelievers being referred to in these verses are the those who persecuted and attacked the Muslims. Shaykh Fawzee Al-Atharee said the following:
And similarly the disbeliever, if he has good character with us and good manners with us and good way and treatment with us, then we have good manners with him, good behaviour with him, good way with him and good treatment of him. And if his manners are bad and his behaviour is bad [i.e. abusive and cruel], then we treat him with accordance to how he is treating us. This is something permissible in the legislation. But the Prophet s.a.w.s. has indicated very clearly in all the narrations that have been brought and throughout his life, that there must be a matter of balance and to be just. And that is in dealing with the people of disbelief and also in dealing with those who have faith.
The Muslims were commanded to stand up for their religion and defend themselves against the persecution of the disbelievers. Again, if we examine the historical context, we also find that this is referring to those who attacked the Muslims continuously. So verses apply in a situation similar to the historical context. Since this verse mentions the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and praises their path, let us examine some narrations about the companions. Musab bin Umair was a notable companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He was sent to Madinah to share the message of Islam with the people living there. One incident of his related as follows:
Once Musab and Sad were sitting near a well in an orchard of the Zafar clan. With them were a number of new Muslims and others who were interested in Islam. A powerful notable of the city, Usayd ibn Khudayr, came up brandishing a spear. He was livid with rage. Sad ibn Zararah saw him and told Musab: "This is a chieftain of his people. May God place truth in his heart." "If he sits down, I will speak to him," replied Musab, displaying all the calm and tact of a great daiy. The angry Usayd shouted abuse and threatened Musab and his host. "Why have you both come to us to corrupt the weak among us? Keep away from us if you want to stay alive." Musab smiled a warm and friendly smile and said to Usayd: "Won't you sit down and listen? If you are pleased and satisfied with our mission. accept it and if you dislike it we would stop telling you what you dislike and leave." "That's reasonable," said Usayd and, sticking his spear in the ground, sat down. Musab was not compelling him to do anything. He was not denouncing him. He was merely inviting him to listen. If he was satisfied, well and good. If not, then Musab would leave his district and his clan without any fuss and go to another district. Musab began telling him about Islam and recited the Quran to him. Even before Usayd spoke, it was clear from his face, now radiant and expectant, that faith had entered his heart. He said: "How beautiful are these words and how true! What does a person do if he wants to enter this religion?" "Have a bath, purify yourself and your clothes. Then utter the testimony of Truth (Shahadah), and perform Salat. Usayd left the gathering and was absent for only a short while. He returned and testified that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. (SOURCE)
Another example is found in the treatment of Thumamah Ibn Uthal, who was a notorious criminal who had killed many Muslim travelers. Because of this, the Prophet Muhammad declared him a wanted criminal who was to be captured or killed. Soon after, when he was traveling for pilgrimage, some Muslims caught him and took him to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Prophet recognized him and had him kept in the Masjid (mosque) with food and even ordered his own camel to be milked for him. They treated him like a guest rather than a war criminal! The Prophet Muhammad asked Thumamah what he had to say for himself, to which he replied "If you want to kill in reprisal, you can have someone of noble blood to kill. If, out of your bounty, you want to forgive, I shall be grateful. If you want money in compensation, I shall give you whatever amount you ask." The Prophet Muhammad freed him and allowed him to leave. The very same day, Thumamah returned and declared his acceptance of Islam to the Prophet Muhammad. So we find that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions displayed the best character and attitude towards all people and this is what drew so many people to Islam. As the God says in the Qur'an:
3:159. And by the Mercy of God, you dealt with them gently. And had you been severe and harsh-hearted, they would have ran away from about you; so pass over (their faults), and ask (God's) Forgiveness for them; and consult them in the affairs. Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in All‚h, certainly, All‚h loves those who put their trust (in Him).
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was commanded by God to bring people to the teachings of Islam through the beautiful character that Muslims must show. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) conveyed this message to others by saying:
He who is not merciful to others, will not be treated mercifully. (Muslim, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 42)
And there are numerous examples one could quote which illustrate the kind and loving nature of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Narrated Abu Huraira: A disbelieving Bedouin urinated in the mosque, and the people rushed to beat him. Allah's Apostle ordered them to leave him, let him finish and pour a bucket or a tumbler (full) of water over the place where he has passed urine. The Prophet then explained to the Bedouin calmly, "This is a place of worship, in it is the worship of God and the reading of Qur'an." After the Bedouin had left, the Prophet then said to his companions, " You have been sent to make things easy (for the people) and you have not been sent to make things difficult for them." (Muslim, Book 2, Number 559 and Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 149)
This narration, on its own, is sufficient to refute the claim that Islam is intolerant. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not show any anger or resentment to a non-Muslim who urinated in the Muslims place of worship! So Islam teaches gentleness in all things. As the Prophet Muhammad said:
Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good. (Muslim, Book 32, Number 6270 & Abu Dawood, Book 41, Number 4791)
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) always displayed tolerance and compassion in his dealings with people, including Non-Muslims. Dr. M. Hamidullah explains the following points:
When the Prophet Mohammed settled down in Medina, he found there complete anarchy, the region having never known before either a State or a king to unite the tribes torn by internecine feuds. In just a few weeks, he succeeded in rallying all the inhabitants of the region into order. He constituted a city state, in which Muslims, Jews, pagan Arabs and also probably a small number of Christians, all entered into a statal organism by means of a social contract. The constitutional law of this first 'Muslim' State - which was the confederacy as a sequence of the multiplicity of the population groups - has come down to us in toto, and we read therein not only in clause 25: "to Muslims their religion, and to Jews their religion," or, "that there would be benevolence and justice," but even the unexpected passage in the same clause 25: "the Jews . . . are a community (in alliance) with - according Ibn Hisham and in the version of Abu-'Ubaid, a community (forming part) of - the believers (i.e., Muslims)." The very fact that, at the time of the constitution of this city-state, the autonomous Jewish villages acceded of their free will to the confederal State, and recognized Muhammad as their supreme political head, implies in our opinion that the non-Muslim subjects possessed the right of votes in the election of the head of the Muslim State, at least in so far as the political life of the country was concerned. (Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, paragraphs 414-416)
During the life of Prophet Muhammad, there was a Jewish synagogue in Madinah and an educational institute known as Bait Al-Midras. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preserved and protected both of them. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also honored a group of Christians of najran from Yemen, when they visited his mosques in Madinah. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) held interfaith discussions with them and they prayed in the Mosque in the Christian fashion while the Muslims prayed in the Islamic tradition. The Prophet Muhammad's tolerance is also illustrated in the following narration:
Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Madinah, along with his Companions. During this time a funeral procession passed by. On seeing this, the Prophet stood up. One of his Companion remarked that the funeral was that of a Jew. The Prophet replied, “Was he not a human being?” (Bukhari, Muslim)
If every human being in this world saw the various ethnicities and cultures with these eyes, the world would flourish in peace and harmony. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) set an example for his companions to follow in the way he showed respect and kindness to Non-Muslims. Dr. Farida Khanam also points out the following incidents:
In the present world, everyone’s thinking, tastes, aptitude, likes and dislikes can never exactly coincide. For many reasons, differences do arise in this world. But then, what is the permanent solution to the problem? The solution lies in tolerance, called i‘raz in Arabic. The Prophet’s entire life served as a perfect example of this principle. According to his wife, ‘A’isha, "He was a personification of the Qur’an." That is to say, the Prophet molded his own life in accordance with the ideal pattern of life which he presented to others in the form of the Qur’an. He never beat a servant, or a woman, or anyone else. He did, of course, fight for what was right. Yet, when he had to choose between two alternatives, he would take the easier course, provided it involved no sin.’ No one was more careful to avoid sin than he. He never sought revenge—on his own behalf—for any wrong done to him personally. Only if God’s commandments had been broken would he mete out retribution for the sake of God. It was such conduct which gained the Prophet universal respect. In the early Meccan period when the antagonists far exceeded the Prophet’s companions in number, it often happened that when the Prophet would stand to pray, his detractors would come near him and whistle and clap in order to disturb him, but the Prophet did not even once show his anger at such acts. He always opted for the policy of tolerance and avoidance of confrontation... When the opposition became very strong the Prophet left Mecca for Medina. But his antagonists did not leave him in peace. They began to attack Medina. In this way a state of war prevailed between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Since the Prophet avoided war at all costs, he strove to bring about a peace agreement between him and the Meccans. After great efforts on his part, the non-Muslims agreed to the finalizing of a 10-year peace treaty, which was drafted and signed at the al-Hudaybiyyah. While the al-Hudaybiyyah treaty was being drafted, the Meccans indulged in a number of extremely provocative acts. For instance, the agreement mentioned the Prophet’s name as ‘Muhammad the Messenger of God.’ They insisted that the phrase ‘the messenger of God’ should be taken out, and be replaced simply by ‘Muhammad, son of Abdullah’. The Prophet accepted their unreasonable condition and deleted the appellation with his own hands. Similarly, they made the condition that if they could lay their hands on any Muslim they would make him a hostage, but if the Muslims succeeded in detaining any non-Muslim, they would have to set him free. The Prophet even relented on this point. For the restoration of peace in the region, the Prophet accepted a number of such unjustifiable clauses as were added by the enemy. In this way he set the example of peace and tolerance being linked with one another. If we desire peace, we must tolerate many unpleasant things from others. There is no other way to establish peace in society. (SOURCE)
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also extended the hand of friendship to Christians as well. He maintained good ties with the Christian Negus of Abyssinia throughout his life. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) even selected Non-Muslims as ambassadors. One such example was Amr ibn Umaiyah Ad-Damri. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sent a message to the Monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai, saying the following: "
This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world."
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also advised his companion Mu'adh ibn Jabal by saying:
No Jew is to be annoyed because of their Judaic faith.
We must also examine the Prophet Muhammad's teachings towards neighbors:
Abu Huraira (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer.'' It was asked, "Who is that, O Messenger of Allah?'' He said, "One whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil". (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
"He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbor, should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim)
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also clearly specified that a Non-Muslim neighbor should receive this excellent treatment:
"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)
"He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgment." (Bukhari)
It is fascinating to note that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was so vocal in his support of good treatment towards humanity that he would even be prepared to stand on the side of the Non-Muslims against the Muslims who did not follow his teachings. This is true justice and this is what lead to the peace and prosperity that Islam brought into the world. The excellent character of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has been noted by many Non-Muslim historians as well, and in fact anyone who has studied his life carefully has been amazed at the golden character of this human being. Washington Irving notes in his book 'Mahomet and His Successors':
In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints. (Irving, Mahomet and His Successors)
To read more about what Non-Muslims have to say about him, refer to the following:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/Muhamma...ut_the_Prophet/

