Home » Uncategorized » The Prophet Of Peace And Love Part 2

The Prophet Of Peace And Love Part 2

Start here

In the first part we addressed some of the lies missionary Shamoun did in his piece:
https://discoverthetruefacts.wordpress.com/2016/12/29/the-prophet-of-peace-and-love-part-1/

Here I am going to address an article where this missionary continues to lie to misrepresent Islamic text. He quotes the famous passage where it says:

“I have been commanded to fight the idolaters (or ‘people’) until they say La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

He then writes and quotes, stating:

These polemicists assume that Muhammad’s appeal to Q. 88:22,
Thou art not impowered to act with authority over them. Sale
Confirms that he wasn’t sent to murder all those who refused to become Muslims.
Before we reply it is important that we quote some more of the immediate context so as to get a clearer picture of what is being said here:
So remind them (O Muhammad), you are only a one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves Then Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment. Verily, to Us will be their return; Then verily, for Us will be their reckoning. S. 88:21-26 Hilali-Khan
In view of the immediate context, the passage is not saying that Muhammad has no authority to go around slaying the disbelievers. On the contrary, the point of the passage is that Muhammad doesn’t have the ability to make any one believe, and therefore cannot force the unbelievers to become Muslims, which is why he has been sent to fight them. I.e., since not everyone will come to “faith” Muhammad is left with no choice but to murder them since he is Allah’s agent of judgment sent to punish the unbelievers for refusing to submit to Allah and his “messenger”.
M He claims here where the Hadith says you are not a dictator, a quotation from Surah 88:22, but insists that the Prophet (p) was allowed to kill those who refused to accept Islam. This type of interpretation is a lie and completely against the very text of the Quran and Hadith he quotes.

The Hadith report is very clear that he was NOT sent to make people convert to Islam, nor did he kill them for rejecting it:

“Jabir narrated that: the Messenger of Allah said: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: ‘La ilaha illallah’. So when they say that, their blood and their wealth are safe from me, except for a right, and their reckoning is for Allah.” Then he recited: So remind them – ‘YOU ARE ONLY ONE WHO REMINDS. YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR OVER THEM’ (Quran 88:22). (Jami at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3341 (Sahih, Darussalam))

And Sahih Muslim:

“It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur’an):” THOU ART NOT OVER THEM A WARDEN” (lxxxviii (88), 22).” (Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 32 http://sunnah.com/muslim/1/35 )

He then quotes Surah 9:5 https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/12/25/the-hadith-fight-until-they-say-there-is-no-god-but-allah-explained/

And Surah 9:29 https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/28/answering-jihad-fight-against-those-who-do-not-believe-quran-929/

The above verses have been dealt in detail. Please visit the links to get detailed answers.

He claims that the Muslims 1300 years ago were asking the non-Muslims to convert, if they refused then they were killed off. This is a total lie. If his claims were true then why did Muhammed have a treaty still intact with other non-Muslim tribes like the Banu Kinana, Banu Damra, and others?

scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi’s commentary on 9:7 states whilst the issue of Quraysh was happening in relation to Qurah 9:5, he still did abide by treaties with other non-Muslims who were faithful,

“2 This declaration of the abrogation of the treaties with the mushriks was made in accordance with the law enjoined in VIII: 58 regarding the treacherous people, for it is treachery from the Islamic point of view to wage war against any people with whom a treaty of peace had been made, without openly declaring that the treaty had been terminated. That is why a proclamation of the abrogation of the treaties was necessitated against those clans who were always hatching plots against Islam in spice of the treaties of peace they had made. THEY WOULD BREAK THE TREATIES AND TURN HOSTILE ON THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR TREACHERY, and the same was true of all the mushrik clans WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BANI KANANAH, BANI DAMRAH AND ONE OR TWO OTHER CLANS. …
9 That is: BANI KINANAH AND BANI KHUZA`AH AND BANI DAMRAH.” (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi – Tafhim al-Qur’an – The Meaning of the Qur’an, on Surah 9, online source http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html)

If this missionary’s claim did have substance, he needs to answer why the Muslims didn’t touch other idolaters (non-believers). Does this not show that the Prophet only fought those who waged war against him and his community? History is witness that Muhammed only fought those who fought him. Every battle was defensive in nature.

