Epigraph:
And if you are in doubt as to what We (Allah) have sent down to Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a Chapter like it, and call upon your helpers besides Allah, if you are truthful. (Al Quran 2:24)
4th bloogger has been hacked to death in Bangladesh in August of 2015. Kaaba: The very First House of God
Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times
Those of us, who have seen the Message movie, about the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and most of the Muslims have, would recall a scene, when the companions of the Prophet are saying the creed of Islam, in the courtyard of Kaaba, “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of God,” and the non-Muslim Meccans start throwing stones at them and start beating them.
This physical struggle is going on as the main character of the movie, who is uncle of the prophet Muhammad, Hamza, who is not a Muslim yet, enters the courtyard of Kaaba and says tauntingly to Abu Jahal, one of the main leaders of the Meccans, “He is the bravest man in the desert, when he meets unarmed men!” Abu Jahal retorts, “Muhammad is a liar,” to which Hamza responds, “Where is the lie and where is the truth, when it has not been spoken yet. You do not let him speak.”
We find in the early history of Islam and all of the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s life that he was a great champion of free speech. How else would he propagate his religion, in Arabia?
The religion started with one man and everyone else was on the other side of the river, in a manner of speaking.
Freedom of Speech: A Core Islamic Value! https://t.co/qghDepXi7I via @wordpressdotcom Great arguments against blasphemy by @ZiahShah1
— Sadaf Shah #EmpoweredSince610AD (@Unity786) September 18, 2017
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The famous British apologist for the Holy Prophet Muhammad, Thomas Carlyle wrote in his book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History:
Much has been said of Mahomet’s propagating his Religion by the sword. It is no doubt far nobler what we have to boast of the Christian Religion, that it propagated itself peaceably in the way of preaching and conviction. Yet withal, if we take this for an argument of the truth or falsehood of a religion, there is a radical mistake in it. The sword indeed: but where will you get your sword! Every new opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone, there it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it; there is one man against all men. That he take a sword, and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must first get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.
There are at least five places, where the Holy Quran claims its uniqueness and puts out a challenge to non-believers to produce its equal:
And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a Chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah, if you are truthful. (Al Quran 2:24)
Do they say, ‘He has forged it?’ Say, ‘Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call for help on all you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.’ (Al Quran 10:39)
Do they say, ‘He has forged it?’ Say, ‘Then bring ten Chapters like it, forged, and call on whom you can beside Allah, if you are truthful.’ (Al Quran 11:14)
Say, ‘If mankind and the Jinn gathered together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even though they should help one another.’ (Al Quran 17:89)
Do they say, ‘He has fabricated it?’ Nay, but they would not believe. Let them, then, bring forth an announcement like this, if they speak the truth! (Al Quran 52:34-35)
This challenge has never been met in fourteen hundred years, but, there is another aspect to this challenge. This enshrines the freedom of speech of every non-believer in the eyes of everyone who believes in the Holy Quran to be the literal word of God.
If this is not freedom of speech, I do not know what is! Any man has a God given right to produce the equal of ‘word of God,’ even though Allah says that no one can succeed at this.
Prof. Laura Vaccia Vaglieri, who was a professor at the University of Naples, has the following to say in praise of the Holy Quran:
For the book, besides its perfection in form and method, proved itself beyond imitation even in its substance. In it, among other things, we read a forecast of future events, and a description of events which had taken place centuries before but were generally ignored. There are frequent references to the laws of nature, to various sciences, both religious and secular. We find there vast stores of knowledge which are beyond the capacity of the most intelligent of men, the greatest of philosophers and the ablest of politicians. For all these reasons the Quran could not be the work of an uneducated man, who had spent all his life in the midst of an unrefined society far away from men of learning and religion, a man who always insisted that he was but a man just like any others, and, as such, unable to perform miracles unless he had the help of Almighty God. The Quran could have its source only in Him Whose knowledge comprehends everything in heaven and earth.[1]
But, a permission has been given to every non-Muslim, to claim in any Muslim country that the Quran is the word of Muhammad and not God and that he or she is going to produce its equivalent or something equal to part of it.