Misquoted Verse #13
8:12-13... I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. ...
This is another verse that is commonly quoted out of context, both historical context and the context of the verse itself in the Qur'an. Let us first examine the full verse:
8:12-13 Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." This is what they have justly incurred by FIGHTING God and His messenger. For those who fight against God and His messenger, God's retribution is severe.
That is the context of the verse in the Qur'an. The historical context is that this verse was revealed at the Battle of Badr, a battle in which the pagans of Makkah traveled over 200 miles to destroy the Muslims of Madinah. The Pagans of Makkah had an army of about 1000 while the Muslims were only 300 followers. The Prophet Muhammad ((peace be upon him)) and his followers had suffered severe persecutions and torture for 13 years in the city of Makkah. Having fled from Makkah to the safety of Madinah, they found that they were once again threatened. Abul 'Ala Maududi describes the situation that led to the Battle of Badr, beginning with the Muslim activity in Madinah:
In the first year of Hijrah, four expeditions were sent [by the Muslims to the Quraish], that is, the expedition under Hamzah, the expedition under Ubaidah bin Harith, the expedition under Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas and the Al-Abwa' expedition under the Holy Prophet himself. In the first month of the second year two more incursions were made on the same route. These are known as Buwat Expedition and Zawal Ushairah Expedition. Two things about all these expeditions are noteworthy. First, no blood was shed and no caravans were plundered in any of these expeditions. This proves that the real object of these expeditions was to show to the Quraish which way the wind was blowing. Secondly, not a single man from the people of Al-Madinah was sent by the Holy. Prophet on any of these incursions. All the bands consisted purely of the immigrants from Makkah so that the conflict should remain between the people of the Quraish themselves and should not further spread by the involvement of other clans. On the other side, the Quraish of Makkah tried to involve others also in the conflict. When they sent bands towards Al-Madinah, they did not hesitate to plunder the people. For instance, an expedition under the leadership of Kurz bin Jabir al-Fihrl plundered the cattle of the people of Al-Madinah from the very vicinity of the city to show what their real intentions were. This was the state of affairs when, in Sha'aban, 2 A. H. (February or March, 623 A. D.) a big trade caravan of the Quraish, carrying goods worth $50,000 or so, with only a guard of thirty to forty men, on its way back from Syria to Makkah, reached the territory from where it could be easily attacked from Al-Madinah. As the caravan was carrying trade goods worth thousands of pounds, and was scantily guarded, naturally Abu Sufyan, who was in charge of it, from his Past experience feared an attack from the Muslims. Accordingly, as soon as he entered the dangerous territory, he despatched a camel rider to Makkah with a frantic appeal for help. When the rider reached Makkah, he, following an old custom of Arabia, tore open the ears of his camel, cut open his nose and overturned the saddle. Then rending his shirt from front and behind, he began to cry aloud at the top of his voice, "O people of Quraish despatch help to protect your caravan from Syria under the charge of Abu Sufyan, for Muhammad with his followers is in pursuit of it; otherwise I don't think you will ever get your goods. Run, run for help." This caused great excitement and anger in the whole of Makkah and all the big chiefs of the Quraish got ready for war. An army, consisting of 600 armored soldiers and cavalry of 100 riders with great pomp and show marched out for a fight. They intended not only to rescue the caravan but also to put to an end, once for all, the new menace from the Muslims who had consolidated themselves at Al-Madinah. They wanted to crush that rising power and overawe the clans surrounding the route so as to make it absolutely secure for future trade... ...the Holy Prophet and the true Believers had realized the urgency of that critical hour which required the risk of life: therefore they marched straight to the south-west, wherefrom the army of the Quraish was coming. This is a clear proof of the fact that from the very beginning they had gone out to fight with the army and not to plunder the caravan. For if they had aimed at plundering the caravan they would have taken the north- westerly direction and not the south- westerly one. (Maududi, Tafheem Al-Qur'an, emphasis added)
The Makkans were not satisfied with expelling the Muslims from Makkah and subsequently desired that they be purged from the surroundings of all major trade routes. So God supported the Muslims and informed them that God would allow justice to prevail over oppression. He informed them that they should not fear fighting in God's path, but it is the enemies who should fear God's retribution for their oppression and injustice. Also, God inspired the ANGELS to support the believers and strike the disbelievers. This was NOT a command for the Muslims. Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri describes the situation during the Battle of Badr as follows:
[The Makkans] were too much exasperated and enraged and fell upon the Muslims to exterminate them once and for all. The Muslims, however, after supplicating their Lord, calling upon Him for assistance, were made to hold to their position and conduct a defensive war plan that was successful enough to inflict heavy losses on the attackers. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) used to pray to his Lord ceaselessly persistently and day and night to come to their succour. When the fierce engagement grew too hot he again began to supplicate his Lord saying: “O Allâh! Should this group (of Muslims) be defeated today, You will no longer be worshipped.”.... Immediate was the response from Allâh, Who sent down angels from the heavens for the help and assistance of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and his companions. The Noble Qur’ân observes:
And recall when your Lord inspired the angels: “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.” [8:12]
(Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum; Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1996; pp. 219-220)
Also, the previously mentioned laws of Jihad all applied here and the Muslims were commanded:
8:61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).
Believing in a punishment for oppressive disbelievers delivered by the unseen angels is hardly different from believing in an unseen punishment in the next life. In addition, the word 'terror' used in the verse (ru'b) is explained in a following discussion under 'Misquoted Narration #5'.

