Topics

[Recently I read the following on the net, aimed at those who wish to Judge ahadith and all secondary sources by the Quran]

Many Quranites tend to point out hadith, which may seem strange or too supernatural in order to believe it. This is nothing more than an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Here is the testimony of one Quranite who became an agnostic...

"...I was in the middle of laughing at the stories and silently mocking them, when suddenly it hit me that they are no more absurd than the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Moses split the ocean and turned a stick into a snake, or that Solomon had conversations with animals..."

So here we see a Quranite who left Islam because he found the virgin birth and Solomon's conversations with animals to be absurd. These are to be found in the Qur'an. Will the Quranites accept this as an argument? They will say that these stories are not absurd and that people must put faith in them. Well then why don't the Quranites do the same with the hadith that they find strange? Who draws the objective standard as to what is too absurd to be true?

This is nothing more than an "appeal to emotion fallacy" and it is to be ignored.

WHAT HADITHIST WONT TELL YOU ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HADITHS AND HOW THEY PORTRAY OUR DEAR PROPHET.
======================

The falsifiers (of the attributes, personality and deeds of our dear Prophet as described in Hadiths and other man-made literature) have presented a concoction of medieval Arab, Pagan, Jewish and Christian culture as good examples of the messenger. However, if you look at the context of the verse 33:21, the good example has been described as the messenger's courage and his constant remembrance of God. They extended this good example to irrelevant individual or cultural behaviors. For instance, they sanctified the beard and turban, ignoring the fact that the Meccan idol worshipers, such as Amr bin Hisham (aka, Abu Jahl) and Walid b. Mugiyra also had long beards and big turbans.

What is worse, the actions and words ascribed to prophet Muhammad PBUH have depicted him with a character that is far from exemplary.

The hadith books portray the prophet as a phantasmagoric character with multiple personalities. That character is more fictitious than mythological gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Pan, Poseidon and Aphrodite. He is a pendulous character, both bouncing up to deity, and down to the lowest degree. He is both wise and moronic. He is sometimes more merciful than God and sometimes a cruel torturer.

He is both perfect and criminal, humble and arrogant, chaste and a sex maniac, trustworthy and a cheater, illiterate and educated, rich and poor, a nepotistic and a democratic leader, caring and a male chauvinist, a believer and a disbeliever, prohibiting hadith and promoting hadith.

You find numerous conflicting personalities presented as an exemplary figure. Choose whichever composite character you like out of thousands of different examples. Those with preconceived ideas may go fish out hadith to support any personality or role model they want to carve out of the hero called Muhammad PBUH.
Want a terrorist? You will find a few hadiths to justify it. He did after all, according to Bukhari, justify killing women and children in battle.

Want a lamb? You will again find a few hadiths to depict him that way. When the children of Taif stoned him, he prayed for them.
Hadith books contain almost anything you wish, especially about Muhammad PBUH. You may find an extremely kind and nice Muhammad PBUH besides a cruel torturer one.

You may find Muhammad PBUH to be a person with great morals on one page and on another page, you will see him a pedophile.
You will find Muhammad PBUH pointing at the moon and splitting it into two pieces letting one piece fall into Ali's backyard, and on another page, you will find a Muhammad PBUH incapable of reading a simple letter.

Hadith books, by their very nature, are perfect sources for such abuse. They contain fragments of hearsay that were produced within several centuries with multiple authors, numerous agendas, inconsistent language/terminology, unreliable and fragmented contexts, and divisible or severally liable authorities.

An "expert" can subject almost any hadith he dislikes to one of the rules of procedure called usul ul-hadith with multiple standards. The evaluation of the narrator by using another hearsay, partisanship, tribalism, racism, or personal scrupulousness, is called "jarh" and "tadeel" simply meaning, "trash" and "save."

For instance, the most prominent Sunni hadith collector Bukhari who grew up in Bukhara, collected hadiths two hundred or so years after the departure of Muhammad PBUH. This story collector, while bragging about how meticulous he was, claims that he once traveled for about a month to hear a particular hadith from a narrator. When he visited him, he saw him deceiving his horse to the barn with an empty bag. Consequently, our meticulous Bukhari gave up from collecting the story he was going to report! In other words, he used the tool of "jarh" (trash) to cross over that particular narrator.

Looking at the quality of the 7275 hadiths he allegedly picked out of 600,000 reported hadiths (99% defective material!), we can easily infer that he was not very lucky or did not have very good eyes in witnessing thousands of more deceivers with their horses.

Ironically, this Bukhari narrates hadith from drunkard and oppressive Umayyad governors, and hundreds of hadith from Abu Hurayra who according to Bukhari himself was considered a congenial liar and fabricator by his prominent peers such as Omar, Ibn Abbas and Aisha. Either Bukhari was himself a deceived horse or another deceiver.

Let's sidetrack here and do a simple calculation. Bukhari, in his introduction, uses a first-class sales pitch according to the standards of the medieval era. He, or the later editors and promoters of his collection, try hard to depict the portrait of a devout, genius, scrupulous, and steadfast scholar. Although his Christian counterpart, St. Paul, was more articulate and more cunning in his self-promotion, history is a witness to the fact that Bukhari has done a similarly good job in another market.

In the introduction of the collection called Bukhari, we learn that this celebrated hadith collector endured long trips, occasionally from one country to another, just to collect one hadith. We also learn that he was very careful in his evaluation of the chain of narrators; he was so pious that he performed ablution and prayed before recording each of his hadiths.

We might be surprised to see, in the same section of this solemn promotional introduction, some funny animated clips too. For instance, we learn that some of the prophet's companions witnessed a group of monkeys stoning an adulterer monkey in the jungle (perhaps that provided some inspiration and imagination for later hadiths narrations involving the story of the holy hungry goat).

Well, let's do some calculations...

- Let's assume that Bukhari told us the truth regarding the 600,000 hadiths he listened to and evaluated.

- Let's also be extremely generous to Bukhari and assume that on average it took him only one hour to go, interview, and evaluate each of the 600,000 hadiths, 99% of which he would later trash.

- Let's assume that he started wandering around, seeking hadith narrators, listening to them, and evaluating the chain of narrators from dawn until dusk.

- Let's assume that all his days were summer days, so that he worked ten hours a day without a break.

Since we do not have any claim by Bukhari or another "holy" person regarding Bukhari's ability to inflate time, create time within time, or slow down time, we assume he worked like a super human being limited by the natural law.

With these assumptions, Bukhari who lived 60 years, between 810-870 AC, would need 60,000 days, or 164 years. In other words, he would need more than a hundred years to be able to do what he was bragging about.

