Search:
From the Archive
A Commentary on Our Previous Article: We Are Getting Bored of the Culture of Slaves!
A Response to Comments on the Previous Article
The Sunnite Religion Contained the Sufi Religion to face the Shiite Religion
The Gaza Solutions
"But Speak to him Mildly. Perhaps he Will Remember, or Have Some Fear." (Quran 20:44)
The Maturity of the US
Jewish Sorrow Justifying the Sorrow of Others
Egyptian President Al Sisi deceive the whole world
Satan and the Wrong Assumptions of Human Beings
Factions in Islam
The Philosophy of Submission
En quête d'un sourire
What It Takes to Be Here
International Quranic Center
Fatwas: Part Forty-Seven
The Two Futures of the Arab World
Introduction of the Book Titled "A Quranist Vision of the Massacre of the Two Mosques in New Zealand"
Dealing with Afghanistan
Symposium on Religion & Democracy
Human Beings and Jinn within a Quranic Vision
Rules of engagement in war of ideas against Jihadists
To define its missions: Facing the terrorist bloody culture in order to terminate its danger

 

Rules of engagement in war of ideas against Jihadists

  Part Two: To define its missions:

 Chapter 2: Mission 2: Facing the terrorist bloody culture in order to terminate its danger

                                                  

 Facing the radicals and their bloody culture is so easy if you are a sincere knowledgeable Muslim scholar having Islam with you against them. Their Sunni Salafi Wahhabi dogmas contradict Islam in its faith, Jurisprudence, values and morals. Reading the Quran according to its unique Arabic Language proves this contradiction between the religion of Islam and this human made doctrine of Wahhabism. In any open discussion in a free world those fanatics are usually defeated. As a matter of fact, they need a powerful dictator regime to impose their dogmas on people and secure it from open free discussion. This is the policy inside the Saudi kingdom, Pakistan, Sudan, Algeria and in Egypt in the time of Mubarak who protected the Salafi trends and for them he persecuted the Muslim Quranist scholars just because they are very successful in facing the Wahhabi dogmas from within Islam.

Because of their very limited resources, the Quranists have only the internet in waging war of ideas against terrorist culture. On the internet, the Quranists published more than thousand articles and researches and books in refuting the Wahhabi dogmas in many aspects.

Let’s give some samples.

 

 Sample one:

The false penalty of apostasy (killing the apostate)

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=3776

Killing the apostate in Sunni Shareeah contradicts Islam

Firstly:  
1 – What is funny about the penalty of apostasy in Muslim human made religion is that although it is the most notorious aspect of the human made Shari’a and it still a controversial issue with only two (Hadeethes: Sayings attributed to the Prophet Mohammed ) to support it, it is applied more than any other punishment in the Shari’a. These two hadeethes are false as they were invented in the Abbasy Empire, about two centuries after the death of the Prophet Mohammed.
2 – Why this penalty of apostasy is famous although it lacks a fundamental religious support in Islam? The answer is one word: Politics. Explaining it needs some historic facts.
Secondly: The false penalty of apostasy in a brief historic account:
1 - In the time of the Prophet Mohamed there was no mention to such punishment. The Prophet Mohamed had established the real Islamic State in Al Madeina (622: 632) based on direct democracy and human rights and the unlimited freedom of belief and speech. (The details in my article: The contradiction Between the Islamic State and the Religious State):
http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=2929

 2-Serious changes had happened during the rule of the righteous Caliphates (632: 661) but Muslims in that time had maintained some aspects of democracy and full freedom of belief and speech. So, there was not any indication to the penalty of apostasy during the rule of the righteous Caliphates.
3 - The Omawy dynasty had taken over the Muslim Empire by its tribal military autocratic regime. They confiscated the human rights and democracy, but during their time (661: 750) they used to kill their enemies and oppositions without any religious justification. They did not need to invent what is known as the penalty of apostasy. (Details in my article: The Islamic History between Democracy and Despotism:
http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=2930

4 - This has happened in the Abbasy dynasty (750: 1258). The Abbasy Empire was a Theocratic autocratic regime, so it had to invent religious justification for its policy. That is why they killed their opposition by inventing the so–called penalty of apostasy. Ironically, the early Abbasy Caliphates had some atheists working for them enjoying prosperity and all the vanities of life like Hammad Ajrad . The penalty of apostasy never touched them while many people were killed by this penalty just because they were against the Abbasy politics or criticized its Caliphates like Ibn Al MoKaffa’a and Bashshar Ibn Bord.
5 - In the Mameluke dynasty (1248: 1517) the penalty of apostasy has dangerously developed by the fanatic Sunni famous scholar Ibn Taymeya (died in 1327). This dangerous development has been revived in our modern history and our recent time by the Wahabism which is restoring Ibn Taymeyah thoughts. Muslim Brotherhood has been planted in Egypt by the Saudi King, the founder of the third current Saudi State Abdel Aziz Ben Saud. So, the Muslim Brotherhood has the same dangerous development of Ibn Taymeya in the field of penalty of apostasy.
Thirdly: Understanding the penalty of apostasy
1 - The penalty of apostasy and the war with the apostates
It is commonly known that Abu Bakr has fought the apostates in the famous (war of apostasy) This has nothing to do with the penalty of apostasy, however. Those apostates in the time of Abu Bakr were rebels who attacked the Muslim state with the objective of destroying it politically and violently. Abu Bakr' had to stand against such rebellion and used force against force in order to protect the infant state. This is what came to be known in history as: "The War with the Apostates," which had nothing to do with the so-called penalty of apostasy.
The penalty of apostasy is supposed to deal with a peaceful person who does not raise a sword. A person who joined Islam, or who was born and lived as a Muslim, but he wanted to leave it and to apostatize, without resorting to violence or fighting the Muslims. The difference is far more significant between the war with the apostates and the penalty of apostasy. Besides, the war with the apostates occurred in the time of Abu Bakr, but the penalty of apostasy was invented much later.
When some Prophet-Companions argued with Abu Bakr concerning his position towards the apostates at the beginning of the crisis, he had never used the so-called Hadeeth which says:” You should kill whoever changes his religion" because it has not yet been invented up till that time!
2 -Two kinds of penalty of apostasy
When one Muslim converts from Islam to another religion, he/she will be given some days to repent and to be Muslim again. If he/she insists to refuse Islam, then he/she must be killed. This is the common meaning of the penalty of apostasy in the human made Sunni religion.
In this regard , Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq - the religious leader of Muslim Brother in the last century – in his book (Fikh Al sunna ) said that this apostate should be given a period of time to repent. If he/she changed his position and announced that he rejected every religion except Islam, then his/her repentance should be accepted, otherwise the "penalty of apostasy" should be carried out! [Fikh –Al Sunnah: part 2 page: 388].
Ibn Taymeyah and his fanatic Sunni school (Including Wahabism and Muslim Brotherhood) have added a new kind of apostasy, namely Al Zindeeq i.e. the heretic. They decided to apply the penalty of apostasy to the Zendeeq, , without giving him/her a chance for a fair trial. They say: It is a must to kill him once we get him/her, kill him/her even if he/she repents and without discussion. Thus he/she is deprived of the right to defend him/herself or to present his/her arguments. In other words, he/she is denied the right to "offer his/her repentance"!!
The reader may imagine that a Zendeeq is someone who is a blasphemous or a disbeliever or an atheist who does not believe in God, his Messengers, and his Books. No! Usually, he/she is a believer. He/she believes in God and His Messengers and His Books, but he/she is a thinker who has an independent opinion. His/her major mistake is that his/her views may differ with those of the Sunni scholars. So, he/she deserves to be killed even if he/she repented. And because he/she is a person of opinion, supported by an Islamic argument and proofs, then the Sunni religious Priesthood deprives such a person of the right to a fair trial which may be granted to a regular apostate who turns back to disbelief.
The real reason here is political one:
Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq says that the Zendeeq is a person who believes in Islam inwardly and outwardly. Thus he believes with his tongue and heart. How then he is considered to be a Zendeeq? The Sheikh says in explanation: "... but he may interpret some of what is necessarily known of religion in a different way from that which the Companions and those who came after them and all the Ummah (i.e. all the Muslims), have agreed upon."
In other words, one is considered to be a Zendeeq because one used one's mind, thought about some matters and came up with new opinions that may differ with what is commonly known by the Sunni human made religion.
3 – Politics again.
Sheikh Syyed Sabiq, in his book " Fikh –Al Sunnah " has provided some examples of that crimes of the Zindeeq such as: making accusations against the Holy Book and the Sunnah and leaves acting upon them preferring to follow the laws made by people, or throws the Holy Book in the dirt, or throws the books of Sunni traditions giving no importance to them or their value ...etc.' [Fikh –Al Sunnah: part 2 page: 384]
Such accusations were not mentioned in the writings of earlier scholars. The reason is that applying the (Wahhaby Sunni) Shariah was not a political issue during the Abbasyd or the Mamluks' eras. But it becomes the slogan of Muslim Brotherhood, So, they use the penalty of apostasy against their oppositions dealing with them as Zindeeq, demanding to kill them without a trail. There has been so many secular and Muslim reforming trends that took a stand regarding against the political agenda of the Sunni Wahabi movements under the flag of applying the Shariah. The so-called moderate Muslim scholars among The Muslim Brotherhood and the official Wahabi scholars usually issue fatwas accusing the reformer Muslims to be apostates to encourage the terrorists to assassin them. This is the cause of my suffering for 30 years as more than 100 fatwas were issued against my life. The most notorious fatwa was issued in June 1992 to punish me and my late friend Dr. Farag Fouda. We together announced the birth of new political party named (The Future party) to face the Muslim Brotherhood culturally and politically. Three days after this announcement, a fatwa against the two of us was issued by organization inside Al Azhar that belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood calling for killing us. After another three days Dr. Farag Fouda was assassinated in front of his office. Al Jama’ah Al Islameyya , head by the notorious leader Omar Abdel Rahman, declared that they killed Dr. Fouda according to this Fatwa. In the court Sheikh Al Ghazali defended the killers of Dr. Fouda saying that Dr. Fouda was apostate and should be killed accordingly. So, I attacked Sheikh Al Ghazaly in many articles proving that he contradicted his own writing. Then I wrote my book (The Penalty of apostasy) to prove that this false penalty contradicts Islam. This book has all the necessary details about this subject.
You can look at my book in Arabic and English here:
http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=523