Misquoted Verse #14
5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter
The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:
5:32-34 ...If any one slew a person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
There are several points to note here. The first is the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. In modern terminology this would be considered "terrorism". This is a punishment for such a severe offense, hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad writes on this verse:
The present participle la-musrifun indicates their "continuously committing excesses" (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as "they go on committing" them. In view of the preceding passages, these "excesses" obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless killing of human beings. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)
It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will place this verse under the heading of "inciting Muslims to kill and wage war", whereas the verse commands nothing of this sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder and likening the unjust murder of a single individual to the slaughter of humanity. The Qur'an purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been prescribed. Waging war against God's prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism. For example, the Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia writes about this verse:
Obviously, in view of the enormity of such acts of aggression, which are viewed by the Shari'ah (Islamic law) as an act of war against the laws and the creatures of God, there is no stricter punishment anywhere in the manmade laws. (Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia, Terrorism – Islam’s viewpoint, Muslim World League Journal, Jumad al-Ula 1423/July 2002 CE)
Is it logical to inform someone about a certain punishment without telling them about the crime? Yet, this is exactly what the enemies of Islam have done to deceive people into thinking Islam is a violent religion. They cite only verse 5:33 without verse 5:32 or verse 5:34, which brings us to our next point. God has prescribed multiple punishments in this verse using the word "or" between them, indicating various alternatives. The punishment depends on the circumstances and severity of the offence. As Muhammad F. Malik writes in his translation of this verse:
The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Rasool and strive to create mischief in the land is death or crucifixion or the cutting off their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land (based on the gravity of their offence)... (Malik, Al-Qur'an: Guidance for Mankind)
Likewise, Abdullah Yusuf Ali comments:
For the double crime of treason against State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances...except that tortures such as "hanging, drawing, and quartering" in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished. In any case sincere repentance before it was too late was recognized as grounds for mercy. (Yusuf Ali, The English Translation of the Holy Qur’an, emphasis added)
Indeed, the subsequent verse immediately states that this punishment is not for those who repent. For verily, God is Oft-Forgiving and Most Merciful. God's infinite Mercy is truly clear when one considers that God is willing to forgive these ruthless acts of terror that deserve such harsh punishments, so long as the offender sincerely repents to Allah, seeking His Pardon and True Guidance. The Muslim scholars have mentioned that whenever Allah warns us of a punishment, He always shows us a way out, a way to avoid the punishment. Many Muslim jurists also cite this verse in the case of punishment for Hirabah (armed robbery/highway robbery). In such instances, depending on the severity of the offence, the punishment is prescribed. When murder has been committed, then execution is prescribed as the punishment. Depending on the circumstances, the judge may choose a lesser punishment. The banishment mentioned in the verse has been interpreted by some schools of thought as imprisonment. The punishment of crucifixion has been mentioned in the verse, but many Muslim scholars have mentioned that they never have even heard of such punishment ever being prescribed. In fact, Imam Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of thought, when as ked about crucifixion, replied that he had never even heard of a single case in which crucifixion was prescribed as punishment for armed robbery. (see Al-Mudawwanah, vol. XV, p. 99). In light of this fact, Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa has said:
This observation of Malik's gives me the impression that this punishment was prescribed solely to deter the potential criminal. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 11, emphasis added)
Concerning the argument that such punishments are barbaric, Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa writes:
Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra, in his previously mentioned book [Al-Jarima wal-'Uqba, pp. 6-11], explains the aim of both Islamic law, as well as the sacred Jewish law contained in the Torah, is to achieve public security and peace for the community as well as the retribution for the criminal minority; accordingly, the necessary means for the attainment of this latter end were prescribed both in the Torah and the Qur'an. The second question concerns the law of pardon for offenders who repent and whether the punishment for Hirabah should be considered a dead letter because of this law. To answer this question, one should again bear in mind that this punishment, and indeed all the hudud punishments in the Islamic penal system, are prescribed mainly to protect society from crime. In order to achieve this purpose, Islamic law, while prescribing punishment for criminals, makes it possible for them to be pardoned when they realize the evil of their conduct and desire to mend their ways. This does not contradict the earlier quotation from Abu Zahra. While punishment may be withheld, provision must be made for all the injuries and harm resulting from the criminal's act. In this way, society does not lose anything. On the contrary, it gains a new member who, if he had not been given the chance to repent, forever would have been considered an outlaw. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 13, emphasis added)
For further information on the Islamic Criminal Law, the reader may refer to the excellent article, Crime and Punishment in Islam. Other scholars explain the Islamic punishments by comparative means. Shaykh Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes the following on verse 5:33:
Lest some of these penalties may appear 'barbarous' to some hypersensitive Western reader, let him cast a glance on 'drawing and quartering', a penalty of the English Criminal Code maintained as late as the 18th century, inflicted on those found guilty of high treason touching the king's person or government. The person committed was usually drawn on a sledge to the place of execution; there he was hung by the neck from a scaffold, being cut down and disemboweled, while still alive, his head was cut from his body and his corpse divided into four quarters. With the profession of their faith declared as high treason by law many Catholics of England and Ireland suffered this death. 'In this reign of Henry III and Edward I there is abundant evidence that death was the common punishment of felony; and this continued to be the law of the land as to treason and as to all felonies, except petty larceny, down to the year 1826' (Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, I. p. 458). In contemporary English law, robbery is larceny with violence; and the guilty is liable to penal servitude for life, and in addition, if a male, to be once privately whipped. The elements of the offence are essentially the same under American law (EBr. XIX. p. 346). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
In light of the above mentioned points, we can clearly reject any claims of this verse supporting "violence and warfare" as baseless. The textual context, historical context, legal context, and comparative analysis of this verse all demonstrate that this verse merely enjoins justice in return for grave offences, and by no means can support the lies of the Islam-haters.

Similar Narration
Bukhari: Some people from `Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle (pbuh) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577)
This narration is often quoted in order to present the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who delivered exceedingly cruel and barbaric punishments. Let us examine the narration more closely along with other narrations of the same event. The narration states the following:
-Some people from Urayna (or Ukil) tribe came to Madinah after accepting Islam
-They acquired an illness due to the climate, for which the Arabs used to drink milk and urine of camels as medicine
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed them to go to the herds of camels for their medicine
-After recovering from their illness, they killed the sheperd and drove away the camels
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered their hands and feet cut off, their eyes branded with heated pieces of iron, and they were left in the desert
It is clear that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prescribed the hands and feet to be cut off in accordance with the Islamic laws concerning hiraabah (armed robbery). What doesn't appear in this narration is the reason for branding their eyes with heated pieces of iron. This is explained in other narrations where it states that this was the punishment because they had done the same thing to the sheperd whom they killed. As Shaykh Abdul Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef states about this narration:
It should be made clear that those people who came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were Muslims and they were sick. The Prophet advised them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). When they became healthy, they killed the herder of the Prophet and drove away all the camels that were allocated for sadaqah (charity). When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came to know about this, he applied the punishment for Hirabah on them. Hiraba means killing people, robbing their money or raping women by an armed group of people. The punishment for Hirabah is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says:
“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (Al-Ma’idah: 33).
As for branding their eyes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) branded the eyes of the people of `Ukl or `Uraina with iron because they killed the herder and branded his eyes with iron. Imam Ibn Hajar stated the differences of opinions among scholars and he said, “The killing that took place (that is, in reference to the above hadith) was in retaliation and Allah Almighty says,
‘And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you’ (Al-Baqarah: 194).”
All in all, using this story as evidence in favor of the permissibility of torturing people in Islam is refuted by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the punishment for Hirabah on them and that he did not do so for personal vengeance. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Likwise, Moiz Amjad writes:
There is only one part of the referred narrative, which raises a question-mark in one's mind. It apparently seems strange that after having implemented the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an for crimes committed against the society, in general, why did the Prophet (pbuh) ordered their eyes to be branded. Most of the narratives do not provide an answer to this question. However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqaa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
The Prophet (pbuh) branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216)
This explanation adequately clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic directive of Qisaas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maaidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on someone. In view of the foregoing explanation, I find no reason to consider the incident narrated in the referred narrative to be unauthentic. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Muhammad al-Qannâs, a Professor at Al-Imam University (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), places the narration in perspective by presenting the views of the various Muslim scholars:
The above mentioned hadîth is narrated in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6802) and Sahîh Muslim (1671). It reads:
Some people belonging (to the tribe) of `Uraynah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) at Madînah, but they found its climate uncongenial. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to them: If you so like, you may go to the camels that are part of the charity and drink their milk and urine. They did so and were all right. They then fell upon the shepherds and killed them and turned apostates from Islam and drove off the camels of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This news reached Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) and he sent (people) on their track and they were (brought) and handed over to him. He got their hands cut off, and their feet, and put out their eyes, and threw them on the stony ground until they died.

The scholars disagree among themselves on this punishment:

1. Some said: This punishment was in retaliation for their act and the Prophet (peace be upon him) punished them in the same way that they killed the shepherds. It is mentioned in Sahîh Muslim
“The Prophet (peace be upon him) put out their eyes because they put out the eyes of the shepherds”.

The people concerned in studying the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) military career said: They dismembered the shipyards. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “It is extracted from the story of al-`Arâniyîn tribe that the criminal will be subject to the same act similar to the one he perpetrated, when they put out the shepherd’s eyes, he put out their eyes.” [Zâd al-Mâ`âd: (3/286)]

2. Other scholars said what is mentioned in the hadîth is abrogated, according to the prohibition of mutilation.

Accordingly, what took place in this hadîth was abrogated. This was adopted by al-Bukhârî. He narrated from Qatâdah that: “It is been narrated to us from the Prophet (peace be upon him) after that the Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged charity and prohibited mutilation.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (4192)].

It was narrated by Qatâdah through Muhammad b. Sîrîn that this took place before the revelation on the ruling of punishments. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (5686)]

Al-Hâzimî said: “This hadîth was abrogated” and he set a chapter “Mutilation and its abrogation”. He said: “A group of people adopted the opinion that these ruling were fixed in the beginning and then were abrogated when Allah sent: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger…” [Sûrah al-Mâ’dah: 33]

[Al-I`tibâr fi al-Nâsikh wa al-Mansûkh, page 196].