No Mullah dare take this right away from them, in defiance of the fact that God gave them this right, Himself.
I suggest that if any Mullah goes against the word of God, he should be charged with blasphemy and given a taste of his own medicine!
On a more serious note, what is blasphemy? Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as follows:
Blasphemy is irreverence toward a deity or deities and, by extension, the use of profanity.
In Christianity, blasphemy has points in common with heresy but is differentiated from it in that heresy consists of holding a belief contrary to the orthodox one. Thus, it is not blasphemous to deny the existence of God or to question the established tenets of the Christian faith unless this is done in a mocking and derisive spirit. In the Christian religion, blasphemy has been regarded as a sin by moral theologians; St. Thomas Aquinas described it as a sin against faith. For the Muslim it is blasphemy to speak contemptuously not only of God but also of Muḥammad.
The Holy Quran says that Jesus was a noble prophet but also stresses time and again that he was not god and argues against his divinity.
It offers scores of arguments and in one place says that he had human needs, like eating, therefore, he was not God:
The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away. (Al Quran 5:76)
Now, if a Muslim was to stress Jesus’ human vulnerabilities a little more, by pointing out his birth from female passage or his regular need to attend to call of nature, a zealous court made of right leaning Christians, may find it blasphemous.
This would certainly upset 1.5 billion Muslims that an articulate argument from the Holy Quran got someone on the death row, if the Christians follow the “Muslim,” style of capital punishment for blasphemy.
But, then the Muslims need to examine, what impressions their zealous courts, create for the 5.5 billion non-Muslims.
It seems in our global village, unless, we are to kill all religious discussion and communication, blasphemy laws are not tenable. Especially, when we appreciate that most communications in discussion forums now occur across country borders, rather than within.
Yet, several recent incidents have drawn international attention to laws and policies prohibiting blasphemy – remarks or actions considered to be contemptuous of God or the divine. In a highly publicized case last summer, for example, a 14-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan was arrested and detained for several weeks after she was accused of burning pages from the Quran.1 In neighboring India, a man reputed to be a religious skeptic is facing blasphemy charges because he claimed a statue of Jesus venerated by Mumbai’s Catholic community for its miraculous qualities is a fake.2 The man reportedly is staying in Europe to avoid prosecution.3 In Greece, a man was arrested and charged with blasphemy after he posted satirical references to an Orthodox Christian monk on Facebook.4
Pakistan, India and Greece are not alone in actively pursuing blasphemy prosecutions. A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that as of 2011 nearly half of the countries and territories in the world (47%) have laws or policies that penalize blasphemy, apostasy (abandoning one’s faith) or defamation (disparagement or criticism of particular religions or religion in general). Of the 198 countries studied, 32 (16%) have anti-blasphemy laws, 20 (10%) have laws penalizing apostasy and 87 (44%) have laws against the defamation of religion, including hate speech against members of religious groups.
The previous study found that countries that have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation also are more likely to have high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion than countries that do not have such laws. This does not mean that laws against blasphemy, apostasy and defamation of religion necessarily cause higher restrictions on religion. But they do suggest that the two phenomena often go hand-in-hand: countries with laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion also tend to have higher government restrictions on religion and higher social hostilities involving religion.
Despite these wide spread laws in many Muslim countries, the variability in prevalence of these ideas, shows a lack of consensus about punishment of blasphemy and apostasy, among the Muslims.
One of the questions, which Pew asked of Muslims in 38 countries from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, was whether or not they support making sharia the official law in the country. In many countries, the answer was overwhelmingly yes, although Pew notes that many respondents said sharia should apply only to Muslims and, just as importantly, that “Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.” Many respondents reject the stricter laws and punishments for which sharia is often, fairly or unfairly, known in the West. In other words, just because some people say they support sharia law does not mean they want to make their neighbors live in a 9th-century-style caliphate.
Still, amid an otherwise innocuous or even reassuring report, Pew’s study found some disturbing details. One that jumped out for me was the alarmingly high share of Muslims in some Middle Eastern and South Asian countries who say they support the death penalty for any Muslim who leaves the faith or converts to another.
According to Pew’s data, 78 percent of Afghan Muslims say they support laws condemning to death anyone who gives up Islam. In both Egypt and Pakistan, 64 percent report holding this view. This is also the majority view among Muslims in Malaysia, Jordan and the Palestinian territories.
It’s important to note, though, that this view is not widely held in all Muslim countries or even among Muslims in these regions. In Bangladesh, another majority Muslim South Asian state that has a shared heritage with Pakistan, it is about half as prevalent, with 36 percent saying they support it. Fewer than one in six Tunisian Muslims hold the view, as do fewer than one in seven Muslims in Lebanon, which has a strong Christian minority.
The view is especially rare among Central Asian and European Muslims. Only 6 percent of Russian Muslims agree that converts from Islam should face death, as do 1 percent of Albanian Muslims and, at the bottom of the chart, 0.5 percent of Kazakhs.
Article 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights state:
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
As most countries are signatory of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, one can clearly argue that laws against blasphemy and apostasy are against the spirit of International Law.
Robert P. George wrote in a recent Op-Ed in Christian Science Monitor:
As the UN General Assembly begins its new session, a colossal gulf is again visible – a gulf between what international human rights law and UN resolutions say, and what some member nations do. A concrete effort must be made by the international community to close this gulf.
One glaring example is how some countries treat people who dare to express dissenting views about religion. A number of nations uphold and enforce laws that punish their own citizens for religious dissent or what they view as deviance from sacred norms. Under such laws and practices, dissidents may find their views labeled as blasphemous, defamatory, or insulting to religious symbols, figures, or feelings. If they are tried and convicted, some face draconian punishments, including execution.
But, it seems Mullahs in Pakistan are in love with their blasphemy laws and do not want to give those up, despite the wide spread condemnation that they have received.
Pakistan’s constitutionally mandated Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), in their strange twist of logic, told the government, anyone who wrongly accuses a person of blasphemy against Islam must be executed — a measure intended to protect innocent people who are often killed by mobs.
The CII demanded the measure after endorsing Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which allow a death sentence for people found guilty of desecrating the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad, mosques or Islamic beliefs.
It seems that Mullahs want someone to die, if not the accused, at least the accuser!
On the other hand, one finds that there are laws against anti-Semitism and denying of the holocaust, in the West that cherishes its freedoms.
What is so wrong about anti-Semitism and denying of the holocaust that we need to legislate these issues?
May be the answer lies in the 2,000 years history of anti-Semitism in the Christian world, which most recently manifested itself, as holocaust.
Speech against a minority or a twisted presentation of their beliefs can lead to discrimination, exploitation, murder, mayhem and genocide and not necessarily in that order!
So, from this we can draw that no one approves of hate-mongering and sometimes hate-mongering touches the limits of legality.
Perhaps my right to swing my fist or my stick ends where the other man’s nose begins.
Many a problems can be tackled if we follow the Golden rule and allow each one the same rules and stop claiming exceptionalism and veto rights.
It is obvious to everyone that one cannot shout fire in a crowded theater and then there is the saying, ‘loose lips sink ships.’
The phrase originated on propaganda posters during World War II.[1] The phrase was created by the War Advertising Council[2] and used on posters by the United States Office of War Information.[1]
The most famous poster that helped popularize the phrase was created for the Seagram Distillers Corporation by the designer Seymour R. Goff (also known by the pseudonym “Ess-ar-gee” or Essargee).[3] This type of poster was part of a general campaign of American propaganda during World War IIto advise servicemen and other citizens to avoid careless talk concerning secure information that might be of use to the enemy.[4] The British equivalent used variations on the phrase “Keep mum,”[5] while in neutral Sweden the State Information Board promoted the wordplay “en svensk tiger.”
The gist of this particular slogan was that one should avoid speaking of ship movements, as this talk (if directed at or overheard by covert enemy agents) might allow the enemy to intercept and destroy the ships.[6]
There were many similar such slogans, but “Loose lips sink ships” remained in the American idiom for the remainder of the century and into the next, usually as an admonition to avoid careless talk in general.[6][7]
Where the limit of freedom of speech ends and the jurisdiction of ‘Law and Order’ starts and what is proportionate punishment for perjury and like, is up to the learned men and women of Law to decide, after detailed debates in legitimate and respectable courts.
But, I am here to claim that polite exposition of ones religion and exposure of others’ religions, respectfully done, is certainly within the limits of freedom of speech, otherwise, soon enough there will be limits on how to think and perceive!
Epilogue
I believe there should be no blasphemy laws.
There are laws against hate mongering and slander and if someone is accused of those crimes, he or she can be prosecuted under those laws.
I conclude with the following verses of the Holy Quran, where God challenges the non-believers of the time, to bring forth their arguments. The Quran invites them, to not only bring a few arguments, but to bring a whole book, in favor of what they claim:
Now ask them whether thy Lord has daughters whereas they have sons.
Did We create the angels females while they were witnesses?
Now, surely it is one of their fabrications that they say, ‘Allah has begotten children;’ and they are certainly liars.
Has He chosen daughters in preference to sons?
What is the matter with you? How judge ye?
Will you not then reflect?
Or have you a clear authority?
Then produce your Book, if you are truthful. (Al Quran 37:150-158)
If writing a book against the claims of Allah, in the literal word of God, the Holy Quran, is not freedom of speech, I do not know what is?
Reference
1. Laura Veccia Vaglieri. An Interpretation of Islam. First published in 1957. Goodward books, 2004. Page 42-44.
My favorite article: Freedom of Speech: A Core Islamic Value! http://t.co/opCoqlgK3W pic.twitter.com/yKwyvOGPkY
— Zia H Shah (@ZiahShah1) September 29, 2014
Categories: Free speach, Free Speech, Freedom, Highlight, ISLAM, Secularism
Zia Shah,
“I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NO BLASPHEMY LAWS”.
So do I.
But the odds are stacked to the heavens against that happening. Banning blasphemy laws will breach both the quran and the sunnah and none of you has the right to do so as we shall see.
Bukhari 9:57 “SOME ZANADIQA (ATHEISTS) WERE BROUGHT TO ALI AND HE BURNT THEM. THE NEWS OF THIS EVENT REACHED IBN ‘ABBAS IN HIS PLACE—I WOULD HAVE KILLED THEM ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENT OF ALLAH’S APOSTLE, ‘WHOEVER CHANGED HIS ISLAMIC RELIGION, THEN KILL HIM'”.
Allah proclaimed Muhammad the best of its creations; his words and deeds were all divine. In his last sermon, Muhammad said that he had left his followers with the quran and his sunnah. The quote by Abbas was one of them.
Muhammad ordered the killing of Asma bint Marwan who had satired him and the killing was done in the presence of her children. Her offense was what is now blasphemy or ‘fitnah’. The same fate was meted out to K’ab bin Al-Ashraf. Bukhari 5:369 “ALLAH’S APOSTLE SAID, ‘WHO WILL KILL K’AB BIN AL-SAHARF WHO HAS HURT ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE?’. Mohammad bin Maslam volunteered and after the deed, he reported back to Muhammad.
Allah knew that anyone who had dared to take up the challenge to question its book or tried to produce another one would have been labelled “the enemy of allah and its apostle” and summarily dealt with. No one wanted to risk his/her life.
It is not only Jesus who exhibited human nature. Alla did exactly the same. It is in the quran that allah speaks, sees, bears witness, sits on the throne, forgets, repents and begrudges. Therefore, it is not god because of these anthropomorphic attributes.