Fourthly: Penalty of Apostasy contradicts Islam
1- It contradicts the meaning of Islam:
Peace is the origin of the understanding of Islam as a religion as well as in the Arabic language. It is the base of the relationship between Muslims and others. Peace is also the back-bone of the Jihad laws in the Quran. The inward meaning of Islam is to succumb and submit to God alone, pledging allegiance and obedience to Him and Him alone (6:161-163). People have had diversified faiths, even within the same religion or even within the same sect or school of thinking. The Quran confirms that people will be judged for the diversity of their faiths by God alone and only on Judgment day (as found in verses ( 2: 113 , 3: 55 , 10 : 93 , 16 : 124 , 5 : 48 , 39 : 3 , 7: 46 .Any one that claims this right to him/her is claiming divinity upon himself. This is the inward meaning of Islam in dealing with the Almighty God, the Creator, or the inner meaning of the faith that lies inside the heart which will be judged by God alone on the Last Day.
Islam, in dealing with people is (Peace). Any peaceful one is Muslim regardless of his/her faith and culture. God says: “O you who believe enter peace wholeheartedly” (2:208). Thus God ordered the believers to enter peaceful life. We remember here that the salutation of Islam is peace “Alsalamu alikum” or “Peace be upon you” and that peace is one of God’s wholly names, Al salam. All of this expresses the confirmation of peace in Islam and it confirms the fact that belief also means safety and security.
So, killing the peaceful human because of his religious choice is against the meaning of Islam.
2- It contradicts the highest value of Islam: Freedom of belief and freedom of speech
* The Holy Qur’an contains the practical proof supporting the absolute freedom to believe or to disbelieve. This is clearly mentioned in hundreds of the the Qur’anic verses. On the Day of Judgment they will be held accountable for such freedom. At such time they will be asked about the consequences of their choice. God says:” And say, `It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will believe, and let him, who will, disbelieve.”' (18:29). God also say about the Holy Quran : ( Say : Believe in it or not believe in it ) (17 : 107 )
* The general fundamental rule of jurisprudence stated in the Holy Qur’an is: "There is no compulsion in religion). (2:256 ) It clearly prohibits compulsion in joining any religion, in leaving it and in performing its rituals of worship.
What is important to understand is that the general fundamental rule in divine jurisprudence to prohibit compulsion in religion, i.e. in joining or leaving religion, is based on the freedom of humans granted to them by God to believe or to disbelieve, with the understanding that they are going to meet God on the Day of Judgment to give account of their actions.
3- It contradicts the real Shareah of Islam
* The Lord of Glory has mentioned this divine jurisprudence in the Torah. He said about the Children of Israel and the Torah: "And therein We prescribed for them: Life for life" (5:45) which means that there is no justification for killing a soul except when it had committed a murder, i.e. as requital. In Islamic jurisprudence, the penalty for murder has been commuted by introducing an alleviation by which the murderer may be saved from execution if the victim or his family agreed to accept the blood-money. (2:178) .
Thus there is an exception in the rule of: "life for life". Such exception is paying the blood-money. Accordingly, the murderer may not be killed in all cases.
* God the Exalted forbids aggression and made fighting lawful in defense of the state if an aggression was committed against it: "And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors". (2:190) "So, whoso transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent to which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him". (2:194). This means that God the Exalted forbids the Muslims to exceed the law of retaliation in their war with the aggressors. If the aggressor happened to kill ten persons from among the Muslims, then the Muslims are not allowed to kill more than ten persons. This is the law of retaliation in which there is life for Muslims and for all others as well.
This being the case in the legislation for fighting an enemy who committed an act of aggression, then what about dealing with a peaceful person who did not raise a sword?
It is the utmost and extreme injustice to issue a verdict to kill a soul for any other reason outside the law of retaliation, and then to ascribe such unjust verdicts to the religion of God the Exalted, while the religion of God is absolutely free of such horrible acts.
* In order to emphasize this rule, God has made it a fundamental legislative rule and repeated it three times in the Holy Qur’an so that every mindful person may benefit by it. God said in the Ten Commandments mentioned in Chapter 6 "Al-Ana' am": "... and that you slay not the soul the slaying of which Allah has forbidden, except in accordance with the demands of justice. That is what He has enjoined upon you, that you may understand". (6:151)
God said in Chapter 17: "And slay not the soul, the slaying of which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause”. (17:33). In Chapter 25, "Al-Furqan", God the Exalted says among many attributes of the true servants of the Gracious God: "And those who call not on any other god along with Allah, nor slay a person whose slaying Allah has forbidden except for a just cause". (25:68).
* The Holy Qur’an has specifically mentioned the subject of apostasy in four verses but never mentioned any penalty to be applied by the ruler to the apostate. The apostate is left to be dealt with by God Who can punish him in this world and in the world to come.
4 - It contradicts the real Sunna and real history of the Prophet Mohammed
* The true Sunnah, i.e. practice of the Messenger of God, is the practical application of the Qur’anic jurisprudence. Such practice never contradicted the Qur’an. This is what the Messenger' has applied in dealing with the apostates and the hypocrites and the like.
The Prophet' himself has never set up Inquisition Courts for the hypocrites in Medina when he lived in it as the sole and obeyed ruler. The hypocrites represented religious and political opposition. They used to plot against him in times of war and peace, which in any present democratic society, a government would have the right to put them on trial for committing crimes equivalent to high treason.
* The subject of apostasy has also been mentioned frequently in the Holy Qur’an during references about the hypocrites who disbelieved after declaring their faith.
The Holy Qur’an revealed and exposed their state and emphasized their disbelief and apostasy. In spite of this, the Qur’an directed the Prophet to turn aside from them. God says about some of them: "They swear by Allah that they said nothing, but they did certainly utter the word of disbelief, and disbelieved after they had embraced Islam. And they cherished enmity against believers only because Allah and His Messenger had enriched them out of His bounty. So if they repent, it will be better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a grievous punishment in this world and the Hereafter". (9:74)
This means that those people have fallen into apostasy when they uttered the word of disbelief. They disbelieved after they have embraced Islam. They even cherished enmity against the believers but they were not successful in causing them any harm. Such was the testimony of God against those people. Did the Prophet set up Court of Inquisition to investigate their faith, or did he apply to them the alleged penalty of apostasy?
It is only God the Exalted Who will punish them if they persisted in their apostasy, and it is only He Who will accept their repentance if they repented: "So if they repent, it will be better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a grievous punishment in this world and the Hereafter". (9:74)
Similarly, God the Exalted says about some of the hypocrites:
"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again they believe, then disbelieve and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the right way". (4:137).
This shows that some people used to join Islam then apostatize, then join again then apostatize, then at the end they chose to remain disbelievers, even they increased in disbelief. Yet, there is no mentioning of any penalty of apostasy. Their punishment is left to God Who said that He shall not grant them His forgiveness.
Some of them used to hasten to apostate and go back to disbelief which used to sadden the Messenger', but he did not have the right to put them on trial; nor to pass any judgment against them; nor to apply what is known now as `the penalty for apostasy'; nor to set up Inquisition Courts. All what he could do was to feel sad for such people. His Lord tells him in the Holy Qur’an: "O Messenger! let not those grieve thee who hasten to fall into disbelief - those who say with their mouths, `We believe,' but their hearts believe not". (5:41)
God assured him that those who hastened to apostatize and went back to disbelief will have no part in the blessings of the life to come. This would be enough as their punishment. Therefore there is no need to persecute or prosecute them in this life. God says: "And let not those who hasten to fall into disbelieve grieve thee; surely, they cannot harm Allah in any way. Allah desires not to assign them any portion in the life to come; and they shall have a severe punishment". (3:176)
5 - It contradicts the human made history of the Prophet Mohamed.
Thus it is an absolute Qur’anic fact which emphasizes that the Prophet did not know such a penalty for apostasy and never applied it to the hypocrites whom God has testified to their disbelief and exposed their conspiracies.
It is also an absolute historical fact in the biography of the Prophet which emphasizes that the Prophet did not know such a penalty for apostasy and never applied it to the hypocrites whom God has testified to their disbelief and exposed their conspiracies.
Some scholars felt obliged to admit this fact. In his book: "The Prophet's Sunnah between the Jurists and the Traditionists", Sheikh Mohammad Al-Ghazali said disproving the allegation: "When did the Prophet ever give any order to kill the hypocrites? This has never happened. On the contrary, he forbade it".
The conclusion of all this is that as long as the Prophet has prohibited killing the hypocrites, it should be taken as an evidence of the absolute prohibition of killing the hypocrites. And as long as God has testified that the hypocrites have apostatized out of Islam, then the prohibition is a prohibition to kill the apostates. Consequently, it is evidence on our side that the so-called penalty of apostasy is contradictory to Islamic Jurisprudence.
Fifthly: Penalty of Apostasy contradicts the rules of the human made Sunni religion itself.
The alleged penalty of apostasy is based upon only two Hadeethes attributed to the Prophet Mohamed, one of them is reported by Ikremah, the servant of Ibn Abbas. The other was mentioned by Al-Awzae'ee without any authority and without a chain of reporters. It was indeed a precarious situation. Soon after, Imam Muslim reported it in his book ( Sahih Muslim ) after giving it the chain of reporters.
Al-Awzae'ee in his inventing Hadeeth said : "The blood of a Muslim man should not be lawfully shed except in three situations: A life for a life, the married man who committed adultery, and the apostate who left his people".
The other Hadeeth made by Akramah says: "Whoever changes his religion kill him", which is applicable to everyone who changes his religion, including Muslims, Christians and Jews. In its general form, it can literally mean that whoever changes his religion from among the Christians and the Jews and became a Muslim, he/she should be killed.
Is it permissible to put people to death based upon two Hadeethes contradict the Holy Quran , and have been reported by one person?
However: Let us assume that the two Hadeethes defining a penalty for apostasy were true and not false traditions. Let us also assume that the Holy Qur’an does not contradict them both, but does not support them either. The question is: Is it permissible to depend on two Hadeethes to constitute a law in Islamic jurisprudence?
Is it permissible to create jurisprudence based only on two (Ahaad Hadeeth ) i.e. Hadeeth which, the end of the chain of reporters, mentioned only one person?
Is it permissible to put people to death branded as apostates based only upon two Hadeethes?
They have divided the Hadeethes into two categories:
(1) Ahaad, (i.e. those Hadeethes which at the end of the chain of reporters there is only one person who heard it from the Prophet) . However, some scholars consider all the Hadeethes in the written traditions are (Ahaad ). This includes these two hadeethes of the penalty of apostasy.
(2) Mutawatir, (i.e. the Hadeethes which at the end of the chain of reporters there are many persons who have heard the tradition directly from the Prophet) . This kind is not found, or a few only. However, they said that it is very difficult to find a Mutawatir Hadeeth .
Both Hadeethes mentioning apostasy are of the Ahaad traditions.  The question then is: Is it logical to take them as true? And can both be used to constitute jurisprudence?
In the famous Sunni book : "Jurisprudence According to the Four Schools", it is mentioned that the penalties of which the scholars of jurisprudence have agreed upon were three only (for stealing, adultery and accusing an innocent). This proves that the scholars of jurisprudence were not in agreement concerning what is called the penalty of apostasy, in other words, there is no complete consensus among the jurists concerning a penalty for apostasy.
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali, who was so enthusiastic about the penalty of apostasy, has mentioned what contradicted the penalty of apostasy in his book: "The Prophet's Sunnah between the Jurists and Traditionists". He said: "I counted more than two hundred verses in the Qur’an that emphasized freedom of faith, considering that true faith should be based upon personal conviction while compulsion should be rejected. It should be emphasized that inviting people to a religion should be done through clear conveyance of the message". Then he said: "Presenting Islam as if it were a provoking religion and as being thirsty for shedding blood is preposterous and mere fabrication of false charges against God and the Messengers. We have dealt with the subject thoroughly in many other books of ours, yet it is still necessary to speak on the subject again because the lies never end". Then he said: "In these ill-omen days, the differences have become so wide-spread in the Ummah. They killed one another to the degree that the number of those who were killed in internal afflictions has exceeded the number of those who were killed fighting the foreign occupation".
Based on what the Sheikh has said, the so-called penalty of apostasy contradicts all the verses of the Qur’an which emphasized freedom of faith and prohibited compulsion in religion. The sentences which we have quoted from his writings fit exactly those who defend the so-called penalty of apostasy and want to propagate its authenticity, those who have specialized in accusing others of disbelief and apostasy and who are thirsty to shed the blood of Muslims.
Sheikh Al-Ghazali also rejected the idea that the Prophet has ordered to kill anyone from among the hypocrites; and said: "When did it happen that the Messenger of God has directed to kill anyone of the hypocrites? It has never happened, but rather he has prohibited it". In other words, he was pointing out to the fact that the penalty of apostasy did not exist in the time of the Prophet, otherwise, the Prophet would have had applied it to the apostates from among the hypocrites. Also, Al-Ghazali said that a tradition should not be used as an argument if it has serious flaw or if it was odd. The two traditions relating to apostasy are odd and both have serious flaw as long as they contradict two hundred verses of the Qur’an, which were counted by Sheikh Al-Ghazali relating to freedom of faith, and as long as the Prophet himself, as has been mentioned by Al-Ghazali, has never killed anyone of the apostates.
In addition, Al-Ghazali also said that an Ahaad tradition, even if it were true, does not provide certainty. He said: "Claiming that it provides certainty as the Mutawatir traditions is an unaccepted risk".
It means that it is a risk to shed the blood of Muslims depending on a true but not certain tradition. What then if the tradition was not true but a false one?
Sheikh Al-Ghazali clarified the matter concerning the weak traditions which he might not reject on the outset if they were not related to matters of faith and jurisprudence. He said: "It may be the right of those who take interest in the weak traditions to use them outside the circle of beliefs and laws of jurisprudence, because the blood, the property, and the honour are more important and should not be dealt with based on rumors".
Therefore, both traditions of apostasy, which are nothing but "rumors" should not be used as a judicial justification for shedding blood unjustly.
Finally:
Regardless of the Islamic evidence we have, the penalty of apostasy will survive because it is a real political issue in the first place.

Sample two:

 Stoning myth :The Stoning Punishment Contradicts Qur’an Legislation and Islam:

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=2687

1. It is not in Qur’an to stone the adulterer. However, the concept of stoning and its derivatives in Qur’an came in the form of infidels’ threatening of believers and prophets (Hud 91, Miriam 46, Dukhan 20, Yassine 18, Kahf 20, Shua’ra 116). The stoning punishment was found in the contemporary Torah. The Moslems were affected by that and adopted this punishment for married adulterers. This is pure forging as far as Islam is concerned.
2. The punishment of adultery in Qur’an revealed as follows: The adulterers, in case they are caught, shall be flogged 100 lashes in front of crowd of people. The verse Al-Noor, The Light, started with this unique epilogue:” A verse, we revealed and enforced. We revealed in it clear and confirmed verses, so you may realize them”. Then Allah, almighty, immediately said:” The adulterers, male and female, shall be flogged one hundred lashes. Never feel mercy with them in the cause of Allah religion if you believe in Allah and the hereafter. Also, a flock of believers shall witness their punishment”.
It is very difficult to prove the case of adultery. Also, it is difficult to have a unanimous agreement on the occurrence of such act that results flogging. However, it is easy to label a woman that she has bad reputation. Observations might be increased on her bad reputation. Hence, there must be an appropriate punishment for it after proving such bad behavior through four witnesses despite not being caught. This punishment is not flogging. It is by preventing her from mixing with people till she dies or repents and marries. However, this is a negative punishment. God, almighty, says: “And those of your women commit the sin, have four witnesses to prove it. If they testified against them, hold those women in their houses till they die or God may find alternative path from them”. Nissa’a 15. Once she declares her repentance, she will be set free or marry. She will get rid of the characteristic of committing sin.
Also, details were mentioned in Qur’an in the case of an owned maid who commits the sin. If she commits the sin under the authority of her owner (master) and she was forced to do so, no punishment will be performed, as she has no choice. God, Almighty, says: “ Do not force your maids to perform prostitution if they decided to protect themselves so as to pursue the pleasures of this life. And whoever was forced to do so, God is mostly forgiving and compassionate” Al-Noor 33. If the owned maid gets married and frees herself from her master’s authority and commits adultery, her punishment shall be fifty lashes, i.e. half of the punishment of married free women if they commit the same sin. God says: “ If they get married, and commit the sin, their punishment shall be half of those free married women”. Nissa’a 25.
In all cases, the adulterous woman, that is the one who does not repent, is not allowed to marry a believer. This is an additional punishment. God, Almighty, says: “The male adulterer marries only a female adulterer or an infidel and vice versa. This marriage is not allowed for the believers”. Al-Noor 3.
Even Qur’an quotes a very remote example to individuals that might commit adultery and their exempted punishment. This remote case was the Prophet wives. In this case the punishment is two hundred (200) lashes. That’s to say, double of the punishment for free married women. In same token, they have double of the reward for good deeds of the others. God, Almighty, says: “ The women of the Prophet, if any of you commit a proven sin, she shall be punished as twice as the others, and that is surely easy for God to do. And those of you who fear God and do good deeds, We shall reward her as twice as the others, and surely we established for them an honorable reward”. Al-Ahzab 30,31. Since the punishment here has been doubled, the occurrence of the crime has to be proven, as the Quranic phrase “Whoever of you commit proven sin”. Here it is specific for the Prophet women and it is of a great importance and needs to be proven.
The Quranic legislation describes the adultery punishments as a torture or suffering. This means that the villain should stay alive. In other words, no place here fro stoning as it means death. Qur’an, when it mentioned the adultery punishment, did not specify the marital status of the sinner. It came as generic and the punishment was generic also. It says one hundred lashes (100) flogging. So flogging is the suffering.
In case of the owned maid that commits adultery after her marriage, her punishment shall be fifty lashes (50) as God, Almighty, said in Nissa’a 25. So, it was described as suffering. So, those who advocate the stoning of the married person are ignoring God’s saying of half the punishment. Is it possible to halve the stoning? Is there “half” death?
In case of the Prophet women, the Quranic legislation says:” If any one of you, the women of the Prophet, commits a proven sin, the punishment shall be as doubled”. It described the flogging as double the suffering. Is it possible to “double” the stoning? Does the person die twice? Can stoning twice kill the person?
If the man failed to prove that his wife committed adultery and failed to provide witnesses, he can swear before the judge by God four times that he is right. He also, swears for the fifth time that the wrath of God be upon him if he was a liar. In reciprocation, the wife can defend herself by swearing four times by God she is innocent. The fifth would be the wrath of God is upon her if her husband was truthful. This is called “curse” situation. This was revealed in Al-Noor 6-9. What’s important here that God described this punishment as “suffering” or “tormenting”. So, the punishment of the married adulterer is flogging and not stoning. Also, Qur’an legislations deal with an alive adulterer after executing the punishment. Qur’an prohibits the marriage from an adulterer who is addictive to adultery. Al-Noor verse 3 explains that fact. These legislations might not be there if the punishment was death. It also, applies for additional punishment on the divorced adulterer that prohibits her from leaving the house or re-marrying till she pays back some of her dowry.
Moreover, God, almighty, threatens the adulterers to multiply the punishment and stay in it for eternity in the Day of Resurrection if they died insisting on committing this sin. Of course, those who repent shall be exempted. Those God shall replace their sins with rewards. God said in this aspect: “ For those, the tormenting shall be multiplied in the Day of Resurrection and they will stay humbled in it for eternity. Those who repent and do good deeds, their sins shall be replaced with rewards. God is truly the most forgiving and compassionate”. Al-Forqan, 69-70. if the fate of the fate of the adulterer is stoning and hence death, there would not be any chance for repentance and doing good deeds to replace his/her sins. Also, the characterization of adulterer would be dropped to be replaced by the good repentant. God, Almighty, says: “Do not kill the soul that God made it sacred except with righteousness.” Ana’m 151, Isra’a 33. Also, in Forqan 68, God, Almighty, says: “And those who do not believe in any god but Allah, and do not kill the sacred soul but in righteousness and do not commit adultery, whoever does this will gain sins.” It is forbidden to kill the soul except in punishment and this is the Quranic right. The most sacred thing is the human soul and its right in life. In the same token, the biggest crime is killing this soul that created by God. The absolute crime is to devise a legislation that kills this pure soul and then attribute this to God, Almighty, and his Messenger.
The Lie of Stoning in Narrations (Hadith):
1. Although the stoning punishment was invented in Abbasid era, it was never unanimously approved. The contemporary Sunnah scholars admit that Al-Mu’tazala and Rejectionist (Khawarej) rejected the stoning. (Sayyed Sabiq, Sunnah Scholarship, 2/347, the Encyclopedia of Scholarship based on the four dogmas, 5/69 written by Abdel-Rahman Al-Jazzeeri).
2. The oldest narrations about stoning were mentioned in Nowata of Malik in a narration by Mohammad Ibn Hassan Sheibani. The narration started as: (Malik told us that Yahya Ibn Saeed heard Saeed Ibn Mossayyab said: When Omar Ibn Al-Khattab came from Mina …etc). That means the original narrator of this anecdote was Saeed Ibn Mossayyab. He claimed that Omar delivered an oration claiming the existence of the stoning verse in Qur’an, but it was omitted. However, Ibn Mossayyab was two years old when Omar was assassinated. How can a crawling baby telling stories about Omar. So, it is impossible for Ibn Mossayyab to be the narrator. Also, it is impossible for Omar to say something like that. It means that Omar accused the Qur’an of being forged and this is blasphemy. God, Almighty, said: “We revealed this Qur’an, and we are protecting it.” Al-Hijr 9. So, as far as the subject, this narration is false. In this narration, they attribute a verse to stoning that says:” The senile man and women shall be stoned if they commit adultery”. It is very well known the concept of senile does not indicate the marital status. One can reach this stage and stays single. Mohammad Ibn Hassan Sheibani felt this shortcoming in the meaning and realized by commenting on another narration about the Jewish adulterers (Narration no. 694):( Any Moslem man committed adultery with a woman and was married to a free Moslem woman and copulated with her, and then he shall be stoned. This is the “married” man. If he did not copulate with her or she was A Jewish or Christian, then he is not married and no stoning. He shall be flogged with hundred lashes. This is the saying of Abu Haneefah and the majority of scholars). Sheibani (a student to Abu Haneefah and one of the two scholars in the Hanafis) put a specific definition and a correction to the narration of stoning related to Omar that included adulterous “senile” people. In his definition, “senile” was no longer the criterion for stoning the married adulterer, but also, the Moslem who married a free Moslem woman. However, the one who married a Jew or a Christian, his marriage is not complete and no punishment for his adultery.
3. There is another anecdote in Mowata no. 692. This anecdote is completely false under all measures. Malik narrated this anecdote from Ibn Shehab (Al-Zuhry) who narrated this by himself. Al-Zuhry lived towards the end of the Umayyad era and was one of the followers who never met the Prophet, peace be upon him, or lived his time. Even though we read the following in Mowata: (Malik told us that Ibn Shehab told us that a man admitted committing adultery during the reign of the Prophet. The man testified against himself and was ordered to be stoned. Ibn Shehab said: For this, one can incriminate himself by self-confession.
4. The narrations were iterated after Malik. Shafi’e, Bukhari and Moslem wrote them. Sometimes these narrations claim that certain verses in Qur’an did exist and omitted. Bukhari, died yr 256 A.H., narrated from Omar Ibn Khattab, who died 200 years before him, about verses that were omitted from Qur’an and Omar declared them late. Some of these narrations claim that the stoning rite was stemmed from the monkey’s society before Islam. Bukhari narrated in his anecdote no. 3560:” Naeem Ibn Hmmad told us about Hasheem about Amr Ibn Meimoun saying: I saw before Islam a bunch of monkeys stoning an adulterous monkey, and I did the same with them. It seems that the monkeys’ society before Islam was ahead in applying the stoning. Anybody asked about this monkey’s marital status? Did the narrator discuss this issue with the Clergy of the monkeys and how to prove the occurrence of adultery? Did the monkeys use four witnesses? All of these narrations contradicting themselves.
5. Contradiction in narrations:
Contradiction is the main characteristic of Narrations. Two kinds of contradictory characters appear in narrations: partial contradiction in the details of the same story, and major contradiction among different stories. As an example of the latter, Bukhari produced a narration about a man came to the Prophet and admitted committing adultery. The prophet avoided him. The prayer time came and the man witnessed the prayer with the Prophet. He reiterated his confession to the Prophet and demanded to be punished. The prophet said to him: did you not pray with us? The man said: yes. The Prophet said: God forgave your sin. This means that prayer forgives the sins and negates the stoning. This is a stark contradiction with other narrations that are damped with the stoned victims’ blood.
While Bukhari, Shafi’e and Malik narrations emphasized that the punishment for the married adulterer is only stoning, we found that Moslem narrated repeated stories emphasizing in them that the Prophet said: The punishment of the single is 100 lashes and one year exile. The married punishment is 100 lashes then stoning. The danger in these narrations that it made the punishment for the married adulterer was 100 lashes before being killed stoning. This is another contradiction with other narrations.
These stories and anecdotes were written in the books of narrations to become major source of legislation for Moslems. Especially, when the scholars and the storytellers celebrated them and everyone re-iterated these narrations as “real” and “rites”. This was emphasized by the application of these narrations that sent many men and women victims to death based on legislation God never authorized.

Sample three

The False Alarm of Evangelism

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=4262



There is widespread panic from the Western groups of Evangelists that flares up the “Conspiracy Theory” and the winds of Democracy and freedom that has started bothering the tyrants and terrorists. As usual, they have taken refuge under the name of Islam to preserve their power and influence.

In the seventies, they used to scare us of the Western culture saying that it was intellectual invasion and obliteration of our identity. This claim is an implicit attack on our culture and mentality, and now we are awaiting another intellectual terrorist campaign that frightens us of the Evangelism coming with the winds of change and democracy. This attack is addressed, by political tyrants and extremists, to Islam accusing it of the inability to stand before other beliefs. These tyrants are not, in fact, concerned with Islam or Christianity, nor Eastern or Western cultures, but what concerns them is their remaining as a heavy burden on our shoulders, suppressing our breath and usurping our riches, dignity, our dreams and our children’s future. We, in their eyes, are easily lead, directed and frightened, or maybe in a better case scenario, idiots or minors that need their custody and will never mature or be up to responsibility.

The issue of Evangelism amongst Muslims deserves tackling from an Islamic point of view and making a decisive statement on it, and we must start with the religion itself:

1. Belief in Islam is submission to God Alone, to no other god but Him and advocating peace on earth. Thus was the message of all Monotheistic religions in order to establish justice and fairness in all dealings between fellow human beings as well as with God (Iron 25). Rituals and legislations are different in these religions but that is for the sake of excelling (The Feast 48).

2. God, Almighty, does not need our worship nor our struggle as He is the “Absolute” who does not need anybody but everybody needs Him, He is “in need of no one” and “ whoever strives, strives for their own good” Spider 6. “If you disbelieve, GOD does not need anyone. But He dislikes to see His servants make the wrong decision. If you decide to be appreciative, He is pleased for you” (The Throngs 7)

3. It is us that need faith and doing good in order to pass the test in this life. A test that is based on complete choice and freedom in either belief or heresy as each one of us will be solely responsible for his own deeds and choices before God in the Day of Judgment. <lt;br />
4. On this basis guidance is a personal choice; whoever is in the right path it is for his own benefit, and whoever goes astray it is to his disadvantage and bears the consequences in the Hereafter. This is a Quranic truth that was mentioned in several verses to confirm that the prophet himself could not guide anybody (even those he loved), and his duty was restricted to passing the message over and not to guide anybody. Therefore, it is not a human responsibility (whether in the form of government, clergy, ruler, society or religious institutions) to interfere into a person’s religious or intellectual choice. Everyone has complete freedom in what he chooses to believe in and to what he could invite other people to as long as there is no coercion involved. Religious preaching is an entirely free practice and the role of the state in Islam is the protection of people’s moral and material rights, first of which is their complete freedom to be believers or heretics without any prejudice against them. I.e. to guarantee the preservation of such a free environment and its continuity to be independent without any interference that will threaten the freedom of anybody and what he chooses for himself as a creed or religion. This way every individual’s responsibility is true over what he has chosen for himself knowingly or ignorantly.
This is with regards to religion and its principles or what ought to be so. Secondly; is the practice of religion:
Religious practice is the practical application of religion. Usually this practice starts off as ideally as possible but soon after is affected by change and adaptation according to political interests and benefits. Then the change assumes a false authority through the fabricated Hadiths and visions and as time passes by. Thus with these new practices in place the sublime truths of the religion are obliterated to be replaced with practices that are interests related and generally connected with political and economic manipulation which leads people, sometimes, to take an aggressive stance towards Islam altogether without making a distinction between religious facts and the abusive acts of those who manipulate religion in the service of despondency and corruption.

Here gain, let us clarify some points:
1- In the state of the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h religious practice took its best form; hypocrites had complete freedom in advocating evil and prohibiting righteousness and the obedience of God’s messenger. In the same way, believers had the freedom to advocate righteousness, prayer, charity and the obedience of God and His messenger and forbid evil (Ultimatum 67-71). Righteousness in Quranic terminology is whatever is recognized as good, justice, peace, freedom, generosity, love, pity……while evil is whatever is associated with injustice, transgression, manipulation…..
2- Due to political interests, Islamic religious practices turned towards transgressing military campaigns against other nations in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Quran that limits war for self defense only. Muslims formed an Empire that fought against the Romans over the control of the world and thus the false division of the world into two different camps: that of Islam and that of War. Religious minorities within the Islamic Empire turned into second class citizens, if not worse, and the Romans applied the same principle in treating Muslims within their territories. This medieval logic prevailed until Europe emancipated but Muslims saw it live throughout the Ottoman Empire.
3- Muslims started emerging from the medieval cocoon with the reforms of Muhammad Ali in Egypt and Bay in Tunisia. The reform movement that followed the European example prospered although it stumbled against a number of obstacles the most important of which was the despotic military regimes and the Wahhabi tide that revived the worst cultures of extremism and backwardedness in Islam. Saudi Oil, in a way, has become the spokesman of Islam. It had created the movement of the Muslim Brothers and a number of secret and overt organizations that are trying hard to retune the minds of the Muslims according to medieval concepts; one of which is the division of the world into the camp of Islam and the Camp of war.

Military Despotism and religious extremism, together find their justification in terrifying people from the West. According to them, Western culture is an invasion to ours, and their religious dialect with us – to acknowledge peoples’ freedom in religious belief- is Evangelism. Islam, as previously mentioned, affirms complete freedom in belief and religious preaching through conviction and not coercion.
4- The West itself has opened its doors to Muslims and non-Muslims for religious preaching and spreading their beliefs amongst Western Christians in line with the prevailing civilized rights for religious freedom and practice. Extremists have abused this freedom for the call for Wahhabism (and not Islam), and are taking pride in being able to take over churches and convert them into mosques whilst the Copts in Egypt cannot repair a rest room in a Church without a permit from the Head of the state (as per the archaic Ottoman ruling that is still applied to date although the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.)
5- As a result to the west opening its doors to Wahhabism, Wahhabi extremism spread in the West and inside America itself. The Wahhabis did not only abuse the great Western culture that acknowledges freedom of belief but they have also abused Islam that, in fact, stands against all their beliefs and convictions.
6- Justice determines that as long as the West opens its doors for us to preach our religious beliefs freely, the same should be met from our part. We should open our doors to them to freely preach the teachings of their religion amongst us. The West has associated religious preaching with Human rights; i.e. nobody can be forced to convert, but rather they attract people through aids, donations, building hospitals, providing education and other exemplary ways in order to win their conviction without coercion or force. This is completely different to the Wahhabi style of preaching that is based on deception and the spread of hatred of others even of those within their own boundaries.
7- Despite this, the call for Islam in the West is thriving due to the simplicity of the concept of theology in Islam. The conversion of Muslims into Christianity is so minor that it could not be converted into a percentage with relation to the billion and a half Muslims in the world. Yet, the fears of the extremists and tyrants grow against the tide of Evangelism not out of concern for Islam but out of political and religious authority. People are always the victims…..Aren’t they the “Shepherds” and the people the “Herd” according to them? What is a herd other than dumb animals? They worry if the number of herds they own and control decreases. Thus is their vision of their citizens and the reason of their fear of freedom, democracy and enlightenment is that they will turn the herd into the Human beings that God had honored.

Sample four

The False Conviction of The "Territory of Peace& & TerritoryofWar"

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=6315

The common belief in traditional Jurisprudence and amongst extremists is to divide the world into two conflicting camps: the camp of faith, peace and Islam called the "Territory of Islam” and its opponent the West, the camp of disbelief and is called the "Territory of War". In this division, non-Muslim minorities are treated with suspicion and prosecuted as they are regarded as traitors that belong with the outside camp of the enemy; the "Territory of War."

To be fair, this division was not limited to the Arabs and Muslims only, it was the culture of the Middle Ages in general in Europe as well as Muslim Countries. This culture emerged as a result of faith based on internal sectarian, fanatic beliefs and external religious wars with the opposing camp whose price was usually paid by the religious minorities here and there, as well as the defeated camp. As for example per the massacres the Spaniards carried out on the Arab Muslims after the fall of Granada, the last stronghold of Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula. In the same manner Muslims treated the defeated Christians as a people of a lesser value and imposed taxes on them. The Spaniards went as far as to totally eradicate the Muslims and Jews from their country. The fact is, whenever someone is fanatic about his faith in this medieval manner, he becomes more abhorrent of others and seeks to eradicate them. The Spaniards were the most fanatical and the closest to Arabs and Muslims in this sense.

The religious basis for this categorization is the division of Muslims to the nation of "Muhammad" and the Christians to the "nation of Christ". Christians believe that Christ p.b.u.h is their savor, and the majority of Christians glorify him. During the Crusades, the discoveries of new worlds, the mass executions of native nations were all committed in the name of Christ. Generally, the occupation of the Muslim world and the rest of the world took place in modern times by fleets that carried the cross and chanted the teachings of Christianity that are based on love and forgiveness.

Christian tolerance that endorses patience and sacrifice is more clearly visible in the history of our Egyptian Coptic ancestors instead. Egyptian Christianity is different in this respect to Western European Christianity, especially the Spanish one.

Most Muslims in their actual worship glorify Muhammad, believe in his eternal life in his grave, make pilgrimage to him, offer him prayers and believe that he will intercede for them in the Day of Judgment and give them access to Heaven.

Although the Muslim attestation of faith is one: "There is no God except God" as God addresses His prophets saying: " You shall know that: There is no other god beside GOD, and ask forgiveness of your sins", Muslims have made the attestation of two parts instead of one: No god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger. They never say one without the other and in doing so is a disobedience to what God has ordained in the Quran four times to not distinguish between all His prophets.

What is directly implied when one attests that "There is no god but God" is the belief in all God's Messengers that came to confirm this fact: There is no god but God", and one would have believed in all prophets of God without distinguishing between either of them because each one of them struggled, strived and sacrificed for his cause.

God ordained Muhammad to affirm that he is not a unique prophet nor different to the other prophets. He did not know the unknown like other prophets did, he was a mere follower to the revelations and a Warner (The Dunes 9).

Muslims, however, elevate him to the position of deity; in mosques one finds his name at an equal foothold to that of God. In the call to prayer, the testimony of prophecy is made to him alone as well as in all prayers. If one mentions the “prophet” only Muhammad comes to the mind and heart overlooking all other prophets except when he is praised as superior to them.

According to Muslims; Muhammad is the “best of all messengers” the most important, he is the “most honorable”, the “best of all of Adam’s offspring”, was preferred to all other prophets for seven reasons, God created him from light, he’s God’s first creation, was created before Adam, he was already a  prophet when Adam was still mud and water, or perhaps was neither mud nor water as the Sufi Hadiths and fables claim in what is known as the “Muhammadan Truths”. In prayers they make recitations in his glorification instead of the attestation as per God’s saying: “GOD bears witness that there is no god except He, and so do the angels and those who possess knowledge. Truthfully and equitably, He is the absolute god; there is no god but He, the Almighty, Most Wise.” The Amramites, 18

Eventually, they are lead to believe that they are the Ummah (nation) of Muhammad and consider themselves privileged and lucky for this reason.

All this preference to Muhammad over his predecessors of prophets and messengers conflicts with Islam and the faith for which he struggled all his life. This excessive glorification and distinguishing of Muhammad over other prophets is in fact a treachery to his message and a stark contradiction to the greatness of Islam that allowed no room for the glorification of any man or stone.

Nevertheless, this glorification of Muhammad is what made Muslims different to other nations and somewhat superior to them.  It is in fact the basis that divided the world into two camps: that of Muhammad – the Camp of Peace- and that of disobedience and heresy or the Camp of War.

But does the concept of the “nation of Muhammad” conform to the teachings of Quran?

It surely conforms to the fabricated Hadiths, especially the Hadiths of intercession where, for instance, the prophet Muhammad calls on to God in the Day of Judgment:  “my nation, my nation” and Almighty responds in the same manner and rhythm: “my mercy, my mercy”. Evidently God sides up with the nation of Muhammad in this false, fabricated Hadith that is contradictive to Islam.

The concept of “the nation of Muhammad” is contradictive to Islam in the sense that it makes Islam the faith of a group of people or a camp against another camp, in the same way it contradicts the attestation of Unity “there is no god except God”, and contradicts the Quran that has spoken of previous prophets more than it has spoken of Muhammad. In fact it ordained the prophet to follow the path of the previous prophets and made Islam a follower to the faith of Abraham (p.b.u.h). It also confirmed that all its rituals of prayer, fasting, alms and pilgrimage are a continuation of the faith of Abraham and Muhammad has come to mend the distortion that had occurred in this faith.

The term “Ummah” appears in the Quran with different meanings that refer to different things. It could refer to a number of years (Hood 8, Joseph 45), or to good qualities (The Bee 120), or to established atheistic practices and customs (Ornamentation 22, 23), or to a group of people in a specific time or place (Heifer 128, 134). Unfortunately there is no room to tackle all these subjects in detail, but with regards to the meaning established here,  the Quran has used the term “Ummah” to refer to the message of all prophets at all times. God talks about His revelation to all prophets and times: “Such is your nation - one nation- and I am your Lord; you shall reverence Me.” (The Believers 52). Thus, all prophets are one nation and worship one God. This is how things were meant to be but what happened is the interference of politics, conflict and worldly ambitions with faith and so followers split up into different parties, sects, camps and cults. This is the historical summary of every religion before Muhammad. God Almighty says: “Your nation is but one nation, and I alone am your Lord; you shall worship Me alone. However, they divided themselves into disputing religions. All of them will come back to us (for judgment” The Prophets 92. These verses are found in the chapter of the Prophets, after God had related the stories of many of them he concluded that all those prophets are one nation that has One God worthy of worship alone. But what happened was division and difference in convictions which God shall judge on in the Day of Judgment when all shall return to Him.

The true religion of all prophets is Islam; in the sense of peaceful dealing with fellow humans, obedience and submission to God alone and His glorification alone. Every prophet was sent to preach in his people’s tongue: “We did not send any messenger except (to preach) in the tongue of his people, in order to clarify things for them. GOD then sends astray whomever He wills, and guides whomever He wills. He is the Almighty, the Most Wise.” Abraham 4.  This, therefore, means that each prophet conveyed Islam in the tongue of his people, and each one of them reaffirmed that there was no god except God: “We did not send any messenger before you except with the message: "There is no god except Me; you shall worship Me alone." (Prophets 25). The nation of Islam is therefore but a set of principles and ideals focused around faith and the belief in the Unity of God and observing Him in our behaviors, in doing what is good and abstaining from what is bad, sinful, wrong and immoral. These principles were initially adapted by Noah and eventually by Muhammad peace be upon them all.

What reaffirms this theory further is the term “Ummah” addressed to the father of all prophets Abraham p.b.u.h when God praised him in a way that he did not praise any other prophet saying that Abraham was an Ummah: “Abraham was indeed an exemplary vanguard in his submission to GOD, a monotheist who never worshipped idols.” The Bee 120 i.e. he was an Ummah of good qualities. Abraham p.b.u.h is a major figure in the religion of Islam (The Heifer 127 to 137) and whatever values, behaviors and monotheistic religious faith he upheld were upheld by all other prophets peace be upon them all.

At the opposite end of this is the established atheistic beliefs that glorify the predecessors and their common practices and whatever “the Ummah agrees on”. This is also referred to in the Quran as “Ummah”. But in this context it means a legacy of values defended by the ruling elite with the help of the clergy and intellectuals who have an interest to see things remain as they are. God says confirming a social fact: “The fact is that: they said, "We found our parents carrying on certain practices, and we are following in their footsteps." Ornaments 22

The “Nation of Islam” is the values of peace in belief and behavior and these values are open to all to embrace regardless of time, place , tongue, culture, race, sex, social or economic standing. In brief, these are global, human values descended by God to all humans through all monotheistic revelations; they were preached by all prophets, hoped for by all social reformers, followed by all righteous people at all times and places along the presence of a majority that disagrees and conflicts in religion dividing it into sects and cults. The seal message was descended to people in order not to forget the old source of these high values and clarify the same message to all humans. God addresses all human beings with these values as the narrative in the Quran is not addressed to Arabs or Quraysh alone or to the time of the prophet, it is a narrative that addresses all people saying : “O people…”, “O children of Adam….” and when He addresses a sect or a group of people He liberates them from the temporality of time and place and says: “O those who…”.

God is the Lord of all, the creator of all and to Him alone is the return on the Day of Judgment when we shall all be judged. The prophets will be the first to be judged as they are the custodians of the great values of Islam: “The day will come when GOD will summon the messengers and ask them, "How was the response to you?" They will say, "We have no knowledge. You are the Knower of all secrets." The Feast 109, “Then the earth will shine with the light of its Lord. The record will be proclaimed, and the prophets and the witnesses will be brought forth. Everyone will then be judged equitably, without the least injustice.” The Throngs 69

For this reason God tells all people from the very beginning: “O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant.” The Walls 13 i.e. He created them all from the same father and mother, they are all brothers and sisters and has made them different peoples and clans not to conflict and fight one another but to recognize one another. This recognition can only be achieved through peaceful conduct, civilized interaction, acceptance of others, and appreciation of their human experience, cultural heritage, opening over their culture and being tolerant of their difference out of conviction that variety is needed for the prosperity of human civilization. As to the matter of faith; those who are most righteous are the worthier to God, and not those with more wealth, intelligence, knowledge, best family ties, beauty, health or youth. Righteousness is the basis of God’s judgment in the Hereafter. Those that praise themselves disobey God who said: “Do not exalt yourselves; He is fully aware of the righteous” The Stars 32

One question remains; does Islam not make any reference to two different Camps? A slogan often raised by the extremists and their partisans. What about the Other Camp in the light of what has been said in the Quran about disbelievers and atheists and fighting them?

The Other in Islam is every transgressor and terrorist that kills innocent and peaceful people. Once again, we reiterate that the meaning of Islam in terms of behavior is peaceful dealing on earth, and in terms of faith is the submission to God alone. A Muslim by faith is one who submits his heart and face and senses to God.

This is the meaning of Islam from a “faith” point of view on which the judgment is to God alone as He alone knows what lays in peoples’ hearts and no other creature could. A Muslim is everyone who does not wrong anybody nor shed innocent blood. These are the only boundaries within which we can judge people: every individual that is peaceful in his conduct and behavior is a Muslim regardless of his faith, sect, orientation, culture or religion.

The meanings of atheism and idolatry in Quran are associated with belief and behavior, and they are both contradictive to the belief and behavior of Islam. Atheism or idolatry mean belief in other than God and the actual practice of people- and Muslims in particular- is full of glorification of people and stones with their habitual attestation of faith that “there is no god except God”.  Moreover, people are at constant conflict between one another that only they are right and others are wrong, and God alone shall judge on these differences in the Day of Judgment as he’s the ultimate judge and only Him can play this role whilst we can advice and guide one another in seeking righteousness. 

Idolatry and atheism in their practical sense refer to wrong doing, disobedience, transgression and crime. These terms were all used in the Quran in the description of idolaters and atheists. The judgment is not passed on their hearts or faith, but on their acts and criminal deeds, on their murder, rape, corruption, theft and wrongdoing to innocent people. These people were deemed bad because of their actions, and we unfortunately, judge by the opposite standard. Whoever utters the declaration of faith is made a Muslim regardless of how many crimes he commits, and social reformers who do good and belong to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or secularism are considered disbelievers and idolaters although they are practically Muslims in conduct. We had rather revised ourselves and amended our beliefs and practices that are more involved in the glorification of tombs and saints than other faiths are.

On the basis of faith alone, all advocates of peace inside and outside the United Nations would be the greatest Muslims even if they have never uttered the attestation of faith. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and all western advocates of human rights are true Muslims from the perspective of conduct. Equally, according to judgment by conduct alone, the worst disbelievers, war criminals and transgressors would not only be Stalin and Hitler, but also Saddam Hussein, Ben Laden, Dawahiri and all the blood thirsty warlords that have turned Iraq to a human abattoir. The list is long and there is no need to mention all the names as some of them are enjoying praise and glorification although they have wronged other people, occupied their land and subordinated their people for the mere fact that they cannot defend themselves.

There is no division of the world to two camps, nor is the transgression on other people and taking their land just like the Qurayshis did in the era of the guided Caliphs and the non guided ones is acceptable. Quraysh was the tribe addressed in the description of disbelief and idolatry when the Quran descended. They had practiced idolatrous and atheistic faith in the worship of saints and idols, and practiced idolatrous and atheistic conduct in the prosecution and mistreatment of defenseless Muslims in forcing them to abandon their religion until they fled to Ethiopia twice and eventually migrated to Medina.

Quraysh still did not leave them alone and waged war at them at a time when Muslims were patient as usual as they were ordered not to fight back. After they were ordained to fight these transgressions back the situation changed gradually until it became in favor of Muslims from power and faith perspectives. Quraysh became alienated as Islam spread and the masses of Arabs realized the idiocy of worshipping idols and tombs. Quraysh eventually recognized that their interest lay in joining the new religion and so they converted after a long history of animosity to Muslims. They had only converted shortly before the death of the prophet, and after his death they regained control over power seizing the circumstances of Riddah (the wars waged against the apostates after the death of the prophet) turning the victory over these people into invasions against others in the Roman Empire (in the Levant), the Persians and thus followed what had come to be known as “Islamic Conquests” which is a concept that is totally against Islam. For the same reason the companions fought one another, and religious difference resulted from political disagreement dividing Muslims to different sects overlooking God’s warning against religious division as its evidence of idolatrous belief and conduct: “This is My path - a straight one. You shall follow it, and do not follow any other paths, lest they divert you from His path. These are His commandments to you, that you may be saved” “Those who divide themselves into sects do not belong with you. Their judgment rests with GOD, then He will inform them of everything they had done. Livestock 153-159, “You shall submit to Him, reverence Him, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and - whatever you do - do not ever fall into idol worship.  (Do not fall in idol worship,) like those who divide their religion into sects; each party rejoicing with what they have.” The Romans 31-32

In order to justify their invasions and carry them out in the name of Islam, the following Hadith was fabricated and attributed the prophet: “I was ordained to fight people until they say there is no god but God and Muhammad is His prophet” and so transgression against other innocent people became a form of Jihad.

When Muslims invaded the Romans, war erupted between the two empires that apparently had different faiths, but practically the same practices of despotism, oppression, coercion and the abuse of religion to transgress against innocent people and spread corruption on land. Thus was the notion of religion in the Middle Ages due to which the blood of millions was shed from both parties whilst each of them believed firmly that they were in the right, doing good and accused the other camp of heresy.

Europe raised and liberated itself from the shackles of the Church and the clergy and set off on the path of rational secular and scientific reform. Egypt tried following on these footsteps with the beginning of the 19th century and had indeed realized some positive achievements if it were not for the return of the medieval legislations and fables of Wahhabism that represent the worst culture ever produced by Muslims in the Middle Ages. Thanks to oil resources this ideology was spread under the name of Islam in a scam that was the biggest of its kind in the history of Islam. This scam has embraced all aspects of religious extremism and legislated whatever is contradictive to our faith like killing apostates and Jihad against the camp of unbelievers. Thus is the historical basis of the false conception of The “Camp of Islam” and the “Camp of War”.

Sample five

 

 They ask you about the veil

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=5892

 (1)

It was told that a man living in a society that ascribes to the tradition of the veil for women,  had a shady relationship with one of them. Once while coveting with her at his residence, her husband, who happened to be his friend, showed up unexpectedly for a visit. The man was beside himself not knowing how to handle the situation. The experienced wife calmed him down, donned the veil on, served tea for them both. Her husband did not recognize her, and our friend pulled through another one unscathed. In this story, the hero was the veil, pretending to be virtuous and chaste, hiding within,  was depravity and hypocrisy. That was the function of the veil in Egypt during Memwas the function of the veil in Egypt during Memluk period, when adhering to superficial aspects of religion was the norm, without paying any attention to the genuine meaning of religion and its moral principles built on fear of God.

(2)

Ibn Al-Haaj, the great Moroccan jurist (d.737 Hijri), visited Egypt during the Memluk rule. While there, he wrote his best jurisprudence book (Al-Medkhel—The introduction) , in three volumes. He followed a style, I named as “The preaching Jurisprudence”. Meaning the jurist does not follow the lines of imaginative methodology or conceptualizing method, like (whoever does this, its ruling is this), but utilizes the practical approach. Where the jurist studies the case as it happened, elaborates, pointing out where it deviated away from religious law, using the language of sermonizing and guidance. This type of preaching jurisprudence, recorded plenty of the secrets of the social life, commonly ignored by specialized historians. That is why this book-Al-Medkhel, contained within its pages, valuable historical information about the social, religious and economical life during Memluk Egypt. He wrote abundantly about the conditions of women that time, pointed out host of moral deprivation that took place,  under and because of the veil, the official and popular costume for women during the Memluk period, inside Egypt and outside.

For example, Ibn Al-Haaj the jurist, wrote that a Memluk Cairene woman had the privilege of leaving her home six out of the seven days, and that she used to leave her home veiled, until she was a little distance away, there goes the veil, she would keep and meet up with men, where nobody knows of her; upon her return and as she gets closer to home, the veil goes up again.

And I venture to say, due to this unique behavior, the old Egyptian phrase about loose women was coined (She is moving about with her hair unkempt), for as long as she was recognizable within a defined perimeter, she would have the veil on, and as soon as she crosses that perimeter, her veil would come off, looking for a prey, loosening her hair at the request of the first to ask. That was the case of most women that Ibn Al-Haaj and his contemporaries talked about. Women went out veiled, to festivals, to weddings and to graveyards, and to musical religious parties, where Sufi remembrance sessions are mixed with dance, joyful singing, indulging in hashish consumption and committing fornication; the regular and the deviant ones. Those were the terms of Memluk social life, its external religiosity symptoms exemplified by sponsoring religious festivals, meetings to extol and glorify Allah, visiting the living saints, the graves of the dead ones and their sacred tombs. Its hidden inner symptoms, moral degradation, throughout this frivolous performance the star, was the veil, declaring virtue and concealing depravity. The superficial appearance here is the veil. Likewise, is the exalted slogan of the Memluk period: Application of Sharee’a. Under that slogan, the worst forms of oppression, torture, injustice and corruption took place. In the shadow of all those crimes, the Memluk constructed the most magnificent of buildings to adorn Cairo, most of which still exist today like mosques, hostels, travelers resting stops and chapels. They built it all using slave labor, tyranny, injustice, unlawful confiscated monies. Alongside this superficial external piety, moral decadence and depravity spread throughout, savored by the veil.

(3)

Abdurrahman Ibn Kheldoun, the scholar, was surprised by the manifestations of varying degrees of decadence in the streets of Cairo, without objection from learned religious figures; he described Cairo astounded “No one disavowed displaying wine paraphernalia or musical instruments or made-up harlots or similar stuff which would be frowned upon in the Maghreb (Western regions of Muslim lands). The strict Sunni Hanbali School was the prevailing one in North Africa where Ibn Kheldoun lived before moving to Egypt, and because of that extreme Sunni dominance in Maghreb and North Africa, it was abominable to openly display indulging in wine consumption, partaking in musical events and the presence of women of ill repute in the streets. When he came to the Memluk Cairo, he found all this rampant due to the Sufi dominance and its doctrine of “No Interference”. But the common factor between Egypt and North Africa was the VEIL.