Why does the Quran 9:6 say to protect those who come to hear the message of Islam and then they should be sent back where THEY FELT SAFE? Here is the verse:

“And if anyone of the IDOLATERS SEEKETH THY PROTECTION (O Muhammad), THEN PROTECT HIM so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and AFTERWARD CONVEY HIM TO HIS PLACE OF SAFETY. That is because they are a folk who know not.” – S. 9:6 (Pickthall Translation)

Some of the earliest commentaries of the Quran have said that if the polytheists wanted to hear the message of Islam, the Muslims were obligated to convey the message to them. Even if they rejected Islam, they were allowed too and should be send back to the area where they felt safe:

Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 AD) on Surah 9:6:

“…this verse guarantees the safety of people in general (insan) who came to listen to the Prophet recite from the Qur’an until they had RETURNED TO THE PLACE OF REFUGE WHENCE THEY CAME.” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 88)

The 9th Century scholar Hud b. Muhakkam on Surah 9:6:

“…the polytheists who requests safe conduct from Muslims in order to listen to the word of God is to be so granted and returned unharmed to his place of origin, whether he embraces Islam or not. This was the view of Mujahid, for example. Al-Kalbi is quoted as saying that the verse referred instead to a group of polytheists who wished to renew their pact with Muhammad asked them to profess Islam, offer prayers, and pay the zakat, they refused, and the Prophet LET THEM RETURN SAFELY TO THEIR HOMES. Ibn Muhakkam further notes that al-Hasan al-Basri had remarked thus on the status of this verse: ‘It is valid and unabrogated (muhkama) until the Day of Judgement.’” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 88)

Al-Tabari (838 – 923 AD):

“…in this verse God counsels Muhammad, ‘If someone from among the polytheists (al-Mushrikun) – those whom I have commanded that you fight and slay after the passage of the sacred months – were to ask you, O Muhammad, for safe conduct in order to listen to the word of God, then grant this protection to him so that he may hear the word of God and you may recite it to him.’ Such an individual, according to the verse, is to be subsequently ESCORTED BACK TO HIS PLACE OF SAFETY EVEN IF HE REJECTS ISLAM AND FAILS TO BELIEVE AFTER THE PROPHET’S RECITATION OF THE QUR’AN BEFORE HIM. SCHOLARS IN THE PAST WHO HAVE AGREED WITH THIS GENERAL INTERPRETATION INCLUDE IBN ISHAQ, AL-SUDDI, AND MUJAHID…” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89)

This shows what this missionary is babbling about is a lie and gross misrepresentation of the Quran and Hadith which he deceptively quoted. More here: https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/12/25/the-hadith-fight-until-they-say-there-is-no-god-but-allah-explained/

He continues then quoting some scholars who said that 9:5, and 9:29 abrogated (naskh) every other ayah. We wont delve in this matter here, as it doesn’t affect what we have presented.

In conclusion, we see once more where this missionary goes out of his way to misrepresent the Quran and Hadith. The fact of the matter remains, the Bible is filled with genocide, rape of women, prepubescent marriages, all commanded by Jesus who is god of the Old Testament. Visit the links below:

Related article:

“Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Mention Rape? 50 Shekels?”https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/12/20/does-biblical-law-force-rape-victim-to-marry-rapist/

“Biblical Law Forces Rapist To Marry Victim (‘anah/inna’)” https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/biblical-law-forces-rapist-to-marry-victim-anahinna/

“Does The New Testament Endorse Marital Rape?” https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/27/does-the-new-testament-endorse-marital-rape/

“Did Jesus Have A Wife? A Look Into The Gospel Of John” https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/27/did-jesus-have-a-wife-a-look-into-the-gospel-of-john/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: