Saturday, November 13, 2010

Believe me when I say Quran, Hadith and Sira doesn’t promote violence

Bin Laden Hippie peace sign
John R. Houk
© November 13, 2010

Below is an ongoing comment to the post “Let’s All Join Islam for its Moral Purity”. A Muslim apologist who goes by the name Dinopak has been writing the typical Islamic Taqiyya defending Islam, its holy writings and Mohammed as perfection embodied by peace. I have been responding but it is like speaking to a wall of denial. This post was originally posted at my primary blog Below is the last comment of Dinopak in which he defends his faith as a religion of peace. My response became so large that I decided to post as a blog.

JRH 11/13/10 (More after Dinopak’s comment)
Dear John,

I do know what I am talking about. Believe me when I say Quran, Hadith and Sira doesn’t promote violence. The only ‘violence’ Quran ever spoke about is defending yourself from aggression. Can you quote one example of (what according to you is) “the sex with captured females, pedophilia, humiliation in picking up the the (sic double word) jizya”. You should study Islamic history unbiased so that you may be able to create your own opinion about it.

Islam was never spread on sword, though I must accept later on some ‘warlords’ tried to gain their way by ‘using’ Islam as a tool. More or less like what the Christians did in their dark era. You might be familiar with the Inquisition.

My point is, just because ‘some’ individuals are hell bent upon taking power they will stop at nothing, they will not even back down from making religion as their tool for their interests.
Much of the following are based on the copy and paste of the links below with some of my thoughts interjected.

Quran and violence that is NOT defensive:

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." 

Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.

Hadith about this Quranic verse from Ibn Ishaq:

[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them."  (Ibn Ishaq 424)

[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had.  Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him...  (Ibn Ishaq 425)

The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir)

Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one, whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time.

The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers.  However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to.

According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months.

Faced with to losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his tent and then later emerged with a convenient and timely revelation from Allah that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use).

Notice that the Qur'an does not say that the Meccans were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were "persecuting" them by preventing them from the 'sacred mosque' (the Kaaba).  The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries.  This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense.
For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply “taking back” what was theirs - rather than exacting revenge and stealing.  Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town. 

Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as the paragon of forgiveness), nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft.  This is the least of their problems, however, since not only is there no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were "taking back what was theirs" but it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record.

The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad's biographer, Ibn Ishaq.

Here are more Quranic surahs that have ZERO to do with self-defense:

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah 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 Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

Murdering someone for rejecting Islam for another faith or mere atheism is not exactly something to maintain self-defense.

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

The application is not self-defense. Rather after the offer to convert is refused by the Kafir then Muslims invaded the Middle East, North Africa and India. If the Kafir-Non-Muslims resisted they were fighting against Allah. Ouch! This sura tells what happens to those who fight against Allah in resistance to conquest or in retrieving what was conquered. AGAIN, this is NOT self-defense!

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

This is not exactly a description of self-defense or the so-called Greater Jihad/Inner Spiritual Struggle.

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" 

The context of this sura is NOT suffering persecution from invading non-Muslims. Rather the persecution was the refusal of Arab polytheist Meccans refusing to allow expelled Mohammed from performing a pilgrimage to the Kaaba. Mo had to conquer Mecca to be able to do this pilgrimage. AGAIN, this was not self-defense.

Dinopak, you get the idea.

Check out the Quran and sex slavery:

Quran Sura 23:5-6 - 5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy.

The key words are "those who are legally in their possession." Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave-girls is lawful.
Maududi writes:
Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)

Now Maududi was a Salafist that Moderate Muslims like to classify as out of the mainstream of Sunni Islam even though Salafi Islam is actually a reform movement to bring Islam back to its purist roots as espoused by Mohammed, Quran, Hadith and Sira. Keeping in mind Maududi though considered radical is merely deducing the literal meaning of that which Muslims believes is the perfect word of Allah. Check out these other Quranic suras that allows a Muslim male to rape a kafir captive in war even though the helpless female may be married – courtesy Global Politician:

Raping slave girls:

QURAN - 70:22-30: "Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..." This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.

QURAN - 23:5, 6: "...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..." Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.

QURAN - 4:24: "And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess (slavery). It is a decree of Allah for you.

QURAN - 33:50: "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."

Now let’s address Pedophilia, especially by the Muslim considered perfect man Mohammed. As a Muslim you probably know what the term “iddah” means. To the majority of us kafir in America the explanation of iddah is simple. A Muslim male may divorce his wife for nearly any reason even something as unjust that his wife no longer pleases him. Iddah is the period of time a woman must wait if she was a good Muslim and submitted to sex from her divorcing husband before she can remarry another male. The iddah principle is directly from the Quran and the concept behind it is if a gal has a menstrual cycle she did not become impregnated before she was divorced. Now here is when it gets interesting. Check it out if a gal can prove she had no sexual relations with her husband, she does not have to wait for remarrying unless the new groom wants to be sure. In the case of first time marriage of a maiden, guess what age has never had a menstrual cycle. Ding-Ding-Ding! That is correct if you guessed a pre-pubescent gal; i.e. a child female. This is the justification for Child-Brides in Muslim dominated nations AND Mohammed marrying 6 year old Aisha (daughter of Mo’s brother and future Caliph Abu Bakr) is the Islamic example as the perfect man for other Muslim males to follow. At least Mohammed waited a whole three years to consummate (i.e. coitus) his marriage to Aisha at age 9. How commendable is that?