The Egyptian woman in those days had the freedom to do anything as long as she wore the veil and no one could recognize her.

Al-Meqreezi in his famous book “Al-Khutat”, described the Egyptians in those times “Some of their characters, is total absorption in their desires, total immersion in their debauchery and utter carelessness. Our respected Sheikh Abdurrahman Ibn Kheldoun told me that the people of Egypt as if they were done with the Day of Reckoning” Meaning they behave as if Paradise is guaranteed for them, abandoning any and all moral or religious obligations. Obviously, Al-Meqreezi here is influenced by his mentor, Ibn Kheldoun. In his book, he told of bizarre incidents of moral disintegration, when the veil was the religiously mandated code of dress for women, when she could not possibly leave home without it, and because of social mandatory requirement for it, a woman’s open obscenity was tolerated as long as no one could recognize her. Al-Meqreezi relates in his book, Al-Khutat “We heard of some folks who would follow a man or a woman, taking a stroll between the two castles, after Isha’ prayer, copulates (have sex with the woman, or deviate sex with the man), until they reach their satisfaction while walking, with no one paying them any mind because of sever congested crowds and everyone being busy with his own pleasures.

(4)

Depravation reached places of worship, so Memluk authorities had to intervene to clean it up of those debauchees as it happened with Al-Azher mosque in 818 Hijri and with Al-Hakim mosque in 822 Hijri.

Some Sufi institutions became notorious for such behavior, to the extent that endowment documents for such institutions required appointing guards to chase away seekers of forbidden pleasures out of them.

Moral disintegration flourished during religious festivities, and it still does, until Sultan Juqmuq cancelled El-Badawi festival in 851 Hijri, because of the scandalous deeds that tooke place during its celebration. Another festival was arranged nearby at El-Mehalla El-Kubra to let the steam of debauchery escape as it was expected. It was customary for a woman to attend those religious occasions wearing the veil as usual. The Memluk state which became professional at religious piety and enforcing the Sharee’a used to tax the harlots, calling it, “Al- Meghan security”. Those prostitutes had a special costume, described by Al-Meqreezi in his book: Al-Khutat”.That profession was linked to the elderly Madam, and the donkey-driver, who the veiled prostitute, would ride his donkeys in the utmost form of decorum. Some times the Memluk authorities would ban women from going out at night, to cut down on immorality. Some of those in authority went a little extra harsh in punishing those women who ventured to go outside at night, enduring their scorn, their ridicule, their derision. Prince Dewlet Khuja, in 835 Hijri, did not escape their ridicule. They coined a phrase lamenting the time of Omer, the second caliph, who used to roam the streets of Medina at night, looking for any issues that needed remedy. The phrase went like this, “The state of Omer went away, and the state of Khuja came our way”.

In 835 Hijri, Women made fun of Prince Mengeli Bagha, Prince of Hisba, who used to administer two hundred lashes to any woman caught out at night. They wrote a ditty, fit to dance to, in it they sing:

 Do not touch my behind

  Mengeli is behind

His punishment is worth two hundred

Rarely does he forgive.

They used to dance to it wearing the veil.

(5)

And we say to our believing chaste sisters:

Veil is an innovation that was not known during the messenger time (PBUH), for a woman’s face was uncovered and recognizable. Almighty Allah tells the messenger in chapter AL-AHZAB (THE CLANS, THE COALITION,THE COMBINED FORCES)

 

(033.052 : It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things). The expression “their beauty” is usually in the face.

Almighty Allah describes the Madeena society during the prophet’s time (PBUH), in Chapter AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION)

 

(009.071 : The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. ). Here we have social dynamics live and well, founded on belief in a doctrine, piety, enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil and mutual consultation. We do not believe it could happen in the society of veil and hypocrisy.

There is a connection between veil and hypocrisy, because the veil is a message addressed to people, by the one who hides behind it saying: Look here people, I am a believing, clean, pious woman. Whereas it would have been better for the human essence, soul, self, call it what you may, it would have been better for it to turn to Almighty Allah alone with piety, chastity, reverence, submissiveness in secrecy and seclusion before openly and in public.

There is also a connection between the veil and feeling superior, not only because it is a message from the veiled to the others that she is distinct, separate, special but also because she gives herself the right to invade their space through her eyes without affording the others the same, not even knowing her identity or who she is. Worse off is that the veil could be construed as superior to Almighty Allah, His laws and His religion.

In donning the veil, there is excess above and beyond what Almighty Allah has decreed. He prohibited anyone from outdoing, outpacing, exceeding his law or code that He established. In Chapter (  49.001 :  O you who believe! be not forward in the presence of Allah and His Messenger, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.)

Almighty Allah did not forbid women to show their faces, so how can a human being make what is lawful a forbidden matter? Does he accuse Almighty Allah of shortsightedness in matters of legislations? Does he accuse Almighty Allah of promoting vulgarity on the premise that a woman’s face is shameful and needs to be covered? And her unveiling is promiscuity? Does he know more than Almighty Allah about religion and people? Did not Almighty Allah say:   (067.014 : : Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtile, the Aware. )

Does he know the creation more than the Creator Glory to Him?  Is he the master of religion and its code of laws or is it Almighty Allah? Did not He, Glory be to Him, say about Himself : ( 016.052:

 

  To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and on earth,  and religion is His for ever. Will you then fear any other than Allah? )

Which means He, Glory be to Him, is the sole Owner of religion and the sole Owner of Judgment Day and the sole rightful Owner of codes of religion, and it is not up to anyone to legitimize what He had prohibited , or prohibit what He had legitimized.

Those who prohibit what He had legitimized, transgress upon His Realm in setting laws. Allah says : ( 005.087 : O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits )

 

And they would be included within the ranks of those whom Almighty Allah described in Chapter: (  042.021: : What! have they partners (in godhead), who have established for them some religion without the permission of Allah? Had it not been for the Decree of Judgment, the matter would have been decided between them (at once). But verily the Wrong-doers will have a grievous Penalty. )

 To load the woman behind the veil does not only degrade her human dignity, wipes out her individual personality, defined by her face by which she is recognized, moreover it leads to forfeiture of establishing true genuine Islamic Sharee’a (legal code) which is founded on the concept of ; The Perpetrator, The Victim and The Witness. If the woman was any of the previous three, it would be hard to identify if she was wearing the veil.

It is the right of every individual to wear whatever pleases them within the framework of accepted legal code. It is within the woman’s right to wear a veil if she so chooses, but if she wants to associate that with Islam and portrays it as a symbol of religion of Allah Almighty, then she falls in a state of enmity with Allah Almighty, because His religion is not a political or jurisprudence maneuvering arena, it is not a place for costumes’ competition, be it gowns, veils, or whatnot.

Islamic Taqwa (God fearing, God consciousness, piety) is a private interaction between the individual and his Creator, Glory be to Him, Who knows the split-second vision and what the bosoms hide too. The one who fears Allah and minds Him without seeing Him, does not need to show it off publicly.

 

The Memluk period was the period of religious hypocrisy, when deprivation and debauchery was rampant, sanctifying saints, worshipping them, indulging in immoral activities under the guise of the veil and in the protection of saints and their alleged ability to intercede was widespread. It remained as is until the social revival led by Qaasim Ameen, to be decimated by the Salafi onslaught which threatens to bring back the darkness of medieval ages.

(6)

It is imperative on us to enrich our knowledge of Islam and of history of Muslims…of medieval ages…and to start to remove the physical and mental veil.  

 

Sample six

Mosque of mischief and harm in New York:f Mischief and Harm in New York

 Ideological and Historical Roots for the Mosque Project at Ground Zero in New York.

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=7113

Introduction:

  • During the Islamic State at the time of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), the Hypocrites enjoyed freedom of opposition to an extent not matched by modern Western political systems. That included the freedom to erect a mosque to be used as a den to conspire against Muslims. The Prophet (PBUH) used to attend that mosque not knowing what transpired of schemes against his fledging community. Quranic revelation came down telling the prophet the truth about that mosque, instructing him not to attend it. The mosque stayed put, without demolition as confirmed in the Quran

And those who built a masjid to cause harm and for unbelief and to cause disunion among the believers and an ambush to him who made war against Allah and His Messenger before; and they will certainly swear: We did not desire aught but good; and Allah bears witness that they are most surely liars 09-107

Never stand in it; certainly a masjid founded on piety from the very first day is more deserving that you should stand in it; in it are men who love that they should be purified; and Allah loves those who purify themselves 09-108

Is he, therefore, better who lays his foundation on fear of Allah and (His) good pleasure, or he who lays his foundation on the edge of a cracking hollowed bank, so it broke down with him into the fire of hell; and Allah does not guide the unjust people 09-109

The building which they have built will ever continue to be a source of disquiet in their hearts, except that their hearts get cut into pieces; and Allah is Knowing, Wise 09-110

   2-This incident which occurred more than 14 centuries ago and was recorded in the Quran, is partially being repeated in some features in this New York mosque project at the site of the attacks of September 2001.

   3- The project of building the mosque has triggered massive waves of Christian fanaticism, burning the Quran was one of them, which the I.Q.C. had previously condemned, and though Pastor Terry Jones has retracted, news were reported that another pastor was planning a Quran burning event, and another fanatic from Spain, opening a night club naming it Mecca. In other words, Islam is footing the bill for Sunni fanaticism, which found no other place, as wide and as big as America is, except to build it at the same location where “Manhattan Raid” took place, as if commemorating their triumph over America when they attacked the twin towers at the World Trade Centers nine years ago. This insistence is not a mere political move intended to agitate the wrath of the (Christian Americans) for, if it was a political act, it would’ve been a very callous and idiotic act. One would wonder how a sensible person can agitate this chauvinistic fanaticism by insisting on that location knowing well in advance the price politically and publicity wise?

 This is not your average ordinary political act, because in its simplest forms, politics is the art of garnering benefits. With those man-made Sunni religion followers, it is a matter of basic essential belief, which requires a brief fundamental and historical analysis:

First:

  • For the Wahhabi Sunnite, their fundamental creed states that the World is divided into two camps, the camp of belief and peace, and the camp of disbelief and war. They also believe in the inevitability of military confrontation between the two camps, when the Muslim camp will vanquish the disbelief camp, exterminate Jews and Christians, until a rock would say, O Muslim, behind me is a Jew, come and slay him, according to a false narration attributed to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) claiming that he knows the unseen, which they believe in, and which contradicts the Glorious Quran.

 

  • Based on their belief in dividing the world into two camps, their unified strategy is two pronged: a)- The unification of all Muslims in a single state to re-establish the Khilafa that was abolished with the demise of the Ottoman Rule, which means the overthrow of all currently reigning regimes in Muslim lands. b)- Taking over the enemy camp by creating fifth columns made up of immigrant Muslim

Communities in the West

Second: This requires a fast analysis.

1-The Umayyads, leaders of Qureish in trade and war, opposed Islam, persecuted Muslims and forced them to migrate to Medina, thereby indirectly allowing Muslims to establish their first and last state under the leadership of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). In Medina, permission was given to defend themselves and their Islamic state against Qureish’s attacks.

That first and only Islamic state was founded on the principles of justice, absolute freedom of religion, thought, political activity, tolerance, and peace. This is what we deduce from reading the Quran relying on its own lexicon and terminology. According to the Quran, Muslims in that state, during the time of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) were at varying degrees of adhering to the tenets of the new religion. Some of them were labeled as hypocrites by the Quran and were opposed to Islam religiously and politically. They engaged in conspiring against the Prophet and the Muslims, taking advantage of climate of absolute freedom of conscience, freedom of political involvement and freedom of expression. They were many factions, hundreds of Quranic verses mentioned and talked about them. Others were believers who committed good and bad deeds; many verses came down blaming and warning them. Then there were the minority by comparison, who by their genuine faith and good deeds garnered a higher rank with God Almighty.

This classification falls in line with the historical events at the time of the Quranic revelation, and at the time of the Seal of all messengers, upon him and all of them let there be peace. In general, the dominant culture throughout the world was that of tyranny, injustice, corruption and the misuse of man-made religions to serve all those negative values. This same classification is also in agreement with the normal Arab Bedouin lifestyle, which is founded on armed conflict, the burying of newly born females, enslaving others, captivating them, allegiance to tribe rather than higher Islamic values of justice, freedom, peace and tolerance, in addition to sincerity of belief in God Almighty, with no sanctification of Man, Stone, Shrines, Tombs or Idols. So, there were three factions who embraced Islam; the one saturated with prevalent mores, was forced to coexist with Muslims to protect its interests. A second faction, which experienced an internal struggle between the new Islamic moral code and value system, against what he was brought up believing in, fluctuating back and forth, mixing a good deed with a bad one. Then a third faction, who purified itself and abandoned all pre Islamic values and customs, replacing it with Islamic values and principles. At any rate, their living Islam, their accompaniment of the Prophet (PBUH) for few years, was hardly enough to erase years and generations of deeply rooted habits and customs.