It could be that this severe punishment was at the beginning because the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that some of the tough and hardened Bedouins who live around Madînah would not refrain from attacking others unless they heard of some of these severe punishments. The desert Bedouins living in the surrounding wilderness were warlike tribes used to toughness and to causing harassment. Allah says: “The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger; and Allah is Knowing, Wise” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 97] (IslamToday fatwa service)

Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not punish them any more than the harm they inflicted upon the sheperd and the Muslim community. He also sent a strong message to other desert tribes who were accustomed to raiding and attacking nearby villages and tribes. This punishment was done for the security of the Muslim community, living in a very dangerous time with no formal legal system governing the arabian tribes. The situation is incomparable to modern times where governments have strong control over their territories - in arabia there existed a tribalistic anarchy. As Shaykh Muhammad 'Ata Al Sid Sid Ahmad writes:
When the criminals of 'Urainah betrayed the community of Madinah which had met them with all love and respect -- by torturing and killing the herder of their camels and escaping with the Muslim's camels as their booty -- the Prophet quickly marshalled all his powers, arrested and dealt with them in the severest manner as the law allowed him. (Al-Sid, Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud; Malaysia, Eagle Trading Sdn. Bhd., 1995, p. 132)
It should also be noted that many critics of the punishments in Islam are themselves believers in an afterlife in which people will be punished for their crimes, often with eternal torment in Hell. Eternal torment is far more servere than any temporary punishment delivered in this life. The punishments prescribed in Islam are intended to purify the offender of their sin in order that they may be saved from a far greater punishment in the next life. It seems that when one defers a punishment to the afterlife, there is a subconcious belief that such a punishment is not as "real" and consequently it is not as bothering to sentence someone to eternal torture in Hell as it is to prescribe a painful punishment here and now. Such thinking is inherently flawed.

Some writers have also claimed that the punishment delivered to the Ukil/Urayna tribe was prescribed for their apostasy. This is clearly rejected by the text of the hadith as well as the consensus of all Muslim jurists. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa explains this as well:
On the other hand, the prevalent view among Muslim jurists is that the case of this group of 'Ukal and 'Urayna was a case of hiraba (armed robbery) and it was for this crime that they were punished (fn. See Tabari, Tafsir, vol. VI, pp. 132-146; Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma'ad, vol. III, p. 78; Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, where he criticises Bukhari's view). The text itself demonstrates this very clearly. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51)
To conclude, this narration refers to an event of Hiraabah (armed robbery), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) implemented the law of Qisas (retribution), and the offendors were punished exactly as they had punished the sheperd. The Prophet did not exceed this limit at all in his prescribed punishment, but rather purified the offenders so that the punishment in the next life would be averted.

Misquoted Verse #15
5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
The first point to be noted is that, in the verse above, the word Awliya is often incorrectly translated as friends (Awliya is the plural and its singular is wali and the concept is walaah). As a result, many people are under the misconception that this verse commands Muslims to distance themselves from Non-Muslims and to avoid friendship with them. This is far from the truth, as we shall see after examining the meaning of the word Awliya. The Qur'an says:
3:122 ...Allah was their WALI (protector), and in Allah should the faithful (Ever) put their trust.
This verse indicates that a wali is one in whom trust is placed for protection, as the Qur'an always declares God the protector, wali, of the righteous. As Dr. Saeed Ismail Sieny concludes his discussion on Walaah by writing:
As we have discovered above, the root of the word "al-walaah" does not include love, support, etc., and that the core meaning rests on guardianship. (Sieny, The Relationship Between Muslims and Non-Muslims; Toronto, Al-Attique Publishers Inc., 2000, p. 102, emphasis added)
And Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:
In the verse you quoted, the word "Awliya" is used. It is a plural and its singular is "wali". The correct translation of the word ""wali"" is not "friend" but it is someone who is very close and intimate. It is also used to mean "guardian, protector, patron, lord and master". In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as
“Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…” (Al- Baqarah: 257)
There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as
“And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgment or punishment in this case)…”(Al-‘Isra' :33)
(SOURCE emphasis added)
It becomes clear that the word Awliya cannot be taken as simply referring to friendship, as it contains a much more complex meaning, including dependence and guardianship. Therefore, a more accurate translation of the verse would be:
5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your protectors: They are but protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Therefore, the referred verse does not prohibit friendship with Non-Muslims at all. Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:
The Qur'an does not say that non-Muslims cannot be Muslims' friends, nor does it forbid Muslims to be friendly to non-Muslims. There are many non-Muslims who are good friends of Muslim individuals and the Muslim community. There are also many good Muslims who truly and sincerely observe their faith and are very friendly to many non-Muslims at the same time. Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice and fairness. Allah says in the Qur'an in the beginning of the same Surah Al-Ma’dah:
“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (Al-Ma’dah :8)
In another place in the Qur'an, Allah Almighty says:
“Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.” (Al-Mumtahinah: 8-9)
Moreover, Allah Almighty has described Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, as "a mercy" to the worlds. He was a sign of Allah's Mercy to all, Muslims as well as non-Muslims. In his kindness and fair treatment he did not make any difference between the believers and non-believers. He was kind to the pagans of Makkah and fought them only when they fought him. He made treaties with the Jews of Madinah and honored the treaties until they broke them. He, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have received the Christians of Najran with kindness in his Masjid in Madinah. They argued with him about Islam, but he returned them with honor and respect. There are many examples from his life that show that he was the friendliest person to all people. (SOURCE)
And as Muhammad Asad writes:
As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4: 139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or-in Qur'anic terminology-"allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60: 7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this Surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wall has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a -combination of two terms-is always dependent on the context. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
The second point to note is that although this verse makes a general statement, the ruling is specific and is to be applied in a context similar to the historical context. Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi wrote about this topic extensively in response to a similar question:
[The answer to this is that these verses are not unconditional, to be applied to every Jew, Christian, or non-Muslim. Interpreting them in this manner contradicts the injunctions of the Qur'an which enjoin affection and kindness to the good and peace-loving peoples of every religion, as well as the verses which permit marriage to the women of the People of the Book, with all that Allah says concerning marriage
and He has put love and mercy between you” (30:21)
and the verse concerning the Christians:
And thou wilt find those who say, 'Surely we are Christians,' to be nearest to them (the Muslims in affection...(5:82)
The verses cited above [verse 5:51] were revealed in connection with those people who were hostile to Islam and made war upon the Muslims. Accordingly, it is not permissible for the Muslims to support or assist them - that is, to be their ally- nor to entrust them with secrets at the expense of his own religion and community. This point is explained in other verses, in which Allah, The Most High, says:
They will spare nothing to ruin you; they yearn for what makes you suffer. Hatred has been expressed by their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is still greater. Thus have We made clear to you the revelations (or signs), if you possess understanding. Ah! You love them, but they do not love you…(3:118-119)
This ayah throws light on the character of such people, who conceal great enmity and hatred against the Muslims in their hearts and whose tongues express some of the effects of such hostility. (Al-Qaradawi, Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil Islam; US American Trust Publications, 1994, p. 340, emphasis added)
As Shaykh Qaradawi mentioned, verse 5:11 cannot possibly be taken as a prohibition of friendship since the Qur’an allows Muslim men to marry women from the People of the Book:
5:5 … virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you are lawful for you…
And the Qur’an describes the relationship of marriage to be a relationship with the deepest bond of love:
30:21 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.
Also note that the Qur’an says:
60:8-9 Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show “Birr” with them and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.
The word “birr” is the same word used to describe a Muslim’s relationship with their parents which is considered the most sacred blood relationship in Islam. Therefore, Muslims are clearly commanded to deal with peaceful non-Muslims is a friendly and peaceful manner. The third point is that the specific groups being referred to in this verse were those hostile to Islam, and not all Jews and Christians in general. Concerning the historical context, the verse was revealed during a time when the Muslims were being attacked from many directions, including the Christian Roman empire and the Jews of Madinah. The Muslims had originally made a pact with the Jews of Madinah, but they were betrayed twice. So in this context, the Qur'an was telling the believers to be cautious in dealings with such enemies who oppose Islam, and not to trust them as protectors. As Jasser Auda writes:
It was revealed in certain historic circumstances, in which there was a war between the infant Islamic state on different occasions on four different fronts: the Romans, the Persians, the pagans of Arabia, and the Jews of Madinah. So, the historic context of the revelation of this verse is a situation of war between Muslims and the People of the Book (Jews, internally in Madinah, and Christians, through a Roman crusade). So, yes, Muslims were not allowed to make friends with the enemies who were fighting them and wishing to eliminate them from the face of the earth. Some Muslims say that since the verse has this historic context, then it is part of history and no longer applies. This is not correct! It is true that the verse has a history behind it, but this does not mean that it is no longer relevant. It is totally relevant but only in a context similar to the historic context. So today Muslims are not to make friends with Jews or Christians (or followers of any other religion for that matter) if they try to kill Muslims, kick them out of their homes, etc. (SOURCE)
The Qur'anic verse is relevant in a similar context to the historical context. A Muslim cannot take Jews or Christians or anyone as protectors if they oppose their religion and its teachings. The Muslims are encouraged to rely on each other for support. Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:
It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other. In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e. the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68) (SOURCE)[/
The groups prohibited for Muslims to take as protectors are described in the Qur’an:
The Holy Qur'an, 60:1 O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as protectors,- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path. 60:2 If they were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you for evil: and they desire that ye should reject the Truth.
So the Qur'an forbids taking those as protectors who expel the Muslims from their homes and who would betray and attack as soon as the opportunity arises. Those who have no respect for a Muslim’s beliefs and desire that the Muslim leaves their faith - they cannot be taken as protectors. This is the correct interpretation based on the context of the verse. To conclude, we once again quote Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi:
Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says:
“O you who believe! Take not for protectors (Awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.” (Al-Tawbah : 23)
In a similar way, the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslim’s duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression . The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. (SOURCE)
Islam is a religion of peace and compassion, therefore it requires its adherents to act in the best possible manner to other human beings. Verse 5:51 does not refer to friends, but protectors, and the historical context reveals that this verse prohibits Muslims from seeking the protection and allegiance of those who are hostile to the Islamic faith. It is not a reference to all Non-Muslims, as the scholars of Islam have clarified.

Misquoted Narrations
We will now examine some of the frequently misquoted narrations (ahadith) from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). With regards to the narrations, the vast majority of narrations circulated amongst Islam-haters are unauthentic, fabricated and contain mistranslations (as many of them were translated by non-muslims). Muslims only accept the Sahih ahadith as authentic. The collection of narrations known as Sahih Bukhari and also Sahih Muslim are the largest collection of authentic ahadith, and can be trusted, while other collections do not enjoy the same status in Islam. Therefore, it this article we will only examine the authentic narrations, on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam-Haters often will quote from works such as Ibn Ishaq or At-Tabari, and other works which contain many mistranslations and unauthentic narrations. Arguments based on such narrations can be rejected outright without the need for further investigation. The second point to note with regards to the narrations is that most of those which are perceived negatively are simply those which encourage Jihad. Since Jihad is misunderstood by many to be a "holy war" against non-muslims, any narration that encourages Jihad is automatically perceived in a negative light. The truth of course is that Jihad is not a negative concept. Jihad refers to fighting against oppression and injustice and fighting to uphold peace, justice, and security in the land. This has been re-iterated throughout this article. If we understand that Jihad is intended to help humanity, then we can understand the narrations about Jihad properly. The Jihad that was encouraged by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was Jihad to extinguish the suffering, enslavement, and oppression of human beings. First we shall address the following quote often presented:
Bukhari: Jihad (holy fighting) in God's Cause (with full force of weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, God is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad (may God protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.
Islam-haters deceptively write Bukhari before the above quote in order to convey the impression that this narration is part of the collection of narrations from Prophet Muhammad in Sahih Bukhari. However this is not the case. Anyone who opens a copy of Sahih Bukhari will find this note written in as a footnote. This note does not appear in any Arabic copies, therefore, this is not the saying of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), nor even the saying of Imam Bukhari, but simply the commentary of the translator, Muhammad Muhsin Khan. This is his opinion and not a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This quote is often used to depict Jihad as a military campaign to destroy or oppress people of other beliefs. Having already defined Jihad in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can reject such a notion as completely false.

Misquoted narration #1
Bukhari: A man came to God's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward". He replied, "I do not find such a deed. Can you, while the Muslim fighter has gone out for Jihad, enter a mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast forever?" The man said, "No one can do that." (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44)
Many narrations used by enemies of Islam are similar to the one presented above. All these narrations emphasize the importance of Jihad in Islam. The purpose of Jihad is emphasized clearly in the Qur'an:
4:75 And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help
We can understand the Jihad the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged if we examine the historical situation at that time. Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes the following in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
Fighting was permitted in Islam, and carried out by Muhammad and his companions, in order to stop their being persecuted for their faith and to have all the freedom they needed to call men to it. Later, when we see the details and the proofs of this, it will become clear that in all these alliances Muhammad's purpose was the consolidation of the defence of Madinah. The objective was to remove Madinah beyond any design the Quraysh might have against its Muslim inhabitants. Muhammad could not have forgotten that the Makkans once sought to extradite the Muslims from Abyssinia... ...This peaceful show of strength by Islam does not at all mean that Islam, at that time, forbade fighting in defence of personal life and of religion, or to put a stop to persecution. Indeed, Islam did not. Rather, it imposed such defence as a sacred duty. What it did really mean at that time, as it does today or will ever do, was to condemn any war of aggression. "Do not commit any aggression," God commands. He counsels, "God does not love the aggressors."[Qur'an, 2:190] (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad; US North American Trust Publications, 1976, p.206, 208 emphasis added)
Therefore, Islam, being a system which aims for the betterment of humanity, imposes fighting against oppression and injustice as a religious duty. This is the reason for the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which encourage his followers to fight for the sake of God.

Misquoted narration #2
Bukhari: God's Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, "There is no migration now, only Jihad and good intentions. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once." (Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412)
The reason is very clear why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has mentioned this. When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) entered Makkah, the city of those who had persecuted him and his followers a decade before, he forgave those who persecuted him. It was this mercy that allowed the entire city to willingly embrace Islam. Muhammad Husayn Haykal writes about the Prophet's entry into Makkah:
The Prophet camped on a height opposite the mountain of Hind and in the proximity of the graves of Abu Talib and Khadijah. He was asked whether he wanted to rest in his old house in Makkah and answered, "No! They have leveled it." The Prophet then retired to his tent grateful to God for this glorious and victorious return, and for bringing to its knees the cruel city which had tortured and banished him. For a moment, he turned his gaze toward the valley of Makkah as well as to the surrounding hills. He recalled that in those hills he often found refuge from the persecution of Quraysh... ...Mounting his she camel, al Qaswa', he rode toward the Ka'bah where he circumambulated the House without dismounting. He then dismounted and called upon `Uthman ibn Talhah to open the Ka'bah for him. Muhammad stood at the door surrounded by the many worshippers who had found their way to the holy House. He delivered a speech to the people present in which he said, quoting the Qur'an... ..."O men, We have created you from male and female and constituted you into peoples and tribes that you might know and cooperate with one another. In the eye of God, highest among you is the most virtuous. God is omniscient and all wise." [Qur'an, 49:13] He continued: "0 Men of Quraysh, what do you think I am about to do with you?" "Everything good," they answered, "for you are a noble brother and a noble nephew of ours." Muhammad went on: "Rise, then, and go. For you are free." With this word, Muhammad gave a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Makkans. The Prophet's General Amnesty Oh, the beauty of pardon and forgiveness on the part of the mighty and powerful! How great is the soul of Muhammad which rose above hatred and above revenge, which denied every human feeling and ascended to heights of nobility man had never reached before! There were the Quraysh among whom were people whom Muhammad well knew had plotted to kill him, had persecuted him, and inflicted upon him and his companions all kinds of injury and harm, who fought him at Badr and at Uhud, who blockaded him in the Campaign of al Khandaq, who incited the Arab tribes to rise against him, and who would even then tear him apart if only they had the power. There, the whole of Quraysh stood totally under Muhammad's hand, indeed under his feet, totally subject to his command. Indeed, their very life depended upon the first word emerging from his lips. All these thousands of men, of Muslims in battle array, stood on the ready waiting for that one word to wipe out the whole of Makkah and its people within minutes. Muhammad, however, was no less than Muhammad! He was no less than the Prophet of God! No alienation, antagonism, or hostility could find any permanent abode in his heart. His heart was absolutely free of injustice, of malice, of tyranny or false pride. In the most decisive moment, God gave him power over his enemy. But Muhammad chose to forgive, thereby giving to all mankind and all the generations the most perfect example of goodness, of truthfulness, of nobility and magnanimity. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad ]; US North American Trust Publications, 1976, pp. 406-408)
At this point, Islam had become the major authority in the Arabian Peninsula and was established as a full state. With this many followers it was clear that in the face of danger, migration was no longer an option for such a large nation as no Muslim could turn their back on a fellow believer. Rather it was imperative that they all recognize the need for standing united in defending against the inevitable attacks from the armies of Persians and Romans.