On the issue of children, allah rejected them because the Quraish assinged him only daughters. Had they been sons, his impression would have been quite different. Sura 43:15 “–WOULD ALLAH CHOOSE DAUGHTERS FROM THOSE HE HAS CREATED FOR HIMSELF AND CHOOSE SONS FOR YOU—WOULD THEY ASCRIBE TO ALLAH FEMALES WHO ADORN THEMSELVES WITH TRINKETS AND ARE POWERLESS IN DISPUTATION?”.( The Quran by Zayid, page 362).
The restriction on free speech is practiced even here on TMT. Zubair Khan posted an article on the Indian imam who converted to Christianity but he has made it impossible for comments to be posted on that.
Banning blasphemy laws is easier said than done.
Few may have been killed in early Islam for national security issues, but not to force Islamic beliefs.
Violence in the Bible and Jihad in the Quran
European Convention of Human Rights
I think many of the exceptions for freedom of speech are tackled in the Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights.
This Article provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:
We would certainly need the best legal minds humanity can offer to give concrete and legalistic details of the above exceptions that may be acceptable to people of all faiths, ethnicities and nationalities.
If the Supreme Court Justices do not come to our rescue, may be a good and an accomplished writer can help out with a best selling book. But, the key is to at least, win the moderates, in all the established religions of the world and among the agnostics and atheists.
Zia Shah,
What can be gathered from reading the literature of your religion is that violence was the rule rather than the exception. …
Violence in the Bible and Jihad in the Quran
Zia Shah,
I went on to give give specific quotations from the quran and the hadiths to back my assertion up but you deleted that part. The issue of ‘violence in the Bible’ was also addressed in the portion you cut off. That action has denied the reader the benefit of getting both sides of the argument.
It cannot be said that what I posted was ‘insulting’ to any one or ‘repetitive’ which are the reasons given for editing comments.
Namelee
If you show violence in the Holy Quran, I will be able to explain that to you.
Hadith literature is a lot of things, sometimes it is word of God, sometimes word of the Prophet himself, sometimes word of naive friends of Islam, who did not foresee the critics of Islam and sometimes even word of enemies of Islam. Sometimes these are quoted without context.
So, for the time being let us limit to the Quran and the Bible, in this debate, otherwise it becomes meaningless and mere name calling.
Would you care to explain the violence in the Bible also and see if some of that explanation will apply to the Hadith as well.
The idea that “freedom of speech” really means “Only say things I agree with” is ridiculous. Islam does not support freedom of speech.
I suppose that occurs to neither of the two of you in this exchange that both of your beliefs are violent and archaic, one no better then the other and both harmful? This Bible v. Koran talk amounts to about as much as “Who would win in a fight, Superman or Batman?”
Mike did you read the article?
I believe what European Union has claimed for herself, should be allowed to each country or religion, until we can have truly a global village and then we will need a universal understanding of these issues.
European Convention of Human Rights
I think many of the exceptions for freedom of speech are tackled in the Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights.
This Article provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:
We would certainly need the best legal minds humanity can offer to give concrete and legalistic details of the above exceptions that may be acceptable to people of all faiths, ethnicities and nationalities.
If the Supreme Court Justices do not come to our rescue, may be a good and an accomplished writer can help out with a best selling book. But, the key is to at least, win the moderates, in all the established religions of the world and among the agnostics and atheists.
Zia Shah,
It is interesting how you seek to disparage the hadiths. Without them little or nothing is known about Muhammad. Allah said that he was the best of creation and his sunnah is what every one who believes in him should emulate. He himself said that he had left his followers with the quran and his sunnah. If the hadiths are excluded, how can his sunnah be emulated for the quran says next to nothing about his lifestyle?
Among the hadiths, it is acclaimed that Bukhari is the most authoritative followed by that of his student, Muslim. Those are the ones I principally quote from.