Yes, this Bukhari and his ilk have hijacked Muhammad PBUH, and have replaced the light of the Quran, with the darkness of ignorance.
Arabic fancy jargon are frequently used to impress non-Arabs to overwhelm them into believing that the "experts" indeed have an incredible amount of special knowledge; perhaps specially granted by God.

The "expert" might evaluate the trustworthiness of one of the narrators listed in the chain, by various contradictory rules already established by previous hadith scholars. The hadith can then be classified in one of the numerous ranks of authenticity and thus discarded in favor of another one.

Only a handful hadiths, which are called mutawatir (allegedly narrated by many people), may escape ending up in the trash via an arbitrary scrutiny of a determined scholar.

Ironically, there is not even a consensus on the mutawatir hadiths. They do not call it "trash can" but they have invented fancy names to label how deep and stinky their cans are, labeling them mursal, hasan, daif, mawdu, etc.

If you are a muqallid, that is a blind follower of a particular sect or order, then you pick what they have already picked for you.
Your choice might be more limited with the leftover hadiths evaluated by the scholars, but you can be sure that by even staying as a muqallid in a particular sect, you will find plenty of room for wiggling around to make up your own religion.

But, you can be sure that your choices will be limited to medieval Arab, Jewish and Christian cultures. If you are living in a modern metropolitan city, you may not be able to escape developing multiple personalities separated from each other by two millennia.

Considering that most of the hadith narrations are ahad, that is allegedly narrated by only one person from Muhammad PBUH, their authenticity can always be challenged by how you may personally deem the chain of narrators and the hadith books.

This provides many opportunities to hatch and mutate numerous custom-made religions, sects, sub-sects, orders, or sub-orders out of the mishmash collection of medieval culture.

This peculiar aspect of hadith collection is well described by the prophetic verses of the Quran: "Shall we treat the muslims (peacemakers, peaceful submitters/surrenderers) like the criminals? What is wrong with your judgment? Do you have a book where you can find anything you wish?" (68:35-38).

======================================
NOTE: Extracts, narration, paraphrases and replication from multiple sources. Please contact LMU if you require references.

Liberal Muslims United
WHAT HADITHIST WONT TELL YOU ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HADITHS AND HOW THEY PORTRAY OUR DEAR PROPHET.
======================


The falsifiers (of the attributes, personality and deeds of our dear Prophet as described in Hadiths and other man-made literature) have presented a concoction of medieval Arab, Pagan, Jewish and Christian culture as good examples of the messenger. However, if you look at the context of the verse 33:21, the good example has been described as the messenger's courage and his constant remembrance of God. They extended this good example to irrelevant individual or cultural behaviors. For instance, they sanctified the beard and turban, ignoring the fact that the Meccan idol worshipers, such as Amr bin Hisham (aka, Abu Jahl) and Walid b. Mugiyra also had long beards and big turbans.

What is worse, the actions and words ascribed to prophet Muhammad PBUH have depicted him with a character that is far from exemplary.

The hadith books portray the prophet as a phantasmagoric character with multiple personalities. That character is more fictitious than mythological gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Pan, Poseidon and Aphrodite. He is a pendulous character, both bouncing up to deity, and down to the lowest degree. He is both wise and moronic. He is sometimes more merciful than God and sometimes a cruel torturer.

He is both perfect and criminal, humble and arrogant, chaste and a sex maniac, trustworthy and a cheater, illiterate and educated, rich and poor, a nepotistic and a democratic leader, caring and a male chauvinist, a believer and a disbeliever, prohibiting hadith and promoting hadith.

You find numerous conflicting personalities presented as an exemplary figure. Choose whichever composite character you like out of thousands of different examples. Those with preconceived ideas may go fish out hadith to support any personality or role model they want to carve out of the hero called Muhammad PBUH.
Want a terrorist? You will find a few hadiths to justify it. He did after all, according to Bukhari, justify killing women and children in battle.

Want a lamb? You will again find a few hadiths to depict him that way. When the children of Taif stoned him, he prayed for them.
Hadith books contain almost anything you wish, especially about Muhammad PBUH. You may find an extremely kind and nice Muhammad PBUH besides a cruel torturer one.

You may find Muhammad PBUH to be a person with great morals on one page and on another page, you will see him a pedophile.
You will find Muhammad PBUH pointing at the moon and splitting it into two pieces letting one piece fall into Ali's backyard, and on another page, you will find a Muhammad PBUH incapable of reading a simple letter.

Hadith books, by their very nature, are perfect sources for such abuse. They contain fragments of hearsay that were produced within several centuries with multiple authors, numerous agendas, inconsistent language/terminology, unreliable and fragmented contexts, and divisible or severally liable authorities.

An "expert" can subject almost any hadith he dislikes to one of the rules of procedure called usul ul-hadith with multiple standards. The evaluation of the narrator by using another hearsay, partisanship, tribalism, racism, or personal scrupulousness, is called "jarh" and "tadeel" simply meaning, "trash" and "save."

For instance, the most prominent Sunni hadith collector Bukhari who grew up in Bukhara, collected hadiths two hundred or so years after the departure of Muhammad PBUH. This story collector, while bragging about how meticulous he was, claims that he once traveled for about a month to hear a particular hadith from a narrator. When he visited him, he saw him deceiving his horse to the barn with an empty bag. Consequently, our meticulous Bukhari gave up from collecting the story he was going to report! In other words, he used the tool of "jarh" (trash) to cross over that particular narrator.

Looking at the quality of the 7275 hadiths he allegedly picked out of 600,000 reported hadiths (99% defective material!), we can easily infer that he was not very lucky or did not have very good eyes in witnessing thousands of more deceivers with their horses.

Ironically, this Bukhari narrates hadith from drunkard and oppressive Umayyad governors, and hundreds of hadith from Abu Hurayra who according to Bukhari himself was considered a congenial liar and fabricator by his prominent peers such as Omar, Ibn Abbas and Aisha. Either Bukhari was himself a deceived horse or another deceiver.

Let's sidetrack here and do a simple calculation. Bukhari, in his introduction, uses a first-class sales pitch according to the standards of the medieval era. He, or the later editors and promoters of his collection, try hard to depict the portrait of a devout, genius, scrupulous, and steadfast scholar. Although his Christian counterpart, St. Paul, was more articulate and more cunning in his self-promotion, history is a witness to the fact that Bukhari has done a similarly good job in another market.

In the introduction of the collection called Bukhari, we learn that this celebrated hadith collector endured long trips, occasionally from one country to another, just to collect one hadith. We also learn that he was very careful in his evaluation of the chain of narrators; he was so pious that he performed ablution and prayed before recording each of his hadiths.

We might be surprised to see, in the same section of this solemn promotional introduction, some funny animated clips too. For instance, we learn that some of the prophet's companions witnessed a group of monkeys stoning an adulterer monkey in the jungle (perhaps that provided some inspiration and imagination for later hadiths narrations involving the story of the holy hungry goat).

Well, let's do some calculations...

- Let's assume that Bukhari told us the truth regarding the 600,000 hadiths he listened to and evaluated.

- Let's also be extremely generous to Bukhari and assume that on average it took him only one hour to go, interview, and evaluate each of the 600,000 hadiths, 99% of which he would later trash.

- Let's assume that he started wandering around, seeking hadith narrators, listening to them, and evaluating the chain of narrators from dawn until dusk.

- Let's assume that all his days were summer days, so that he worked ten hours a day without a break.

Since we do not have any claim by Bukhari or another "holy" person regarding Bukhari's ability to inflate time, create time within time, or slow down time, we assume he worked like a super human being limited by the natural law.

With these assumptions, Bukhari who lived 60 years, between 810-870 AC, would need 60,000 days, or 164 years. In other words, he would need more than a hundred years to be able to do what he was bragging about.

Yes, this Bukhari and his ilk have hijacked Muhammad PBUH, and have replaced the light of the Quran, with the darkness of ignorance.
Arabic fancy jargon are frequently used to impress non-Arabs to overwhelm them into believing that the "experts" indeed have an incredible amount of special knowledge; perhaps specially granted by God.

The "expert" might evaluate the trustworthiness of one of the narrators listed in the chain, by various contradictory rules already established by previous hadith scholars. The hadith can then be classified in one of the numerous ranks of authenticity and thus discarded in favor of another one.

Only a handful hadiths, which are called mutawatir (allegedly narrated by many people), may escape ending up in the trash via an arbitrary scrutiny of a determined scholar.

Ironically, there is not even a consensus on the mutawatir hadiths. They do not call it "trash can" but they have invented fancy names to label how deep and stinky their cans are, labeling them mursal, hasan, daif, mawdu, etc.

If you are a muqallid, that is a blind follower of a particular sect or order, then you pick what they have already picked for you.
Your choice might be more limited with the leftover hadiths evaluated by the scholars, but you can be sure that by even staying as a muqallid in a particular sect, you will find plenty of room for wiggling around to make up your own religion.

But, you can be sure that your choices will be limited to medieval Arab, Jewish and Christian cultures. If you are living in a modern metropolitan city, you may not be able to escape developing multiple personalities separated from each other by two millennia.

Considering that most of the hadith narrations are ahad, that is allegedly narrated by only one person from Muhammad PBUH, their authenticity can always be challenged by how you may personally deem the chain of narrators and the hadith books.

This provides many opportunities to hatch and mutate numerous custom-made religions, sects, sub-sects, orders, or sub-orders out of the mishmash collection of medieval culture.

This peculiar aspect of hadith collection is well described by the prophetic verses of the Quran: "Shall we treat the muslims (peacemakers, peaceful submitters/surrenderers) like the criminals? What is wrong with your judgment? Do you have a book where you can find anything you wish?" (68:35-38).

======================================
NOTE: Extracts, narration, paraphrases and replication from multiple sources. Please contact LMU if you require references.

An Interview With the Prophet Mohammed
Prophet Mohammed
Muhammad the messenger of God answers some important questions...........

Imagine Muhammad, the messenger of God being interviewed, on various issues confronting the so-called "Ummah"; what would he say?

Q = Interviewer

M = Prophet Muhammad

---------------------------------------

Q: Thank you for giving me this opportunity, Muhammad, to ask you a few questions. It's very kind of you

M: Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds. 1:2

Q: Well , yes of course, sorry about that... Now Muhammad can you tell us who you are or what is your place in Islam?

M: "Surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth there is no god but He; He brings to life and causes to die therefore believe in Allah and I am His messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words. Follow me so that you may be guided." 7:158

Q: So you are a Messenger... and what is your responsibility as a Messenger?

M: "Whether God shall show me (within my life-time) part of what He promised them (the people) or take to Himself my soul (before it is all accomplished) - my duty is to MAKE (the Message) REACH them: it is God's part to call them to account." 13:40

Q: Are you saying that your duty is only to deliver and convey the Message? Don't tell me you just recite it parrot fashion without teaching or explaining it?

M: "God sent the prophets with Clear Signs and the Book of Zaboor; and God sent down to me (also) the Message that I may EXPLAIN clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought." 16:44

Q: OK, so you explain the Message... but tell us how do you explain it?

M: "God sent down the Book to me for the express purpose, that I should make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe." 16:64

Q: Wow! You use the Book to explain the Book?? But... but how is that possible?

M: "One day God shall raise from all peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and God shall bring me as a witness against these people and God sent down to me the BOOk EXPLAINING ALL THINGS, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims." 16:89

"And GOD HAS EXPLAINED TO MAN, IN THIS QURAN, every kind of examples YET the GREATER part of men refuse (to receive it) except with ingratitude!" 17:89

"I am commanded not to move my tongue concerning this (Quran) in order to make haste therewith. It is for God to collect it and to promulgate it: But when God has promulgated it, I follow its recital (as promulgated): Then it is FOR GOD TO EXPLAIN IT (and make it clear)" 75:16-19

Q: So the Quran explains itself and Allah explains it too...hmmmm. But come on Prophet, I mean you must be more than just a Messenger? I have heard fantastic things about you. Please don't be modest.

M: "I am NO MORE THAN A MESSENGER: many were the messengers that passed away before me. If I die or am slain, will you then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, NOT THE LEAST HARM WILI HE DO TO GOD; but God (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude." 3:144

Q: Hang on a minute Muhammad, you are saying thing which is so contrary to what the majority of the community believe.. hey! Just one...

M: "And MOST men will NOT BELIEVE though I desire it eagerly. And I do not ask them for a reward for this; it is nothing but a reminder for all mankind. And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth which they pass by, yet they turn aside from it. And MOST of them DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH WITHOUT ASSOCIATING PARTNERS (with Him)." 12:103

Q: I wonder if this is why your name is always associated with Allah's... hmm..hmm. Now Prophet, coming back to what I was going to ask you...I have always heard the Learned Religious Scholars (LKS) say that the Quran needs to be explained by you. What do you say?