Misquoted narration #3
Bukhari: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73)
This narration is quoted by some in order to depict Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who glorified violence and killing. However, if the full saying is quoted in context, that image is immediately banished. The full saying is found in another narration:
...Allah's Apostle in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined and then he got up amongst the people saying, "O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords." Then he said, "O Allah, the Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over them."(Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 266l)
This narration makes it abundantly clear that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught his followers to hate violence and never desire conflict with the enemy. However, in the event of a battle, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged his companions to be patient and informed them of the reward promised by God to those who die fighting oppression and injustice. This saying should be presented in its full context so that the reader may see that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a man who desired peace and patiently endured the struggles thrust upon him by his enemies. As Dr. Jamal Badawi mentioned about this narration:
The hadith deals with the situation where Muslims are forced to the battlefield as the last resort to defend themselves in which case the use of the sword may be necessary and martyrdom (self-sacrifice) is rewarded with Paradise. (SOURCE)

Misquoted narration #4
The Prophet said "I swear by the One in Whose hand is my soul, O Quraysh, that I am bringing you slaughter!" (Musnad Ahmad # 7036, Ibn Hisham 1:289)
Although this narration does not appear in Sahih Muslim or Bukhari, it has been narrated in some other collections and accepted by scholars. To understand this narration, we must examine the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made the statement. Shaykh Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri mentions this narration in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the following context:
Al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ud, narrated that once when the Prophet [pbuh] was prostrating himself while praying in Al-Ka‘bah, Abu Jahl asked his companions to bring the dirty foetus of a she-camel and place it on his back. ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu‘ait was the unfortunate man who hastened to do this ignoble act. A peal of laughter rose amongst the infidels. In the meanwhile, Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet [pbuh], happened to pass that way. She removed the filth from her father’s back. The Prophet [pbuh] invoked the wrath of Allâh upon them, especially upon Abu Jahl, ‘Utbah bin Rabi‘a, Shaibah bin Rabi‘a, Al-Waleed bin ‘Utbah, Omaiyah bin Khalaf and ‘Uqbah bin Mu‘ait. It is recorded that all of them were killed in the battle of Badr. [Bukhari 1/37] Scandal-mongering and backbiting were also amongst the means of oppression that the chiefs of Makkah, in general, and Omaiyah bin Khalaf, in particular, resorted to in their overall process of evil-doing. In this regard, Allâh says: "Woe to every slanderer and backbiter." [Al-Qur'an 104:1] ‘Uqbah bin Al-Mu‘ait once attended an audience of the Prophet [pbuh] and listened to him preaching Islam. A close friend of his, Ubai bin Khalaf, heard of this. He could not tolerate any act of this sort, so he reproached ‘Uqbah and ordered him to spit in the Prophet’s holy face, and he shamelessly did it. Ubai did not spare any thinkable way to malign the Prophet [pbuh] ; he even ground old decomposed bones and blew the powder on him... The Tyrants’ Decision to kill the Prophet [pbuh] Now that all the schemes and conspiracies of Quraysh had failed, they resorted to their old practices of persecution and inflicting tortures on the Muslims in a more serious and brutal manner than ever before. They also began to nurse the idea of killing the Prophet [pbuh]. In fact, contrary to their expectations, this new method and this very idea served indirectly to consolidate the Call to Islam and support it with the conversion of two staunch and mighty heroes of Makkah, i.e. Hamzah bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib and ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab[R]. ‘Utaibah bin Abi Lahab once approached the Prophet [pbuh] and most defiantly and brazenly shouted at him, "I disbelieve in: "By the star when it goes down." [53:1] and in "Then he (Gabriel) approached and came closer." [53:8] In other words: "I do not believe in any of the Qur’ân." He then started to deal highhandedly with Muhammad [pbuh] and laid violent hand on him, tore his shirt and spat into his face but his saliva missed the Holy face of the Prophet [pbuh]. Thereupon, the Prophet [pbuh] invoked Allâh’s wrath on ‘Utaibah and supplicated: "O Allâh! Set one of Your dogs on him." Allâh responded positively to Muhammad’s supplication, and it happened in the following manner: Once ‘Utaibah with some of his compatriots from Quraysh set out for Syria and took accommodation in Az-Zarqa’. There a lion approached the group to the great fear of ‘Utbah, who at once recalled Muhammad’s words in supplication, and said: "Woe to my brother! This lion will surely devour me just as Muhammad [pbuh] supplicated. He has really killed me in Syria while he is in Makkah." The lion did really rush like lightning, snatched ‘Utbah from amongst his people and crushed his head. [Tafheem-ul-Qur'an 6/522; Quoted from Al-Isti'ab, Al-Isaba, Dala'il An-Nubuwwah, etc] It is also reported that a wretched idolater from Quraysh, named ‘Uqbah bin ‘Abi Mu‘ait once trod on the Prophet’s neck while he was prostrating himself in prayer until his eyes protruded. [Mukhtasar Seerat Ar-Rasool p.113]... ...the tyrants of Quraysh would not be admonished, contrariwise, the idea of killing the Prophet [pbuh] was still being nourished in their iniquitous hearts. On the authority of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As, some people of Quraysh were in a place called Al-Hijr complaining that they had been too patient with the Prophet [pbuh] , who suddenly appeared and began his usual circumambulation. They started to wink at him and utter sarcastic remarks but he remained silent for two times, then on the third, he stopped and addressed the infidels saying: "O people of Quraysh! Hearken, I swear by Allâh in Whose Hand is my soul, that you will one day be slaughtered to pieces." As soon as the Prophet [pbuh] uttered his word of slaughter, they all stood aghast and switched off to a new style of language smacking of fear and even horror trying to soothe his anger and comfort him saying: "You can leave Abul Qasim, for you have never been foolish." [Ibn Hisham 1/289] ‘Urwa bin Az-Zubair narrated: I asked Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As to tell me of the worst thing that the pagans did to the Prophet [pbuh] . He said: "While the Prophet [pbuh] was praying in Al-Hijr of Al-Ka‘bah, ‘Uqbah bin Al-Mu‘ait came and put his garment around the Prophet’s neck and throttled him violently. Abu Bakr came and caught him by his shoulder and pushed him away from the Prophet [pbuh] and said: "Do you want to kill a man just because he says, My Lord is Allâh?" [Bukhari 1/544] (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum; Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1996; pp. 94 & 105-108, emphasis added)
It becomes clear that this statement was uttered by a man subjected to abuse and persecution. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said this after being repeatedly tormented while trying to worship his creator in peace. Not only was he tortured, but his followers also suffered immense torture. Professor K. S. Ramakrishna Rao summarizes some of the tortures the early Muslims faced:
Read the history of the early converts to Islam, and every heart would melt at the sight of the brutal treatment of innocent Muslim men and women. Sumayya, an innocent women, is cruelly torn into pieces with spears, An example is made of " Yassir whose legs are tied to two camels and the beast were are driven in opposite directions", Khabbab bin Arth is made lie down on the bed of burning coal with the brutal legs of their merciless tyrant on his breast so that he may not move and this makes even the fat beneath his skin melt." "Khabban bin Adi is put to death in a cruel manner by mutilation and cutting off his flesh piece-meal." In the midst of his tortures, being asked weather he did not wish Muhammad in his place while he was in his house with his family, the sufferer cried out that he was gladly prepared to sacrifice himself his family and children and why was it that these sons and daughters of Islam not only surrendered to their prophet their allegiance but also made a gift of their hearts and souls to their master ? Is not the intense faith and conviction on part of immediate followers of Muhammad, the noblest testimony to his sincerity and to his utter self-absorption in his appointed task ? (Ramakrishna Rao, Islam and Modern Age)
Therefore, Prophet Muhammad's comment (peace be upon) was a warning. It was a warning to the Quraysh to desist from their crimes or face the punishment of their Lord. It should be noted that this was always the function of God's Messengers and Prophets throughout the history of humanity on Earth. They were sent by God to guide people back to the worship of their Creator, towards good deeds and acts of compassion and away from evil deeds and sins. The Prophets warned their people to desist from their crimes before the punishment of God would come. An example would be the nation of Pharaoh who enslaved the Children of Israel and sought to kill Prophet Moses (peace be upon him). For their crimes, God caused them to drown in the sea. Dr. Ja'far Sheikh Idris comments on the destruction of nations by mentioning the following:
Decline or destruction is therefore the ultimate and inevitable destiny of any ungrateful nation, any nation which rebels against God and follows the path of immorality. But this ultimate destruction is brought about in accordance with principles. Here are some of them. a. Destruction or chastisement does not befall a nation until it is sufficiently warned. This warning can come to them through the medium of a Messenger from God:
"And never did Thy Lord destroy the townships, till He had raised up in their mother-town a messenger reciting unto them our revelations. And never did we destroy the townships unless the folk thereof were evil doers." (Qu'ran:xxvii,59) "Never did We destroy a population, but had its warners------by way of reminder; and We never are unjust." (Qur'an xxvi,208-209)
Or they may be caused to know in some other way that they are guilty and should therefore expect to be punished. (The Process of Islamization, Part 4 © 1977 The Muslim Students' Association of the US and Canada Fourth Printing - January 1983)
So the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was performing his duty of warning the Quraysh of an impending punishment from God if they did not desist from their crimes and sins. In the end, most of the Quraysh did repent and embraced Islam, thus the punishment was averted from them.