Any discussion that excludes the hadiths is incomplete. In them are to be found how the orders in the quran were executed. So, I will make references to the hadiths.
Instead of referring me to some link, it will be better if you would point out those verses of violence in the Bible. But this thread was meant to show how tolerant of freedom of speech and religion your religion is.
No, I do not disparage Hadith, I only lay aside the wrong ones.
The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community gave us a very simple criterion that if any Hadith is contradictory to the Holy Quran and cannot be reconciled with the Qur’anic teachings then it should be put aside.
By not following this principle properly non-Ahmadi Muslims remain confused and non-Muslim critics of Islam keep creating unnecessary criticism, which has no real foundation.
For example there are no verses in the Holy Quran, which call for stoning for any crime. The Bible will call for stoning to restrict speech.
There are no verses in the Holy Quran to destroy polytheism with sword and kill all polytheists and even their livestock, regardless of whether they are at war or not, but in the Bible there are:
The Holy Quran gives freedom of speech to followers of all other religions and does not prescribe killing them for preaching their religion but the Bible does:
At least there is no freedom of speech for stubborn children. The Holy Quran does not prescribe capital punishment for stubborn and rebellious children but the Bible does:
Non-Ahmadi Muslims will often call for stoning for adultery, because of some Hadith, even though it is against the Quranic injunction. So, they are confused on this issue.
Zia Shah,
Like Hashim, your founder was very uncomfortable with what the quran commands and how it has been put into practice. You too have decided to pick and choose so that the ‘wrong ones are laid aside’. The picture then painted is one of a humane quran exuding love and peace. Hisham said he had to edit ibn Ishaq because what the sira contained would have been disconcerting to many.
In the immediate past you did not confine yourself to the quran when making the argument that Adam and Eve were not the only first parents. I had asked for proof of that from the quran. But you attributed it to science. If you can depend on scientific sources to uphold your views, there is no reason for me not to use islamic sources which you all hail to be authentic and authoritative.
Allah’s commands are in the quran while Muhammad’s excution of those commands are in the sunnah. Both of them give a picture of who Muhammad and allah were or was. So, I will depend on both as my sources.
Sura 33: 35 says that once allah and its prophet had decided on on a matter, no believer, man or woman, has a choice.Otherwise such a person has gone astray into manifest error. That includes you.
Sura 2:216″FIGHTING IS OBLIGATORY FOR YOU, MUCH AS
YOU DISLIKE IT”.
Is fighting peaceful or to subdue the ‘infidels’ who have refused to convert?
Sura 5:35″THIS IS THE RECOMPENSE FOR THOSE WHO
FIGHT AGAINST ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER
AND HASTEN ABOUT THE EARTH TO DO
CORRUPTION:THEY SHALL BE SLAUGHTERED OR
CRUCIFIED, OR THEIR HANDS AND FEET SHALL
BE ALTERNATELY STRUCK OFF–”
…
Namelee you conveniently choose to ignore the context of time, when these verses were revealed, as well as how these will apply in the present day context, just like you have chosen, not to respond to the verses in the Bible and catapulted your energy towards, quoting the Holy Quran, in negative light.
You forget that the Holy Quran clearly defined the rights of prisoners and it suggested to always yield towards peaceful options, if enemy leans towards peace, without doubting the intentions of the enemy, even in the heat of the war.
You have ignored Jesus’ teaching:
‘I myself will call to account’ [1]
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” [2]
————————————————–
References
[1]: Deuteronomy 18:19, New International Version
[2]: Deuteronomy 18:18-19, King James Version
Zia Shah,
Duplicity is the name of your game. First, you said that there were no verses of violence in the quran and that what appeared to be violence were due to the misunderstanding by the readers. Just using a few suras of the quran I was able to proof you wrong.
…
You have chosen to give meanings to the Quranic verses, whatever you want them to mean.
You have still not explained away the verses of the Bible.
Defensive war and peace in Islam
There is something common between the Islamophobes and the terrorists. When they read the Holy Quran, they find terror and violence.