M: "And no question do they bring to me but God reveals to me the truth and the best explanation." 25:33

Q: You are saying that the Quran is its own best explanation? Wow!! I must test that... and every question can be answered from the Quran. No, I won't ask you if the Quran can tell me how to repair my television. I'll leave such questions to the mischief makers... otherwise they can't justify their existence as a test for me!! But still, I have heard that the Quran is difficult to understand... I mean isn't the Book difficult to understand without anyone else explaining it?

M: "God has indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember: then is there anyone that will receive admonition?" 54:17

Q: Amazing! The ummah says one thing, their LRS say one thing and Allah says something completely different! Now.. I understand that you are also a model to be followed?

M: "You have indeed in me a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah." 33:21

Q: Are you the only model for Muslims to follow?

M: "There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever - unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone." But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! In Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal." 60:4

"There was indeed in them an excellent example for you to follow- for those whose hope is in Allah and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly Allah is free of all needs, Worthy of all Praise" 60:6

Q: If you don't mind my asking, are you given any model to follow Muhammad?

M: "God has taught me the inspired (Message); "Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith, and he joined not gods with Allah." 16:123

Q: Hold on a bit here now.... Muslims are to follow you and you are to follow Ibrahim as a model.... Now what in the world do you follow? I mean are we to sleep at the exact way you sleep and not to use colgate; you sure didn't??

M: "I follow that which is inspired in me, and I forbear until Allah gives judgment. And He is the Best of Judges." 10:109

Q: Ah I see! How very stupid of me to even ask that question! Of course.. You followed the Quran and for us to follow you must mean to follow the Quran. Some people say we must eat and dress like you, but these things are not in the Quran. What will you say to God about this?

M: "O my I.ord! Truly my people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense." 25:30

Q: Prophet... I feel like crying when I hear all this.. Now what do you do when people turn away whenever the clear verses are recited. Please help me here.

M: "I have proclaimed the Message to you all alike and in truth; but I know not whether that which you are promised is near or far." 21:109

"My people reject this, though it is the truth. Not mine is the responsibility for looking after your affairs." 6:66

Q: Well.. There are lots more to ask you... but that's all for now I hope at the next interview I can get your views about the fairy tales spun about you in your name...

M: "What has come to me by inspiration is that your Allah is One Allah: will you therefore bow to His will in submission?" 21: 108

Q: Thank you dear prophet. Salam.


Taken from Signs Magazine

Salam Dear All

We read: [2:190] AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression - for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

If above is the rule, then how can we explain the early expansion of Islam by the righteous caliphs? Were they threatened and responded? Were they invited by oppressed people to free them of their misery by getting rid of tyranny? Was it a preemptive strike? Were they attacked and the attackers ended up losing power and territory? Some claim lands of certain kings were invaded because they refused to respond positively to letter of the blessed Messenger inviting them to Islam.

There are some Muslims who believe the Muslims, when they have sufficient power are to conquer the rest of the world and impose Islamic justice and system. They are, therefore, accused of being double talkers. They are accused of talking peace only when they are weak but as soon as they have the might and the means, they will wage a war.

Thanks.

Salam All

What would be the correct translation/interpretation of Verse 2:186?

2:186 [Bilal] When My servants ask you concerning Me, I am indeed near. I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calls on Me. Let them also, willingly, listen to My call, and believe in Me, that they may walk in the right way.

2:186 [Asad] AND IF My servants ask thee about Me - behold, I am near; I respond to the call of him who calls, whenever he calls unto Me: let them, then, respond unto Me, and believe in Me, so that they might follow the right way.

We all know that each and every prayer is not fulfilled by Allah.  Although some of us may pray for years for some wishes to be fulfilled, but they are not.

So, does Allah listens or does He respond?

Thanks.

Boston Bombing Suspect Posted Video on Al Qaeda Hadith Prophecy on YouTube
—By Adam Serwer
Fri Apr. 19, 2013 5:45 AM PDT

The deceased suspect in the bombing of the Boston marathon, which killed three and injured more than 170, appears to have posted a video extolling an extremist religious prophecy associated with Al Qaeda to his YouTube page.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the 26 year-old brother of the second Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had a YouTube page where he posted religious videos, including a video of Feiz Mohammad, a fundamentalist Australian Muslim preacher who rails against the evils of Harry Potter. Among those videos is one dedicated to the prophecy of the Black Banners of Khurasan which is embraced by Islamic extremists—particularly Al Qaeda. The videos posted on what appears to be Tsarnaev's YouTube page may shed light on the motivations for the attack on the Boston Marathon. The prophecy states that an invincible army will come from the region of "Khurasan," a large portion of territory in central Asia.
"This is a major hadith (reported saying of the prophet Muhammad) that jihadis use, it is essentially an end-time prophecy," says Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy "This is definitely important in Al Qaeda's ideology." In The Black Banners, former FBI agent Ali Soufan's book about his pursuit of Al Qaeda that is named after this prophecy, Soufan describes the prophecy this way:

Khurasan is a term for a historical region spanning northeastern and eastern Iran and parts of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and northwestern Pakistan. Because of the hadith, jihadists believe that this is the region from which they will inflict a major defeat against their enemies—in the Islamic version of Armageddon.

The older Tsarnaev seems to have posted the video four months ago under the username "muazseyfullah." According to Zelin, "Mu'az is usually a name," and "Sayf Allah means sword of God." Here is the video:
According to Soufan's book, "It's not a coincidence that bin Laden made al-Qaeda's flag black; he also regularly cited the hadith and referenced Khurasan when recruiting, motivating, and fund-raising." Soufan adds that Al Qaeda operatives he interrogated were often convinced that by joining the extremist group they were fulfilling the prophecy. Soufan states that the origin of the "black banners" hadith—and whether the prophet Muhammad ever said it—is questionable.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/boston-bombing-suspect-posted-video-al-qaeda-prophecy-youtube

Salam Brother Joseph

I was hoping you would, on your Facebook page, include a line or two condemning the disgusting and heinous attacks on innocent people in Boston. Wonder if you are working on one?

We need to stand up united against terror and blast those who, through such acts, not only end up giving Islam a bad rap but turn people off.

Regards,

Dear All, Salam

Strange indeed is the response of some of us when we point out some success stories in the West on good governance, science, technology, medicine, ethics, accountability, justice system, cleanliness, equality, social welfare systems, etc.

They response by quoting verses from the Quran that say:

2:212 Beautified seems the life of this world to the rejecters, and they ridicule the believers who uphold Permanent Values and look beyond instant gains. Those who live an upright life will be higher in degrees on the Day of Resurrection. Allah provides without stint to His creation according to His Law that does not discriminate between people. He is the Sustainer of all humanity (114:1)

3:14 Beautiful for mankind is love of the joys that come from women and children, and heaps of gold and silver, and branded horses, and cattle and well-tilled land. That is comfort of the life of the world. Allah! With Him is a more excellent abode. (Believers in the Divine Laws see this comfort as the means to a higher Goal --- Service --- Self-actualization --- Paradise)

(O Messenger) Say, "Shall I inform you of something better than these, with which those who walk aright will be rewarded by their Lord? Gardens with flowing streams beneath, where they will live forever with spouses of spotless character and the Blissful Approval of Allah. Allah is Seer of His servants."

In other worlds, Muslims must not seek excellence in this world and live like beggars, not contributing towards science, medicine, technology, good governance, proper justice system, social welfare, etc. etc.

Nice way of rationalizing azaab like conditions and giving them a religious twist to make people feel better!!

Dear All, Salaam

We have a whole "industry" running on future predictions of the blessed Nabi (S). Does the Quran support him having knowledge of future events?

We have people waiting for Mehdi and Eesa, Mujaddids at the start of each century; prediction of wayward scholars misleading the Ummah;  Arabs building skyscrapers; Quran aloners,  Dajjal, etc. etc. A new sect of Ahmedis claiming to be true and only Muslims was born based on such predictions. Each sect find something in predictions to justify their existence.

Can someone provide evidence from the Quran proving that the blessed Nabi had knowledge of future events? Thanks.

 Salaam Dear Friends.

How would you respond to a question like this:

"....There is no doubt that misusing or misapplication of any law is wrong whether the law pertains to blasphemy or some other issue. However, the question is should we simply reject the blasphemy law(s) on the grounds that Quran does not include Blasphemy among other punishable crimes.

Was it absolutely necessary that the punishment for blasphemy be prescribed in Quran ''explicitly'' before Islamic states could penalize blasphemous people? Does an earthly punishment for any crime necessarily have to be prescribed in Quran explicitly? In logic, there is something called '' Drawing Inference'' from a set of given statements. Is it possible that some things are implicitly stated in Quran rather than stated in explicit words?

There is a verse in Quran which talks about punishing those who spread ''Fisaad" or corruption on earth. What if an Islamic government infers based on the aforesaid verse a punishment for blasphemy arguing that the act is tantamount to causing disruption or fisaad on earth. After all, no matter what religion, when an act of insult is committed against anything sacred in any religion, it is a gross misconduct that has the power to cause disruption in society by hurting people's religious feelings and emotions. Pragmatically speaking, the act of blasphemy causes rash and anger among a huge number of people in a country where the act is committed. Shouldn't the perpetrator be punished for disturbing the peace in a country especially when the perpetrator commits this act knowingly and willfully? Yet, this is not to say that blasphemy should be punished by death.

Pragmatism is an approach that is becoming prevalent in legal systems across the world. Based on this approach, some acts are punished just based on the consequences which may result after the commission of the act. ...."

Thanks in advance !!



Please kindly share your thoughts if and when you have time.

Mubashir

Salam Friends,

Are the following verses addressed to the blessed Muhammad or mankind in general?

[Bilal]
87:6 By degrees We will teach you to declare the message, so you will not forget,
87:7 Except what God wills, for He knows what is manifest and what is hidden.

Many translators assume that they are addressed to Muhammad and while trying to explain it, end up with the theory of abrogation.

[Haleem]
87:6 [Prophet], We shall teach you [the Quran] and you will not forget––

87:7 unless God wishes; He knows both what is open and what is hidden––

Would appreciate a better and clear understanding. Thanks.

Salaam Friends

The following verse is quoted to justify hurting/killing/destroying properties of those who insult the blessed Nabi. A couple days back according to media reports, over hundred homes were burnt down and their contents destroyed in Lahore, Pakistan because a mob was enraged over a Christian man who reportedly insulted the Nabi (SWS). BTW what kind of Islamic justice was the mob trying to enforce in punishing the whole neighborhood for the alleged crime of one man?

33:57 Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next- He has prepared a humiliating torment for them-

Question: Can the above verse be used to punish any body who offends the Nabi?

Thanks.

Dear All, Salaam. Allow me to share the following with you. It will illustrate how ahadith and fabricated stories of history are used to justify fraud. I am utterly shocked and speechless over the rationalisations used here in the name of Allah and His Rasool:

UK: Unemployment Benefits to Finance Jihad

by Soeren Kern

February 28, 2013 at 5:00 am
"The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-believer]. You work, give us the money." — Anjem Choudary

A radical Islamic cleric who lives off charity of the British welfare state has been filmed urging his followers to quit their jobs and claim Charity of Government unemployment benefits so they have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims.

Excerpts of the speech, published by the London-based newspaper The Sun on February 17, have drawn renewed attention to the growing problem of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere, who are exploiting European Charitable welfare systems.

In the video, Anjem Choudary -- a former lawyer, who has long campaigned to bring Islamic Sharia law to Britain and other European countries (here, here and here) -- is recorded as saying that Muslims are justified in taking money from non-Muslims.




Speaking to a group of Muslim men, Choudary mocks non-Muslims for working in nine-to-five jobs their whole lives. He says: "You find people are busy working the whole of their life. They wake up at 7 o'clock. They go to work at 9 o'clock. They work for eight, nine hours a day. They come home at 7 o'clock, watch EastEnders [a British soap opera], sleep, and they do that for 40 years of their life. That is called slavery. ... What kind of life is that? That is the life of the Kuffar [a non-Muslim]."




Choudary urges fellow Muslims to learn from revered figures in Islamic history, who only worked one or two days a year. "The rest of the year they were busy with Jihad [holy war] and things like that," he says.

Choudary continues: "People will say, 'Ah, but you are not working.' But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslims]. So we take Jihad Seeker's Allowance."




At this point, Choudary takes a page from the late Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. In a 2006 sermon entitled, "Allah is Preparing us for Victory," al-Awlaki said that robbery and extortion of non-Muslims was the strategy the Islamic Prophet Mohammed prescribed for conducting Jihad, the central mission of Islam.




Al-Awlaki said: "Leave the farming to the people of the book [Jews and Christians], you go and spread the religion of Allah [through jihad]; they will farm and they will feed you; they will pay Jizya [Protection Money], they will pay Kharaaj [tribute], if the sustenance of the Prophet Mohammed was through Ghaneema [plunder] it must be the best and better than farming, business, shepherding and better than anything else because Mohammed said: 'My sustenance comes beneath the shadow of my spear.'"




Accordingly, the British-born Choudary states that Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of Jizya, Protection Money tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims, and a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In another video, Choudary says: "We take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [Allah is great]. We take the money. " He then adds: "Hopefully there's no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this."




Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a rather comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for by British taxpayers, year after year. In 2010, for example, The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 ($38,000) a year in (British Government Charity of) welfare benefits.

Among other handouts, Choudary receives £15,600 a year in Housing Benefit Charity to keep him in a £320,000 ($485,000) house in Leytonstone, East London. He also receives £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 income support Chaity and £3,120 in child benefits Charity from British Government. Because his welfare payments are not taxed, his income is equivalent to a £32,500 ($50,000) salary.

By comparison, the average annual earnings of full-time workers in Britain was £26,500 in 2012.




According to The Sun, the university-educated Choudary is "notoriously vague about whether he works or has other money coming in. He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organization on a shoe-string wage, which allows him to claim income support and free time to spread his message. Asked during a radio interview this week if he worked, he replied: 'Well, what I do is my business. I don't think it is important.'"

During an interview with BBC Radio 5 on February 17, Choudary was equally evasive on his sources of income. (The radio interview begins at 00:57 in the video linked here.)




Although analysts are divided over the question of how many followers Choudary actually has, no one disputes the fact that he is far from alone in exploiting the British welfare system.

Consider the issue of polygamy. Although the practice is illegal in Britain, the state effectively recognizes the practice for Muslim men, who often have up to four wives (and in some instances five or more) in a harem.

Social welfare experts believe there are at least 20,000 bigamous or polygamous Muslim unions in England and Wales. If the average size of such a "family" is 15 people, these numbers would imply that around 300,000 people in Britain are living in polygamous families.




According to British law, a Muslim man with four wives is entitled to receive £10,000 ($15,000) a year in income support alone. He could also be entitled to more generous housing and council tax benefits to reflect the fact that his household needs a bigger property.

The result is that the more children produced by Muslim polygamists, the more state welfare money pours in for their wives and themselves. By having a string of wives living in separate homes, thousands of Muslim immigrants are squeezing tens of millions of British pounds from the state by claiming benefits intended for single mothers and their children.




Those women are eligible for full housing benefits -- which reach £106,000 ($250,000) a year in some parts of London -- and child benefits paid at £1,000 ($1,500) a year for a first child, and nearly £700 ($1,000) for each subsequent one.

Welfare payments are also sent abroad to support children who live outside Britain.




* In December 2010, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, said that Muslim immigrants who send a portion of their welfare payments to families back home are "heroic." She also said the government should make it easier for them to send the money home, and called for tax refunds to encourage more immigrants to follow suit, "in particular those who paid for their children to be educated in the Third World."

Another point of contention involves British taxpayers who are spending millions of British pounds to house unemployed Muslim immigrants in luxury homes across the country.




* In August 2012, for example, Palestinian refugee Manal Mahmoud was given a new taxpayer-funded property after she and her seven children trashed a £1.25 million townhouse they had been living in in Fulham, West London. Mahmoud, who came to Britain in 2000 with her husband before they split up, says, "I am entitled to live in a house like this, even if I don't pay for it -- and get benefits."




* In July 2010, Somali asylum seekers Abdi and Syruq Nur and their seven children, after complaining that their home in the Kensal Rise area of Brent was in a "poor" area, were given a £2.1million house in Kensington (one of Britain's most exclusive addresses) at a cost of £8,000 a month to the taxpayer. After Nur lost his £6.50-an-hour job as a bus driver in 2009, the family is totally dependent on state benefits. The new home is believed to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit




* In February 2010, it emerged that Essma Marjam, an unemployed single mother of six, receives more than £80,000 a year from British taxpayers to pay the rent on a £2 million mansion in an exclusive London suburb located yards from the house of Paul McCartney. Marjam also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefits, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

Marjam said, "I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm entitled to a five-bedroom house. I was in a three-bedroom council house but I needed a bigger place once my new baby came along. So the council agreed to pay the £1,600 a week to a private landlord as they didn't have any houses big enough. I'm separated from my husband. He's a solicitor in Derby, but I don't know if he's working at the moment. He doesn't pay anything towards the kids. Things are quite difficult between us. The house is lovely and very big, but I don't have enough furniture to fill it."




* In November 2009, it was reported that former Somali asylum seeker Nasra Warsame, her seven children (aged from two to 16) and her elderly mother are living in a luxury £1.8 million five-story house in central London. Annual rent for the house costs British taxpayers £83,200.

Warsame's husband, Bashir Aden, and another of their children, are living in a separate property in nearby Camden. He said they live separately because the family is too big to fit under one roof. His two-bedroom flat is also paid for by housing benefit. Both homes are equipped with statutory plasma televisions and computers.




* In October 2008, it emerged that Toorpakai Saiedi, a mother of seven originally from Afghanistan, was living in £1.2million seven-bedroom luxury house in Acton, West London, paid for by British taxpayers. At the time, she was receiving £170,000 a year in benefits, including an astonishing £150,000 paid to a private landlord for the rent of the property, equivalent to £12,500 a month.

Saiedi's son Jawad, a student who admitted he spent most of his time driving around in cars and playing billiards, said, "When the council chose to put us here we did not say no. If someone gave you a lottery jackpot, would you leave it? When I heard how much the council was paying, I thought they were mad."




* British taxpayers have footed the bill for the Moroccan-born Najat Mostafa, the second wife of the Egyptian-born Islamic hate preacher Abu Hamza, who was extradited to the United States in October 2012. She has lived in a £1million, five-bedroom house in one of London's wealthiest neighborhoods for more than 15 years, and she raised the couple's eight children there.

Abu Hamza and his family are believed to have cost British taxpayers more than £338,000 in benefits. He has also received £680,000 in legal assistance for his failed US extradition battle. The cost of keeping him in a British prison since 2004 is estimated at £500,000.

Fellow hate preacher Abu Qatada, a Palestinian, has cost British taxpayers an estimated £500,000. He has also won £390,000 in legal aid to avoid deportation to Jordan.




* The Islamic preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian, obtained £300,000 benefits before being exiled to Lebanon. The money was provided to raise his six children, including Yasmin Fostok, a single mother who makes a living as a pole-dancer in London nightclubs.




* In February 2013, a judge in London acquitted two brothers from Pakistan who swapped houses in an effort to defraud British taxpayers out of £315,000. The Pakistani couples, who have 11 children between them, submitted bogus tenancy agreements for 16 years.