Misquoted narration #5
Bukhari: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been made victorious with Terror" (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)
The full narration reads as follows:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with ru'b (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)
By using the word 'Terror' for ru'b, the Islam-hater intends to convey the following definition of terror:
Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
However, the word ru'b does not have that meaning at all. It refers to fright and anxiety. In fact, we can derive a better understanding of ru'b by examing other ahadith:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) saod: "I was given victory through Ru`b: the enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though they are the distance of a month's journey away from me." (Ahmad #20337)
The meaning is thus obvious that when the enemies' attempts to detroy the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) failed, they began to fear him as he grew in strength in Arabia and gained more followers. They feared and hated the religion he brought which preached equality and morality and would remove them from their position of corrupt tyrants who enslaved the poor and the non-arabs. It was fear of the mysterious power which granted Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers such rapid success. This fear was not the fear that resulted from past combat, as many Islam-haters would have us believe, rather it was a type of fear which prevented further combat. As Jalal Abualrub notes:
Ru`b ', means, ‘Fear': Here is a list of some of the Islamic resources explaining, ‘Ru`b', as, ‘Fear', and, ‘Awe': Fat`h al-Bari bi Shar`h Sahih al-Bukhari ; Tu`hfat al-A`hwadhi bi Shar'h Jami' at-Tirmidhi ; and, Shar`h Sunan an-Nasaii . These books were written by Muslim Scholars explaining Hadeeths contained in, Sahih al-Bukhari , and the Sunan collections of Imams at-Tirmidhi and an-Nasaii, respectively.... ...Al-Waqidi said in his, Maghazi , that Juwairiyah Bint al-Harith said, “ We were at the Muraisii` area when the Messenger of Allah marched forth towards us. I heard my father say, ‘There has come to us a gathering that we cannot resist.' I saw men and horses in such numbers that I cannot describe. After I became Muslim and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, married me I looked at the Muslims and found their numbers to be less than what I had thought. I knew that this was Ru`b that Allah, the Exalted, throws in the hearts of the polytheists.' ” There are many similar examples in which the enemies of Islam, who, just like the Muraisii` people, had gathered armies to attack Madinah and the Prophet, scattered throughout the desert in fear when they heard that the Prophet had gathered an army to resist their treacherous attacks. Many lives were saved through Allah throwing fear in the hearts of the enemies of Muhammad, peace be upon them, because his enemies feared him, fled and did not meet him in battle. Thus, ‘fear', in the Hadeeth...saved Muslims and many of their enemies the hardship of battle and warfare. (Abualrub, The Prophet of Mercy, emphasis added)
hence, the fear that the disbelievers had of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) can justly be compared to the fear a thief or murderer would have of a police officer. In fact, a Police officer would desire that criminals fear the law in order to maintain a safe and secure society. Some crtitics also claim that this narration proves that the motivation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was money due to the phrase, "the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and placed in my hand". Of course they omit the phrase before that - "While I was asleep". Jalal Abualrub comments on this deceptive tactic as follows:
By doing so, it would appear that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was seeking or wishing to acquire other people's wealth for himself. Contrary to this false illusion, this was a vision that the Prophet saw which contained glad tidings for the generations of Muslims to come. This is why in the same Hadeeth, Abu Hurairah added, as al-Bukhari and Muslim reported from him, “ Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Abualrub, The Prophet of Mercy)
There are thousands of narrations which confirm that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived a simple life in poverty despite the power and strength he acquired as a leader. Here are a few of such narrations:
Narrated 'Aisha: The family of Muhammad had never eaten their fill of wheat bread for three successive days since they had migrated to Medina till the death of the Prophet. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 461) Narrated 'Aisha: The family of Muhammad did not eat two meals on one day, but one of the two was of dates. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 462) Narrated 'Aisha: The bed mattress of the Prophet was made of a leather case stuffed with palm fibres. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 463) Narrated Qatada: We used to go to Anas bin Malik and see his baker standing (preparing the bread). Anas said, "Eat. I have not known that the Prophet ever saw a thin well-baked loaf of bread till he died, and he never saw a roasted sheep with his eyes." (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 464) Narrated 'Aisha: A complete month would pass by during which we would not make a fire (for cooking), and our food used to be only dates and water unless we were given a present of some meat. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 465)
In truth, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never desired anything of the worldly pleasures. His mission was solely to please his Lord and spread the true message across the land, calling people to morality, justice and peace achieved through submission to God.

Misquoted narration #6
The Prophet said to expel the non-muslims from the arabian peninsula.

The statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concerned are as follows:
Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab), respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them. (Sahîh Bukhârî)

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab) and will not leave any but Muslims. (Sahîh Muslim)

Two religions shall not coexist in the Arab lands (Ar. Ard Al-'Arab). (Muwatta Mâlik)
First let us discuss the meaning of Jazîrat Al-'Arab and Ard Al-'Arab. We shall examine how these terms are geographically defined in connection to their context in the aforementioned Ahâdîth.

When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave commands to his companions he spoke using the terminology and the language that they were familiar with. Thus, the regions mentioned were defined according to the cultural and geopolitical setting in Arabia. If we look at how the Prophet's comnpanions understood and implemented his directives, we are able to develop a better understanding of what the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) intended.

The prominent companion of the Prophet, 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, relocated the Jewish tribes of Khaybar and Fadak, sending them to other regions in Arabia such as Taymâ and Arîhâ. Scholars have used this, amongst other narrations, as evidence when interpreting the saying of the Prophet Muhammad on the arabian peninsula. Shaykh Sâmî Al-Mâjid writes in his discussion of these Prophetic sayings:
Furthermore, many scholars understand the hadîth to refer only to the Hijâz region surrounding Makkah and Madînah. The proof for this is that `Umar expelled the Jews from Khaybar and Fadak, but did not expel the inhabitants of Taymâ, though it is also located on the Arabian peninsula. (IslamToday Fatwâ)

Commenting on this action of 'Umar, Imâm Abu Zakariyyah An-Nawawî (d. 1300CE) writes:

`Umar sent them to Taymâ and Arîhâ. This is proof that the Prophet (peace be upon him) intended that the Jews and Christians should be evicted from only part of the Arabian Peninsula, specifically the region of Hijâz. This is because Taymâ is part of the Arabian Peninsula but outside of Hijâz. (Sharh Sahîh Muslim 10/212-213)

He also says:

Al-Shâfi`î understood the ruling to apply to part of the Arabian Peninsula, namely the Hijâz region. For him this is Makkah, Madînah, al-Yamâmah and their environs. It does not include Yemen and other areas of the Arabian Peninsula.(Sharh Sahîh Muslim 11/93-94)

Likewise, the Hanbalî scholar Imâm Ibn Qudâmah Al-Maqdisî (d. 1223CE) mentions Imâm Ahmad b. Hanbal's (d. 855CE) opinion that the Arabian Peninsula refers to Madinah and its environs. He then goes on to say:
This means that what is forbidden is for unbelievers to settle in "Madinah and its environs" which includes Makkah, al-Yamâmah, Khaybar, al-Yanbu`, Fadak and their outlying areas. This is the opinion of al-Shâfi`î. It is as if the Arabian Peninsula referred to in those hadîth is intended to mean the Hijâz region. The only reason this reason is named Hijâz, a word implying a boundary or division, is because it divides between the regions of Tihâmah and Najd. It is not forbidden for them to live in the borderlands of Hijâz, like Taymâ and Fayd, since `Umar did not prohibit this.(al-Mughnî 13/242-244)

This is again repeated by Imâm Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalânî (d. 1449CE):
The pagans are not allowed to settle specifically in the Hijâz region, meaning Makkah, Madînah, al-Yamâmah, and their environs. It does not apply to other regions that are considered part of the Arabian Peninsula. This is because everyone is agreed that they may live in Yemen, though it is part of the Arabian Peninsula. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.(Fath al-Bârî 6/198)

The conclusion of these quotations is that the Prophet's directive concerning the removal of Non-Muslim groups referred specifically to the Hijâz region (the surroundings of Makkah and Madînah) and not the entire 'Arabian peninsula'.

Having understood the geographical aspect of the directive, the legal aspect may be examined. What is the conclusion of the removal of Non-Muslims from the Hijâz region? The scholars have explained that this removal implies only the prohibition of permanent non-muslim settlements in the region. It does not preclude the presence of all non-muslim activities, so long as permanent settlements are not taken up. As Shaykh Sâmî Al-Mâjid writes:
There are some things that need to be understood about this hadîth. It does not prohibit non-Muslims from residing in the Arabian Peninsula without the intention of permanent settlement. They may live within it for purposes of business, study, or work. There is no prohibition against it. (IslamToday Fatwâ)

Therefore the hadîth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited the presence of Non-Muslim settlements, in the Hijâz region.