Indeed, the beauty lies in the eyes of the observer.
When we, the Ahmadiiyya Muslim Community read the Quran, we find a message of peace, love, compassion and Universal Brotherhood.
A quick scanning of the bold parts will give the reader the peaceful message, in the Holy Quran, at a glance.
First the verses of Sura Hajj, when defensive war was first allowed:
Now, read the verses from Sura Baqara, which talk about peace options repeatedly:
Often the Islamomaniacs and the Islamophobes misunderstand some of the verses in Sura Taubah. Read some of the other verses from the same Sura to appreciate the context:
In the same Sura Taubah, Allah lays the blame squarely on the non-believers, for starting the war:
So, the permission to fight is only for self defense.
The so called sword verse, Al Quran 9:5, which is often quoted by Islamomaniacs and Islamophobes does not seem to have any application in present day social, religious and political context, when all the Muslim countries and the Muslims living in the West, through their respective countries are signatory of Universal Declaration of the Human Rights.
As long as the non-Muslims are abiding by such treaties the Muslims are duty bound to abide by the treaties.
We have a very honest and reasonable approach to the current affairs. Just see our condemnation of the recent Church bombing in Peshawar, Pakistan.
In, USA, every year the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community collects thousands of blood donations to save lives, around the time of September 11, to rectify the wrong done, as far as the humans can, by some Muslims in 2001.
We realize that saving of one life is like the saving of the whole humanity and killing of one innocent person, according to the Quranic description is equivalent to a genocide or a holocaust. (Al Quran 5:33)
Ikhan,
Deuteronomy 18 has 22 verses. Since you chose not to quote beyond verse 19, I will quote verse 20.
:20″BUT THE PROPHET WHO PRESUMES TO SPEAK A WORD IN MY NAME WHICH I HAVE NOT COMMANDED HIM TO SPEAK, OR WHO SPEAKS IN THE NAME OF OTHER GODS, THAT SAME PROPHET SHALL DIE.'”
Muhammad came with the proclamation that he was the prophet of a god whose name was allah which he said was Almighty God. Clearly, he was speaking in the name of another god. As that verse shows, he had to die after agonizing suffering. The quran says that evildoers will have their aorta cut off. It furthers says that if Muhammad had lied God would have cut off his aorta or hearts vein and no one would have been able to protect him(sura 69:40-46). Tabari(vol v111 page 124) reports Muhammad telling a woman “–I FEEL MY AORTA BEING SEVERED BECAUSE OF THE FOOD I ATE WITH YOUR SON AT KHAYBAR-“.
That prophecy came true because he died of severed aorta after three years and nothing done could save him. The truth is that HE WAS A DAMN LIAR.
I am not at all in doubt of what ill fate awaits this post. It will be easier for hell to freeze over than for this comment to see the light of day. Such is the muhammadan sense of freedom of speech. It does not deter me.
Zia Shah,
I will not waste my time responding to what you have just posted. The previous response has been treated in the same way as the others.
You may talk about ‘islamophobes’, ‘islamaniacs’, ‘jihadists’, ‘terrorists’ etc as you wish. It does not change the fact that muhammadanism is violent. It was established and is maintained on violence.
…
I have made a logical presentation about, “War and Peace,” in Islam from the Holy Quran. Please refute that and defend the Biblical violence.
If you do not mix up logic with hate and anger and make a simple case in defense of some of the verses of the Bible, I will approve it.
I hope others will refute your comments about Deuteronomy 18. The Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be on him died after a few week illness, it was not a case of sudden death as you have tried to depict here.
Namelee is foolish. He is getting out of control and calling the Prophet Muhammad as a DAMNED LIAR.
This is apart from the fact that he mis-managed the verse Deut 18:20. In that verse and two verses before that is the mention of a great prophet to be born from the brethren of the Jews (not from the brothers of the Jews). That prophet will be the like of Moses a.s. God will put His words into the mouth of that prophet and that prophet will speak in the name of God almighty…
Every one knows that that prophet had not arrived till the time of Jesus a.s. It is written in John chapter one that the elders of the Jews sent some persons to John the Baptist a.s. to inquire about who he was and what he was doing.
The persons asked John if he was Elias. He replied “No.” Then they asked him, “Was he the Messiah?” He replied, “No.”
Then they asked him if he was THAT PROPHET? He replied, “No.”
So it is clear that upto the time of John the Baptist, the Jews were waiting for three important persons. They were waiting for 1.Elias a.s. and 2.a Messiah and 3. a prophet the like of Moses a.s. THAT PROPHET had not arrived till that time.
Every one knows that Prophet is Muhammad s.a.w.s.
0. who spoke everything in the name of Allah.
1. who brought a law, like did Moses a.s.
2. Muhammad s.a.w.s. led his men to victory against the enemies, like did Moses a.s.
3. Muhammad s.a.w.s. commanded an army of men, like did Moses a.s.
4. Muhammad s.a.w.s. led his team to success like did Moses a.s.
Moreover, nobody worshipped Moses a.s. or Muhammad s.a.w.s. But the church is telling that followers of Jesus a.s. worshipped him. That is a damned lie. And it further proves Jesus a.s. is not THAT PROPHET, as most Christians would try to make him.
Namelee is spreading rumors about Islam and at the same time not ready to face (answer) anything that is asked from him of the BibleNT. Namelee is abusing a person who happens to be THAT PROPHET, as mentioned in BibleOT.
Namelee is trying to say that Allah is not God or God is not Allah. God is the same (only ONE) and has different names in different religions.
Jesus Christ a.s. was a true prophet and messenger of God (Allah). He was under the command (follower)of Moses a.s. as all other Jewish messengers. He never intended to start a new religion. Jesus a.s. obediently obeyed the laws of Moses a.s. and he did not divert from that law, even slightly. He was a true follower of the law given by Moses a.s. So we can say that Moses a.s. was his respected leader.
I do not know if namelee is a Christian. But with all due respect, I request namelee to please bring out truth here for the benefit of all here.
Dear Namelee,
May God/Allah open up your mind especially your prejudice against Islam. With all due respect, your comments show both your lack and non-sincereity towards attaining knowledge for the sake of human intellect. Please do acquire that before debating on this subject. Please do not insult the refined and civilized art or debating. Moreover, The way you mention the name Islam, The Quran, Proohet Muhammad (peace & Blessings of God be upon him), Hazrat Jesus (peace be upon him) shows no self-respect either. Peace.
We can solve the problem by presenting the right teachings. The right teaching is:
1. There is no punishment mentioned in the Quran for blasphemy.
2. Hadith cannot overtake/over rule the Quran.
3. Capital punishment cannot be applied based on the Hadith only. It would need proof from the Quran. In the Quran there is no punishment mentioned for blasphemy. So there is no punishment for blasphemy.
4. The matter has to be argued against the ignorant Muslims and spread the right teachings against their false beliefs.
5. It would take some time to wipe out the ignorance. We have to be patient.
6. It is not good to do a bad thing to remove the other bad thing. Right approach and prayer to the God Almighty is necessary.
The word ‘blaspheme’ occurs at least 23 times in the Bible and not at all in the Quran. It is not a Quranic concept.
To search a word in the Bible go to.
To search a word in the Quran go to.
Despite being based in the greatest democracy in the world, freedom of speech is not a core value at TMT.
How then can it be in a system that produces TMT which is a chip of the old block with all the censorship?
I try severally to post comments without success because of how the site has been programmed. Sometimes those posted are quickly taken down.
And there is talk of freedom of speech being a core muhammadn value? QUITE A JOKE.
Zia,
Your argument is a disused mantra having been trashed innumerable times. I have referred you times without number to sura 33: 58-61. Better go back and read it and/or deny its meaning as usual.