Judge Neil Sanders said, "The two men dishonestly represented through their wives to the London Borough of Redbridge that this was a genuine rental arrangement." But, he said: "You have both worked hard in terms of making a life for yourselves and in many ways the greatest punishment is the loss of your good name."




As for Anjem Choudary, he was also filmed saying that Islam will take over Europe. He said: "Now we are taking over Birmingham and populating it. Brussels is 30% Muslim, Amsterdam is 40% Muslim. Bradford is 17% Muslim. These people are like a tsunami going across Europe. And over here we're just relaxing, taking over Bradford, brother. The reality is changing. We are going to take England: the Muslims are coming."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Dear All, Salaam

[Shakir] 57:28 O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and believe in His Messenger: He will give you two portions of His mercy, and make for you a light with which you will walk, and forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful;

Upon reading this verse, I am wondering if it is addressing those who came to believe in Allah, Muhammad (PBUH) and The Quran, or has it been addressed to those who believed in previous Messengers (Ahl e Kitab)? Why would Muslims be asked to believe when they already believed?

Muhammad Asad has translated the verse in a slightly different way:

[Asad] 57:28 O YOU who have attained to faith!*Remain conscious of God, and believe in His Apostle, [and] He will
grant you doubly of His grace, and will light for you a light wherein you shall walk, and will forgive you
[your past sins]: for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

In his foot note to this verse he writes:

"...*  As is evident from the preceding passage as well as from verse 29, the people thus addressed are the
followers of earlier revelation (ahl al-kitab), and in particular the true - i.e., unitarian -
followers of Jesus..."

If this verse is asking the believers (Muslims) to fear Allah and believe in His apostle then Allah makes a promise to them. Looking at the Muslim world we find majority Muslims fear Allah and believe in His Apostle but still they are not doing too well in the world.

Would appreciate comments from my respected brothers and sisters.

Thanks.

Mubashir

Salam Friends

59:2 [Asad] He it is who turned out of their homes, at the time of [their] first gathering [for war], such of the followers of earlier revelation as were bent on denying the truth. You did not think [O believers] that they would depart [without resistance] - just as they thought that their strongholds would protect them against God: but God came upon them in a manner which they had not expected, and cast terror into their hearts; [and thus] they destroyed their homes by their own hands as well as the hands of the believers. Learn a lesson, then, O you who are endowed with insight!

Question: The People of the Book believe in God. Why would they, then, think that they needed protected against God?
One would think  that their strongholds would protect them against their enemies? Or does it mean that their stronghold would protect them against the Muslim God (who they, perhaps, thought was different than theirs)?

Javed Ghamdi explains his view about Punishment for Apostasy. He seems to be a big believer in "Atmam Hujjat" and says killing of those rejecting Islam and punishment of those who wanted to leave it is Quran-based, but limited to the era of the blessed Rasool. It is not applicable for all other times.

How are we, then to understand scores of verses of the Qur'an that show freedom for others to choose Islam or to reject it which were revealed to the blessed Messenger for the people he was dealing with.

Seems as if he is opening up Islam to the accusation that Muslims talk about peace and tolerance and freedom of religion only as long as they don't have power. Once they do, their story changes.

Javed Ghamdi believes that once a Messenger provides enough proof of his mission (Atmam Hujjat), people have two choices; To accept it or to reject it. If they reject it, they are liable to be punished. He rationalizes it by giving examples of those who were punished by natural disasters when they were warned by previous Messengers including Messenger Lot. In the case of the blessed Messenger Muhammad, he says sometimes Allah punishes the rejecters by believers once they have enough power.

Here is the relevant part from a long article (http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/articles_english_detail.php?rid=1507&cid=301http://monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=445)

2. The Punishment of Apostasy

The answer to the second question is that the punishment of apostasy has arisen by misunderstanding a Ḥadīth. This Ḥadīth has been narrated by Ibn Abbās in the following way:

مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ (بخاري، رقم: 3017)

Execute the person who changes his faith. (Bukhārī, No: 3017)

Our jurists regard this verdict to have a general application for all times upon every Muslim who renounces his faith from the times of the Prophet (sws) to the Day of Judgement. In their opinion, this Ḥadīth warrants the death penalty for every Muslim who, out of his own free will, becomes a disbeliever. In this matter, the only point in which there is a disagreement among the jurists is whether an apostate should be granted time for repentance before executing him, and if so what should be the extent of this period. The Hanafite jurists however, exempt women from this punishment. Apart from them, there is a general consensus among the jurists that every apostate, man or woman, should be punished by death.

In the opinion of this writer, this view of our jurists is not correct. The verdict pronounced in this Ḥadīth has a specific application and not a general one: It is only confined to the people towards whom the Prophet (sws) had been directly assigned. The Qur'ān uses the words Mushrikīn and Ummiyyīn for these people.

I now elaborate upon this view.

In this world, we are well aware of the fact that life has been endowed to us not because it is our right but because it is a trial and a test for us. Death puts an end to it whenever the duration of this test is over, as deemed by the Almighty. Commonly, He fixes the length of this period on the basis of His knowledge and wisdom. However, in case of the direct and foremost addressees of a rasūl (Messenger of Allah), once the truth is unveiled to them in its ultimate form after which they have no excuse but stubbornness and enmity to deny it, they lose their right to live. The Almighty had blessed them with life to try and test them, and since after اِِتْمَام الحُُجَّة (itmām al-ḥujjah6) this trial becomes totally complete, therefore the law of the Almighty in this regard is that generally such people are not given any further right to live and the death sentence is imposed upon them.

This punishment is enforced upon the direct addressees of a rasūl in one of the two ways depending upon the situation which arises. In the first case, after accomplishing اِتْمَامُ الحُجَّة (itmām al-ḥujjah) upon his nation, a rasūl and his companions (rta) not being able to achieve political ascendancy in their territory migrate from their people. In this case, Divine punishment descends upon their nation in the form of raging storms, cyclones and other calamities, which completely destroy them. The tribes of A^d and Thamūd and the people of Noah (sws) and Lot (sws) besides many other nations met with this dreadful fate, as is mentioned in the Qur'ān. In the second case, a rasūl and his companions are able to acquire political ascendancy in a land where after accomplishing اِتْمَامُ الحُجَّة (itmām al-ḥujjah) upon their people they migrate. In this case, a rasūl and his companions subdue their nation by force, and execute them if they do not accept faith. It was this situation which had arisen in the case of the rasūl Muhammad (sws). On account of this, the Almighty bade him to declare that those people among the Ummiyyīn who had not accepted faith until the day of Ḥajj al-Akbar (9th hijrah) should be given a final extension by a proclamation made in the field of 'Arafāt on that day. According to the proclamation, this final extension would end with the last day of the month of Muḥarram, during which they had to accept faith, or face execution at the end of that period. The Qur'ān says:

فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوْا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (5:9)

When the forbidden months are over, slay the Idolaters wherever you find them. Seize them, besiege them and every where lie in ambush for them. But if they repent from their ill beliefs and establish the prayer and pay zakāh, then spare their lives. God is Most-Forgiving and Ever-Merciful. (9:5)

A Ḥadīth illustrates this law in the following manner:

أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ (مسلم ، رقم : 22)

I have been directed to wage war against these people until they testify to the oneness of God and to the prophethood of Muhammad, establish the prayer and pay zakāh. If they accept these terms, their lives will be spared except if they commit some other violation that entails their execution by Islamic law and [in the Hereafter] their account rests with God. (Muslim, No: 22)

This law, as has been stated before, is specifically meant for the Ummiyyīn or the people towards whom Muhammad (sws) had been directly assigned. Apart from them, it has no bearing upon any other person or nation. So much so, even the people of the Book who were present in his times were exempted from this law by the Qur'ān. Consequently, where the death penalty for the Ummiyyīn is mentioned in the Qur'ān, adjacent to it has also been stated in unequivocal terms that the people of the Book shall be spared and granted citizenship if they pay jizyah. The Qur'ān says:

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنْ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ (29:9)

Fight against those among the people of the Book who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Prophet have forbidden and do not accept the religion of truth as their own religion, until they pay jizyah out of subjugation and lead a life of submission. (9:29)

The foregoing discussion, outlines a law of the Almighty. There is a natural corollary to this Divine law as obvious as the law itself. As stated earlier, the death penalty had been imposed upon the Ummiyyīn if they did not accept faith after a certain period. Hence, it follows that if a person among the Ummiyyīn after accepting faith reverted to his original state of disbelief, he had to face the same penalty. Indeed, it is this reversion about which the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said: "Execute the person who changes his faith."

The relative pronoun "who" in the above quoted Ḥadīth qualifies the Ummiyyīn just as the words "the people" (al-nās) in the Ḥadīth quoted earlier are specifically meant for the Ummiyyīn. When the basis of this law as narrated in these Aḥādīth has been specified in the Qur'ān, then quite naturally this specification should also be sustained in the corollary of the law. Our jurists have committed the cardinal mistake of not relating the relative pronoun "who" in the Ḥadīth "Execute the person who changes his faith" with its basis in the Qur'ān as they have done in the case of "the people" (al-nās) of the Ḥadīth quoted above. Instead of interpreting the Ḥadīth in the light of the relationship between the Qur'ān and Ḥadīth, they have interpreted it in the absolute sense, totally against the context of the Qur'ān. Consequently, in their opinion the verdict pronounced in the Ḥadīth has a general and an unconditional application. They have thereby incorporated in the Islamic Penal Code a punishment which has no basis in the sharī'ah.

On Facebook, a Bukari hadith has been quoted where the blessed Messenger is supposed to have said that those who eat Aujora Dates, can stay safe from poison and magical spells.

When someone challenged Ahl e Hadith to prove this by eating these dates and then consuming rat poison, a response came that said (quoting 8:65):

"First Let 20 Quranists (called Parwezis) challenge 200 Kuffars to a fight and prove that they can beat them. If they beat them, they have a point".

So, instead of admitting that the Hadith could have been misreported, they cleverly turn around and indirectly attack the Quran. What a a way to go!!

Please don't miss watching. A real eye opener!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOaxAckFCuQ

: The banned militant organisation Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which claimed responsibility of shooting 14-year-old peace activist Malala Yousafzai in the head, issued a statement Wednesday, using Islamic Shariah to defend the attack.

In the statement sent out by TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan from an undisclosed location, the banned outfit said that although they do not believe in attacking women, "whom so ever leads a campaign against Islam and Shariah is ordered to be killed by Shariah."

The assassination attempt on the life of the young National Peace Award winner has drawn widespread condemnation from the government, political parties and civil society groups, terming it a bid to silent voice for peace and education.

The statement says that it is "not just allowed ... but obligatory in Islam" to kill such a person involved "in leading a campaign against Shariah and (who) tries to involve whole community in such campaign, and that personality becomes a symbol of anti-Shariah campaign."

Malala had won international recognition for highlighting Taliban atrocities in Swat with a blog for the BBC three years ago, when the Islamist militants burned girls' schools and terrorised the valley.

Her struggle resonated with tens of thousands of girls who were being denied an education by the militants across northwest Pakistan, where the government has been fighting the local Taliban since 2007.

The Taliban statement further challenges – with Quranic and religious references – condemnation of the assassination attempt on the tender-aged girl, adding that it is a clear command of Shariah that any female playing a role in "war against mujahideen" should be killed.

"If anyone argues that she was female, and then we can see the incident of killing of wife by a blind companion of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) because she used to say demeaning words for the Prophet and the Prophet praised that act," it argues equating the TTP act with that of a the prophet's companion.

The statement goes on to defend the attack with a reference from the time of Hazrat Khizar, a revered figure in Islamic history who was described as a righteous servant of God and endowed with the qualities of unmatched wisdom and mystic power.

"If anyone argues about her young age, then the story of Hazrat Khizar in the Quran (states that) while traveling with Prophet Musa (AS), (he) killed a child. Arguing about the reason of his killing, he said that the parents of this child were pious and in the future he (the child) would cause a bad name for them," adds the statement.

Malala Yousufzai, who was also nominated for the International Children's Peace Prize by advocacy group KidsRights Foundation in 2011, had raised her voice against the militants' ban on and threats against education for women in Swat.

The Taliban spokesman defends the education-ban in the statement, saying: "Tehrik-i-Taliban's crime wasn't that they banned education for girls. Instead, our crime was that we tried to bring education system for both boys and girls under Shariah. We are against co-education and secular education system, and Shariah orders us to be against it."

The statement further defends the assassination attempt, blaming the media for spreading "propaganda against Taliban mujahideen with their poisonous tongues."

"If anyone thinks that Malala was targeted because of education, that is absolutely wrong, and propaganda of media. Malala was targeted because of her pioneer role in preaching secularism and so called enlightened moderation. And whomsoever will commit so in future too will be targeted again by TTP," it adds.

Zahir Shah Sherazi contributed to reporting for this article.