Quran 65: 4 (Hilali-Khan) - And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.

The Hadith gives the example of Mohammed to extrapolate a pedophiliac marriage (Thanks to ex-Muslim Ali Sina):

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.
Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when she was only six years old.

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.
Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter)."

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.

In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.

Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that Ayesaha was a baby being “carried” by an angel when the Prophet dreamed of her.

There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.

Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

And in another Hadith we read.
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915,  also Number 4916  and Number 4917 Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a play of little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small that was not aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet “surprised” her by going to her.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
Narrated Aisha:
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon.

Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls. Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33 Narrated 'Aisha:
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.

Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama.

In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents were always Muslims.

Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),
If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.

Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for those who have eyes.

No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent people wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them. The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which incidentally confirm each other?

I can tell you why people would attribute false miracles to their prophet. Babis believe that Bab started to praise God as soon as he was born. There is a Hadith like that also about Muhammad. Christians believe the birth of the Christ was miraculous and the Jews believe Moses opened a dry passageway through the Red Sea. Believers love to hear these stories. It confirms their faith. There are many absurd miracles attributed to Muhammad in the hadiths, despite the fact that he denied being able to perform any miracles. But why should anyone fabricate a lie about the age of Ayisha that would portray his Prophet as a pedophile?

The concept that Islam spread by the miraculous enlightenment of the kafir that were conquered is an idea only an idiot would believe. Muslim conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe (Spain/Portugal and parts of the Balkans) and the part of Asia that maneuvered toward the Indian Sub-Continent was brutal and heinous. The brutality was the influence to convert Kafir to Islam so much more than peaceful persuasion as was the case of early Christianity prior to the Roman Empire making Christianity a State religion.

MA Khan is his book “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery;” utilizes Muslim source material and not Kafir source material writing on how an Islamic empire progressed by the sword in some of most brutal fashion conceived by mankind. Khan begins with Mohammed then focuses on the Kafir genocide perpetuated by invading Islamic forces in search of conquest, booty, slaves, sex slaves and forced conversions to Islam.

Andrew Bostom’s book “The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims” writes about the same kind of brutality of forced Islamic conversion from the Arabian Peninsula across the Middle East, North Africa, Western Europe via Spain (Stopped at Tours/Poitiers in 732), in Greek Anatolia (later to be Ottoman Turkey) and Eastern Europe (pushed back at Vienna in 1683).

Between Bostom’s book and Khan’s book utilizing Muslim sources it is evident that Islamic conquest was not a peaceful proposition. Rather Islamic conquest was a bloody and gruesome proposition that led to the desecration of Christian Churches, initial massacres of the conquered and followed by the fear factor forcing conversion from Christianity to Islam. Once one was Islamized then the indoctrination followed coupled with a death threat if one chose to apostatize away from Islam. Where Islam remained entrenched for generations indoctrination and anti-apostasy laws inculcated Islam as the dominate religion. Where reconquest by Christian forces occurred, Islam logically faded when an actual choice (and yes the Christian persecution of recalcitrant Muslims) became available. In most cases the Christian version of convert or die (WHICH IS NOT BIBLICAL) occurred to the ding dongs that chose to remain Muslim rather than be expelled. Christians in Muslim lands did not have the choice of expulsion. Muslim dominated Christians had the choice of convert, pay the humiliation tax of a dhimmi or die.

I have one last thought on Dinopak’s last paragraph of his comment:

My point is, just because ‘some’ individuals are hell bent upon taking power they will stop at nothing, they will not even back down from making religion as their tool for their interests.

Dinopak is absolutely correct. Conquest perpetuated by individuals or the elite rulers of a nation often use religion to shore up their local power base to get support from their masses to achieve the goals of conquest. The difference between Islam and any other religion utilized by a conqueror is that the sword, violence and intolerant oppression are encoded in Islam. Most other religions are more concerned with the individual discovering that religion’s truth for Salvation, Release from the cycle of life or just plain union with a deity or divine principle. Since I am a Christian I do know that there is no Scriptural mandate to kill the unbelievers unless they convert to Christianity. In fact the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ is a choice of Redemption from the dark twisted world that exists by the deception of Satan (Adversary, Deceiver and etc.). The tenets of Christianity call for the faithfulness to that Redemptive Salvation by resisting the dark forces that persecute the individual into resubmitting to that which a Christian was Redeemed from. Martyrdom for a Christian is dying by refusing the death threat to recant or to be honored to be killed by entities that are hateful toward the Truth embodied in Christ. Martyrdom in Islam is dying while in the process of killing Kafir (unbelieving non-Muslims) in the war of Jihad. In the more radical Islamic schools of thought this martyr/shahId death extends to homicidal suicide in taking as many kafir victims as possible while you are killing yourself.

JRH 11/13/10


  1. How many good reasons (Not to mention, excuses) do we need to wage war?

    I have studied warfare for more than 40 years. I cannot think of ANY other that had so many GOOD reasons to fight, both for and against.

    The more that you study Islam, the more that as a American, you reject it. I imagine that this is why the public in the U.S. is more anti-Islamic than just a few years ago and certainly since 9/11.