It may be asked as to why the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave such a directive. A number of reasons can be offered. Makkah and Madînah became established as the heart of the Muslim world. The presence of non-muslim settlements in the surrounding region posed a threat if these settlements would grow, gain control and dominate the area, allowing their unislamic customs and beliefs to prevail in the nucleus of the Islamic empire. Even worse, they may turn against the Muslims in the area and eradicate them. Such a fear was quite valid as the Muslims were no foreigners to hostility and agression from non-muslim tribes who sought to wipe them out. Thus, it was crucial that Islam remained the sole power and influence in these lands to ensure the stability of the Islamic nation. The companions implemented the Prophetic commands without violence. There was no destruction of homes or property involved; the Muslims fought only those who initiated the agression against them. They retained peaceful ties with many non-muslim tribes and groups. There were many Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian groups who continued to live peacefully under the Islamic state undisturbed.

Misquoted Narration #7

The Prophet said, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him."

In order to understand this issue, we need to examine the Islamic law on apostasy. Since religion is looked on as a personal affair in western society, the notion of state intervention in one's personal choice would naturally seem excessive. However, from the Islamic perspective, a number of points must be observed with regard to apostasy:
1. Islam has never compelled anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion. As Allah has informed us in the Qur'an:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.
10:99 So would you (O Muhammad) then compel people to become believers?

Likewise, Islam encourages its followers to reflect and contemplate upon the universe around us and to ponder over the beauty of the Qur'anic message:

47:24 Do they not ponder over the Qur'an or are their hearts locked up?

51:20-21. And on earth are signs for those endowed with inner-certainty; and [likewise there are signs] in yourselves, do you not observe?

29:20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

Thus, Islam requires that one's faith be constructed upon logical investigation and study of the universe in which we live. Through logical contemplation, one realizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the veracity of Muhammad's (saws) claim to prophethood. Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a good understanding of Islam. Yet on the other hand, the list of educated converts to Islam is immense, and it includes educated leaders such as priests, rabbis and atheists.

2. Those who have left Islam have historically fallen under three categories: those who left having never properly understood the religion often due to social circumstances, those who faked a conversion into Islam in order to undermine the Islamic community from within, and those who left to support opposing forces in battle against the Muslims. Because of the first category, Islam requires that the person who has chosen to forsake the religion be consulted with in order that his doubts may be clarified to him if there is any specific issue of confusion, or so that he may learn the proper Islamic teachings that he may otherwise have not been exposed to. As for the second and third category, this was the original reason behind the Prophet's statement on apostasy. The Qur'an records (3:72) that the Jews of Madinah decided to initiate the practice of pretending to accept Islam and then publicly declare their rejection of it, so as to destroy the confidence of the newly-converted Muslims. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh ruled that a punishment should be announced so that those who decide to accept Islam do so because of a firm conviction not in order to harm the Muslim community from within.

3. Coming to the actual law of apostasy, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him" (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who "abandons his religion and the Muslim community". It should be noted that every country has maintained punishments, including execution, for treason and rebellion against the state (See Mozley and Whitley's Law Dictionary, under "Treason and Treason Felony," pp. 368-369). Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason. Rebellion against God is more serious than rebellion against one's country. However, one who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated, nor would one who remains inside the state conforming to outward laws be tracked down and executed. The notion of establishing inquisition courts to determine peoples' faith, as done in the Spanish Inquisition, is something contrary to Islamic law. As illustrated by the historical context in which it was mandated, the death penalty is mainly for those who collaborate with enemy forces in order to aid them in their attacks against the Islamic state or for those who seek to promote civil unrest and rebellion from within the Islamic state. When someone publicly announces their rejection of Islam within an Islamic state it is basically a challenge to the Islamic government, since such an individual can keep it to themselves like the personal affair it is made out to be.

4. From Islamic history, we can gain a better understanding of how this law has been implemented. Although the Prophet Muhammad pbuh threatened the death penalty in response to the attempts against the Muslim community, no such executions took place in his time (Imam Shawkani, Nayl Al-Awtar, vol. 7, p. 192) even though there is a report that a Bedouin renounced Islam and left Madinah unharmed in his time (Fath Al-Bari vol. 4, p.77 and vol. 13 p. 170; Sahih Muslim biSharh An-Nawawi, vol. 9, p. 391). Thus, we find that context plays an important role in determining how to deal with apostates. The case of one who enlists nations to fight against the Islamic state is more serious, for example. That is why the scholars of the Hanafi school of thought felt that the punishment only applies to the male apostate and not the female apostate because the latter is unable to wage war against the Islamic state. If someone simply has some doubts concerning Islam, then those doubts can be clarified.
So an Islamic state is certainly justified in punishing those who betray the state, committing treason and support enemy forces. As for anyone else, if they do not publicly declare their rejection of Islam, the state has no interest in pursuing them; if their case does become public, however, then they should be reasoned with and educated concerning the religion so that they have the opportunity to learn the concepts they may not have understood properly and they can be encouraged to repent.

Misquoted Narration #8

When asked about the possibility of women and children of the polytheists being exposed to danger during a night raid, the Prophet Muhammad said, "They are from them."

Before addressing the specific narration in question, let us first emphasize the fact that Islam prohibits the killing of women and children.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: A woman was found killed in one of these battles, so the Messenger of God forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim)

Ibn `Abbas says: The Messenger of Allah, when dispatching his troops, would tell them, " ..Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate [those whom you kill], nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters." (Musnad Ahmad, Sunan At-Tirmidhî)

Another narration records that he said, "…Do not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an old-aged man’ (Sharh as-Sunnah Al-Baghawî)

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well. (Sunan Abî Dawûd)

And again, "Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, nor obliterate a stream, nor cut a tree…" (Sunan Al-Bayhaqî)

The strict conditions that Islam has laid out in the event of warfare are referred to in the verse:
2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

The companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) continued to abide by these conditions in all the military campaigns they undertook after his death. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, advised his military commander:
"I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
(Muwatta Mâlik)

Having established that Islam forbids the killing of women and children and all devastation during war, the narration concerning the night raid may now be examined. In this narration the Prophet Muhammad was asked about the potential injuries which may unintentionally befall non-combatants during a night raid. The narration is as follows:
Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the polytheist warriors at night with the possibility of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them." (Sahîh Bukhârî)

In other words, the Prophet (peace be upon him) acknowleged the unfortunate yet inescapable possibility of what is today referred to as "collateral damage". In military campaigns, women and children are never to be targeted and their deaths are to be avoided at all costs. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that such deaths do occur as an unintentionally during the fighting. As Shaykh Abdullah Al-Manî'î writes concerning the narration in question:

Those who are not generally engaged in fighting – like women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, and others who do not participate in the fighting – are not to be killed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited this. His prohibition of the killing of women and children is clearly related by Ibn `Umar in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3015) and Sahîh Muslim (1744).

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

In short, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands, those who are under covenant, and those with whom we have peace cannot be attacked. As for those who are at war with us, the combatants may be fought and killed. Those who are not combatants cannot be killed or targeted for killing. The only way that they can be killed is as an unintentional consequence of fighting against the enemy combatants.

Indeed, the hadîth in question actually shows us that the general rule is not to kill non-combatants, even when they are present on the battlefield. The only exception is when the non-combatants are so mixed in with the fighters in the theatre of combat that it is impossible to fight against the combatants without the possibility of some non-combatants inadvertently being killed. This is only out of dire necessity.

Ibn Hajar writes in his commentary on this hadîth in Fath al-Bârî (6/146):

His statement “They are of them” means that they are construed as such under those circumstances. It does not mean that it is permissible to deliberately target them.

It is a matter of agreement among scholars that a person’s unbelief is not reason for that person to be killed. There is considerable evidence for this. Aside from the Prophet’s prohibition of killing non-combatants, we have where Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]

And Allah knows best.

Imâm Abu Zakariyyah An-Nawawî (d. 1300CE) explains that this may occur during a night raid because one's ability to see is impaired by the dark (Sharh Sahîh Muslim 2790). This does not negate the fact that such unfortunate accidents remain just as abhorrent.

Conclusion
Islam is a religion of mercy and justice. It calls all human beings to the worship of the One God who created us all. What many people falsely present as Islam has actually been proven to be diametrically opposed to the values and laws of Islam. The narrations and verses explained in this article are frequently misquoted by those who seek to malign Islam and spread hatred towards its followers. In doing so, they follow in the footsteps of historical tyrants who performed ethnic cleansing by painting a certain group as evil. Such was the method of the Nazis who slaughter millions of Jews by labelling them as Christ-killers. History repeats itself, and it is unfortunate that people have not learnt from previous atrocities. Today, Muslims are experiencing the same hatred, as people become more tolerant of attacks on Islam. The only cure to this problem is education. Everyone must strive to spread the truth about a misunderstood religion. Islam is not the enemy. Hatred, Intolerance and Ignorance are the enemies of humanity.
May Allah protect us!