Then there were the Umayyads, who led the persecution of Muslim until they migrated to Medina, then continued their wars against them after the migration, to protect their economical interests. Finally, the Umayyads concluded it is in their best interests, economical and political; to embrace Islam after most Arab tribes had done so, and started to threaten Qureish’s Eastern trade routes, from India to Europe and Byzantium through Syria and the Yemen.

2-After a long history of enmity and wars with Islam and Muslims, the Umayyads embraced Islam a short time before the prophet’s departure. What concerns us here is the fact that the Umayyads unified their efforts with already Muslim Qureishites, forming a united Qureishite front. After the prophet’s passing, the Umayyads took the Muslim Arabs and others, including the world history to a new phase of exploiting Islam in invading and colonizing most of the known world at that time, thereby committing aggression against people that, not only were they non-antagonistic towards the Muslim Arabs; moreover they never heard of them before. With that military aggression, the schism between Islamic teachings and the actions of the companions of the Prophet, the rightly guided caliphs and the Umayyads, after the passing of the Seal of all prophets widened, necessitating justification and vindication on religious grounds.

Whereas the Persian Empire was totally annihilated, the Easterly conquests reached even the frontiers of India and China. Yet the Western World power represented in Byzantium, preserved its capital Constantinople intact facing, along with the rest of Europe, the Arabs’ aggression under the banner of Islam, even though Islam is innocent of and contradictory in nature to the actions of those Arabs.

3-The conflict between Muslims and Byzantines lasted for centuries, leading in essence to the formation of two camps, like it was between the Persians and the Byzantines, and since religion was exploited by both sides according to the culture of Medieval Times, this military conflict carried religious overtones, where each camp regards himself as being righteous and on the right path, hence the Sunnite division of the world into the camp of faith and peace, versus the camp of disbelief and war.

Naturally, since application preceded codification and establishment of rules and regulations, and since the Muslims founded a vast awesome empire facing Europe and the West, and since those actions contradicted the teachings of the Quran, it was imperative to fabricate legislations attributing it to Islam justifying all that transpired. They found their prize in all those narrations and sayings falsely and slanderously attributed to Prophet Mohammad more than two centuries after his passing, and by distorting Quranic legislations through various methods that we have covered in other writings. The Sunnite religion accomplished that in defense of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Memluk and the Ottomans.

4-The Empire of the Muslims reached its zenith under the Umayyads, stretching from the frontiers of India and China in the East, to Andalusia and southern France in the West. The Muslims became the Eastern Power in the face of the West. Europe paid the price when the Muslims occupied many islands in the Mediterranean and southern Italy, monopolized Eastern trade with India. The Byzantine Empire suffered the most, for along with its prestige, it lost most of its territories in Asia Minor. The Umayyads even tried to conquer its capital Constantinople twice, both attempts failed.

5-In the first attempt to invade Constantinople, a springboard to launch an attack was established in the camp of faith and peace against the war camp. They called it inlets, ports or seaports, harbor or bay. It is derived from Arabic (thaghr), which essentially means mouth or front of the mouth, and it is always located at or nearby the frontiers of the two warring states. The encampments at such places were referred to as (Land of mooring, where frontline garrisons are stationed for defensive purposes). In that first attempt to invade Constantinople in 670 A.D. during Mu’aaweya’s reign, the first Umayyad Caliph, the invading army was forced to retreat; among them was The Companion Abu Ayyoub Al-Ansary who died there. Before his death, he asked that he be buried at the closest point to the enemy encampment, the camp of war, and for his grave to be used as the launching pad, the springboard for future wars. Sure enough, his grave became the spiritual landmark for Jihad, Sunni style in the East, as Muslim Cordoba became the inspiring point in the West for jihad against the camp of war and disbelief.

6- During the Abbasids’ reign, victory and defeat was mutual with the Byzantines, especially at the frontiers area. There were many jurists and religious scholars volunteers in the Abbasid’s armies. When certain regions exchanged hands between the warring combatants, a new doctrine evolved within the Muslims, who regarded Muslims’ graveyards in the hands of the enemy as sacred shrines and symbols of Islamic presence, to be preserved and visited and hence, reclaimed back to Islam. Eventually the Abbasids were weakened, and the Byzantines advanced deeper into their territories until Aleppo and other regions of Syria. The Byzantines in turn became weaker and the Europeans took the helm in what later was known as the Crusade wars, establishing many small kingdoms between Jerusalem and Asia Minor. The Memluk exterminated the Crusades presence by regaining their last stronghold, Acre in the year 690 Hijri.

7- After the Crusades presence was abolished, the Ottomans appeared in Asia Minor coinciding with Byzantines’ and local Muslims’ states weaknesses. The Ottomans worked at expanding their realm westerly at the expense of the Byzantines who were reduced to a mere capital and some small neighboring regions, rendering them like a head without a body. Thus the Ottomans came to represent the camp of (Islam) against the camp of war. The Ottomans discovered the tomb of Companion Abu Ayyoub Al-Ansary, inspiring Sultan Mohammad the Conqueror to capture Constantinople. He renovated the tomb, built a huge mosque and a shrine at the same location, and in it, he promised to capture what is left of the Byzantine Empire., thereby igniting his soldiers’ zeal culminating in capturing Constantinople on May 29th1453, converting its church Aya Sofia into a mosque, and then renamed the city Atanbul or Islambul. The Ottomans continued their conquest reaching the gates of Vienna in Austria. In all this, Abu Ayyoub Al-Ansary’s mosque was the absolute incentive and inspiration, for the Ottomans had converted it to an official religious center, where the coronation of Sultan takes place to learn from the beginning the principles of (Sunni Jihad) against Europe, the camp of war. Not long after that, the Ottoman Empire itself became weak, prompting Europe to name it, The Sick Man, alerting Russia to get ready to devour it from the East, and Europe from the West, signaling the start of colonialism in our modern times.

8-Two things became apparent as a consequence to the wars between Muslims and the West:

a)- It was Sunni Muslims who started the war, thereby tainting( Sunni Jihad) with features of aggression, contrary to genuine Islamic Jihad, which is defensive in nature, and after exhausting all possible peaceful means.

b)-The debris and ruins of this world is at the core of this conflict. It evolved and revolved around the Eastern Trade between India and Europe, monopolized by Qureish, led by the Umayyads before Islam, and because of it, they fought Islam, and because of it, they embraced Islam. One of the principal motives behind the Crusade wars and Geographic discoveries was finding a route to India averting and avoiding Muslim lands, also to strike an allegiance with Christian Ethiopia. Due to geographic discoveries, the modern colonial movement colonized most of Muslim lands and led to the collapse and demise of the Ottoman Caliphate.

9- As a reaction to the European Colonial wave against Muslim lands, Wahhabism and Saudi state called for the return to Abbasids predecessor’s methods, and to enforce it by the sword, in the face of Western secular European modernization which Egypt held its helm. The Saudi state was established three times and had fallen twice. The current Saudi state managed, thru oil and its allegiance with America, to propagate Sunni Wahhabism among Muslims as true Islam. The Salafi jurisprudence and its derivatives spread at the expense of secularism, part of that doctrine is the concept of two warring camps.

Saudi Arabia exploited the religious freedom in the West, the Muslims’ migration to Europe and America, the need of the West and America to ally themselves with Saudi Arabia against communism and the Soviet Union, so both, America and Europe opened their doors wide open for Saudi Arabia to establish Wahhabi mosques and schools as Islamic Institutions.

10-With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the retreat of communism, nothing was left of (The Western Camp) except Europe and America. This sudden and rapid collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states caused a change in Wahhabi tactics while the strategy remained intact. This unified strategy is the establishment of a united Sunni state that will regain the glories of the Umayyads, the Abbasids and the Ottomans. In tandem with that, expanding influence within (The camp of disbelief) by exploiting Muslim communities and espousing Wahhabism as Islam, by agitating Muslims in America and Europe, by brainwashing them into a fifth column or a Taliban style brigades in the West, increasing their folds thereby taking it over from within, pursuing a double faced policy of camouflage and deceit, laying in wait for the appropriate moment no matter how long it takes.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism the tactics were altered. Now we have Al-Qaeda, representing a younger hasty generation that could not tolerate the long winded approach adopted by the Saudi regime, an approach established by Abdul Aziz Al Saud himself, founder of the current third Saudi State. Following this long winded approach, The Muslim Brotherhood operates in Egypt, a group founded and funded by Abdul Aziz’s agent.

The hasty younger generation in Egypt exited the tent of the Muslim Brotherhood, and followed the two paths at the same time:

 a) - Toppling existing regimes as a prelude to establishing a United Sunni Islamic State.

b) - Battling the West.

Haste means resorting to violence and to terror acts, as a short cut to achieve objectives. This is what Al-jama’a Al-Islamiyya and jama’t Al-jihad had done. Then Al-Qaeda was formed as an alliance between Saudi Bin Laden and Az-zawahry the Egyptian, with a stated goal, combating Jews and Christians. They carried out the attacks on both embassies in Kenya and Uganda, then the two towers at the World Trade Center in New York.

11- Then came the New York Mosque Project near ground zero of September 11, bringing the advocates of both tactics together, in the service of a unified strategy, turning the proposed mosque into a symbol of inspiration and inducement, a gathering place for Wahhabi Sunnites inside America to fulfill the promised hope within the American soil itself. As much as the mosque and tomb of Abu Ayyoub Al-Ansary represented in the faceoff with Byzantium in the East, and as much as old Cordoba symbolized jihad in the West, and as much as new Cordoba represent for Wahhabi Sunnite in regaining Andalusia, Arabic and Islamic.

It is not strange that they plan to name the proposed mosque Cordoba, as it is not strange for Sunni mosques in Switzerland to spread misinformation that every Muslim cemetery in any hamlet within Switzerland is considered a sacred place, since it contains an Islamic landmark in the (abode of disbelief), according to widespread belief in Asia Minor during the Abbasid era.

Third:

We wonder…

  • Why the insistence on building that Sunni mosque precisely at that location? Did the American soil become so scarce that they could not build it any place else? Do the American Muslims suffer due to scarcity of mosques? Is it wise or prudent to erect a mosque there to rekindle the pains for Americans? Wouldn’t be more wise and prudent for American Muslims to apologize for the crimes of September 11th, to erect a memorial for the victims, to share in their sorrows, and to condemn Bin Laden and his comrades?
  • Let us imagine; some western fanatic Christians attacked the palaces of the royal Saudi family wiping them out, attacked the Ministry of Defense in Riyadh demolishing it , then the Westerners rejoicing over those acts, even the Christians within Saudi Arabia, assuming they were still alive ,enjoying their full religious freedom, intend to build a church at the sites of destruction and ruin…let us imagine to the extent of being totally insane, that the king of Saudi Arabia came out in full support of building such a church, praising and commending Christianity, wooing Christians within and at large, would that ever happen in our wildest dreams?...This is the difference between American tolerance and Wahhabi criminality.

  • We wonder…assuming the existence of the abode of faith and peace, and the abode of disbelief and war, where do the values of justice, freedom and tolerance practically exist? In the West or in the lands of Muslims? Where do injustice, tyranny, enslavement, corruption, torture, subjugation of man to his fellow man, genocide, civil wars, explosions that annihilate thousands, mosques that are transformed into military barracks, or become targets for armed attacks, where do all of the aforementioned exist?  Do the Christians of the West commit all of the above, or do the Sunnite and the Shiites of Afghanistan and Iraq, and before them of Algiers and Egypt commit it all? And now, the Sunnites in America and Europe are doing the same harvesting the souls of innocents.

 

  • We wonder…If Islam in dealing with others is the height of civilized advancement and the height of noble values, in perseverance, in justice, in benevolence, in peace, in freedom of conscience, of thought, of belief, in sacrifice, in preference of others, in compassion and in mercy even with animals, and if Almighty God had sent the Seal of all messengers as a mercy to mankind, then which of the two camps is closer in implementing the tenets of the true Islamic doctrine? Is it the lands of the Muslims or the lands of the West? Where is the camp of evil? And where is the abode of war and bloodbaths?
  • Finally….where is the redness of shame?    

 

Sample seven

Refuting Ben Laden

Overview of Bin Laden’s Latest Statement

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=6302

The statement was published on the Aljazeera web site on April 23, 2006.

 We shall review and comment on sections of it.

Section 1

According to Aljazeera, Bin Laden started his statement by commenting on the cartoons deemed offensive to the prophet Mohammed, stating:  “To all the Muslims, peace be upon you, my speech to you is for you to keep working to defend our prophet and to punish those crusading journalists and apostates who made the awful crime of insulting the Master of earlier and later [people to come], the prophet Mohamed best prayers be upon him”.
Comment 1
What Bin Laden has just said resembles a polytheistic belief: he has made the Prophet Mohamed the master of earlier and later ‘people to come’), while in traditional Islam there is no such master other than Allah. He believes that the prophet Mohamed is a master of all prophets and messengers, which contradicts the Islamic belief that states that ‘there is no god but Allah’, and also confirms that Mohammed, the seal of the prophets, was a follower of the sect of Abraham and ordered to hold on to it. Furthermore we as Muslims are also ordered to follow the sect of Abraham (Albakara 130-135, Al Omram 95, Alnesa 125, Alanam 161, Alnahl 123, Alhajm 78) the right guidance of the earlier prophets (Alanam 90) in a similar fashion as the prophet Mohammed did.

This statement makes Bin Laden a contradictory to Allah, who has forbidden us from prejudicing against the prophets – god has called such individuals ‘infidels’ ( Albakara 136 185 , Al Omran 84 , Alnesaa 150:152 ). In addition,  god has also ordered the Prophet Mohamed to say that he is not distinguished (beda’an) of the prophets and that he is not even aware of what is going to happen for him; he is just a warning for those who follow the Koran (Ahkaf 9).

The comparison between the prophets is the sole right of Allah alone (Albakara 353, Alesraa 55). Allah is the only one who knows how many there are, the ways of their jihad, and how much good is in their deed. He who puts himself in a place to judge and choose the best prophet, has put himself in a rank higher than the prophets themselves and one equal to that of Allah. Such an individual will then be out of line with the Islamic beliefs, especially the one that confirms there is no god but Allah, and Bin Laden himself has broken that crucial rule.

 Section 2

Aljazeera further reports that “He spoke about the prestige of the prophet in the verses and ahadeeth (‘the holy verses’)” and that the holy ahadeeth came to show that the prophet is entitled to our love, our honoring, and following and glorification. Allah has forbidden any harming or insulting of the prophet, something Allah has specifically stated in the holy Koran: “those who harm Allah and the prophet are cursed by Allah in life and the afterlife, and Allah has prepared a despicable torture for them”. Furthermore, Allah has also said, “oh you believers do not raise your voice over the voice of the prophet, and do not talk with him in the way which you speak to each other or your good deeds will be gone while you do not know of it”. It is said in the Sahih Bokhary that the Prophet said “I swear by Allah that he holds my soul in his hands, that to believe in god you will have to love me more than your parents, your sons and the whole people”.

Comment 2
Here Bin Laden cites the verse, “those who harm Allah and the prophet are cursed by Allah in life and the afterlife, and Allah has prepared a despicable torture for them”. Bin Laden falls in that category by the things he says and does, thus harming Allah and his Prophet. To explain, we state that “the people harming the prophet the most are the ones who say things that contradict the Koran to the prophet himself, and fabricate lies that contradict the Islamic religion: that he is equal to the god Allah, although the Prophet himself spent his entire life’s work just to confirm that there is no god but Allah. Imagine spending all of your life fighting corruption only to have other people accuse you of being a gangster, spreading corruption through false acts attributed to you. Can there be any bigger harm? Harming Allah and the Prophet in this way also means the denial of the holy verses of the Koran, which confirm that there is no more injustice to Allah than fabricating lies to Allah (Alanam 21 93 144 157 , Alaaraf 37 , Yones 17 , Hood 18 , Alankabot 68, Alzomor 32); and he who claims that these straying ahadeeth are revelation by Allah are fabricating lies about Allah.
Those who support such claims are harming Allah as well, and that applies to Bin Laden. The funny thing is that they wrong these ahadeeth by attributing them to the prophet through people who have died long before they knew anything about what was said. The sad thing is that they have made these ahadeeth a part of the Islam, thus accusing the Prophet Mohamed that he didn’t complete his mission. They have made it seem that he left part of it to be completed by other people in the second Abbasian era, meaning that Islam has been incomplete until the second Abbasian era and after the later eras of injustices, corruption, dissolution, political tyranny and social injustice.
It is also sad that, in doing so, they attempt disprove the verse which states “today I have completed your religion and concluded my grace upon you and am satisfied with Islam being your religion (Almaeda 3). Islam was finished developing after the completion of the holy Koran, therefore everything that Muslims write is not a part of the Islam, rather it is a part of a human ideology that shows how much the Muslims can be close to or far away from the Islam, and in the end they will answer to Allah in judgment day for fabricating lies to Allah and his prophet, the greatest harm.

Statement 3

Bin Laden continues, “the whole Islamic nation has agreed upon the apostasy and killing of anyone who insults or offends the prophet”. The Sheikh of Islam Ben Taymeyamay god have mercy on his soul: ‘insulting and denying the prophets is the source of all infidelity and the summation of all straying and every infidelity originates from that’. The judge Eyad states that ‘he who assimilates the prophet to insult, contempt him, lower his rank or offend him, is cursing him and should be judged as cursing the prophet’. And the Emam Ahmed may god have mercy on his soul said that ‘he who cursed the prophet should be killed whether if he was a Muslim or infidel’”.

Comment 3

Bin Laden lies when he says that “the Ummah has agreed upon the apostasy and killing he who insults the prophet” because there is no consensus in the ideological belief history of Muslims; they were divided in the origins into Shiites , Sunnis, Sophists, each with different beliefs. Within these, there are even many other sects such as the Moataza, Morgea, Khawareg. In these sects, Abo Alhassan Alashary wrote his book Articles of Muslims and Variation of Those Who Pray, Ibn Hazm wrote Sects and Creeds, Alshohrestani wrote Sects and Beliefs, Malti wrote Altaneeh Walrad, amongst many others. Furthermore, the internal disagreements and differences within in any sect are numerous. In Sunna for example, there are four sub-sects, and in each sub-sect there are further sub-sects. Even in some pages of the same book, you find the author disagrees with the writings of others. In such a diverse climate, it is humorously wrong to say that the Ummah is agreed upon, because this Ummah is only similar in its diversity and disagreement; they have been so since the great sedition (Alfetna Alkobra), and still are. It is even more hilarious that Bin Laden, who became a mufti (a Sheikh who gives fatwas) in that ugly time and speaks of things of which he has no knowledge. He attempts to cite Ben Hanbal, although Ben Hanbal himself has denied the consensus by saying “He who claimed consensus in a thing has lied; how would he know that people had disagreed?” So here even Ben Hanbal has called Bin Laden a liar in his claims that Ummah has reached consensus or has agreed upon killing the apostate. Bin Laden has read some of the ancestral jurisprudence and interpreted it as the consensus of the Ummah, ignoring the fact that the expression Ummah includes all different sects of Muslims dating from the era of the Prophet until the present day - the current radicals are just a very small drop in the large ocean of Islam. He is even ignoring that inside the current Sunni sects certain sheikhs have denied the killing of the apostate. Bin Laden should read the current fatwas that Alazhar has announced after 10 years of the publishing the book Had Elredda, ‘Penality of Apostasy’, that proves there is such thing called Penalty of Apostasy in Islam.

Lastly, Bin Laden accuses all but himself with infidelity, including some of the Sunni radicals, Shiites, sophists, and all Muslims (except for the terrorists of course), even after he speaks on the nature of the Ummah in the whole world. So how does he rightfully speak on behalf of the entirety of the Islam nation when he claims that ninety-nine percent of them are infidels?

Section 4

Returning to Aljazeera, we see that it states further that “He [Bin Laden] also attacked all those who tried to offend the prophet, saying ‘Infidels and atheist are denying the religion and insulting our beloved prophet; their case is clear now. The Emam Ben Alkayem ‘may god have mercy on his soul’: when he said that the crime of being an atheist is the worst of crimes and the harm caused by his [the atheist’s] existence among Muslims is the worst of harm, and that he should be killed and his renounce will not be accepted. If you tolerate his renouncement you will be allowing him to stay atheist and as an infidel, as he will pretend to be a Muslim only when he needs to , and will return to the atheism as soon as he can, specially when he knows that he is safe from being killed when he shows his renouncement. He will not fear announcing atheism and denying his religion and offending Allah and his prophet. He already fought Allah and his prophet, and will continue working to spread corruption on the earth. His penalty is to be killed’”.

Comment 4
Here Bin Laden reaffirms the extremist in their radical jurisprudence of killing those who conflict with their opinions, even if the was a Muslim Sunni and believes in ahadeeth, as long as he had an opinion that contradicted with the sheikhs of ancestral radicals. They refer to him as a ‘zendeek’ atheist and give him a status worse than that of the apostate; they say to kill him without a trial or renouncement, and even if he renounces they refuse to accept it. So even though Allah forgives, they do not; Allah accepts renouncements, yet they do not. As Allah states to the prophet regarding forgiveness, “you have nothing to do with it” (Al Omran 128). The extremists’ contradiction demonstrates that they have given themselves numerous rights and thus declared themselves above the prophets.

In discussing the killing of the apostates and what it means, I have said in my book, Penalty of Apostasy: “The reader might think that the ‘zendeek’ is an infidel who doesn’t believe in Allah, his messengers, No, he is a believer in Allah, his messengers and his book; he is a thinker who has an opinion, and his greatest mistake is that his opinions contradict those of big jurists. It contradicts what they think is ‘necessarily known to be part of Islam’, so he deserves to die even if he has renounced; and because he is a thinker with a proofs, the jurists will not allow him to go to a trial that an ordinary apostate should have. The reason is that the ordinary apostate has no proof that jurists will fear. Unlike the ‘zendeek’, he has proofs; they cannot face him and in trial, so there is no need to put him in trial. The best way is to kill him quickly. Sheikh Sayed Sabek says ‘the zendeek is the one who admits and believes in Islam in appearance and deep within’; he is a Muslim by his heart and tongue. Sabek continues by stating that ‘he interprets some of the necessarily known to be part of the religion in a way that contradicts with interpretations of the Sahaba and what the Ummah has agreed upon’. He is a zendeek because he had a new, independent opinion that contradicts with our ancestry. It does not matter if he has proofs, what matters is that his proofs contradict. Sabek also states that ‘as the Islamic law has placed killing as a penalty for apostates in order to restrain them, it has also put the killing as a means of restraining the zendeek and saving the religion from a corrupt opinion that should not be promoted toeveryone who denies seeing Allah in judgment day, grave torture, Naker wa Nakeer questioning, or denies the Serat and judgment.

Sheikh Al Ikhwan, who is known to be more moderate than most, has said, if it was moderate to kill anyone who disagrees with some of your opinions without even discussing them and kill him even if he has renounced, then what defines extremism? It is obvious that Bin Laden walks on the same road as the Ikhwan brothers, but he is much more frank and clear. We fear the time in which Ikhwan would rule Egypt. It has millions who believe in sepulcher, millions who curse religion as a habit of misbehave, and millions who make jokes of sheikhs, and according to Sabek they are all considered either zendeek or apostates. By applying the Sabek ruling, the mass population of Egypt will no longer suffer, whereas Bin Laden and his followers will kill people in the streets without even a trial. The truly awful thing here is that establishing a fatwa which promotes the killing an innocent soul goes far beyond killing itself, because it is a mass order to kill all of the people. These poisoning fatwas will instill a renewed movement to kill innocents everywhere, creating victims in the present as well as the future. It is one of the virtues of the ancestral jurisprudence. What is left now is to ensure that the Ikhwan make the purpose and goal their jihad to establish their state and apply these rulings with our blood or the blood or our children.

Section 5

“Bin Laden discussed Alsahaba and urges to act like them saying, “’I remind youof the deeds of the pure first soldiers of Islam, the dignified Sahaba, to follow their path in stand up for religion, It is right to follow the righteous people. The earlier people have told of the incidence of the poetry of Kaab Ben Alashraf who offended the prophet, and the Prophet said ‘who would get me Kaab ben Alashraf, he harmed Allah and his prophet’ and then Mohamed ben Moslema said ‘me, Prophet, you want me to kill him’, the Prophet said yes. Oh Allah Akbar, how fast they responded to aid Allah and his prophet; Allaho Akabr, how great is their faith, how much knowledge and jurisprudence. The prophet has known that the penalty of anyone who harms Allah and his prophet is killing without hesitation.”

 Comment 5

Here Bin Laden harms the Prophet by telling these fabricated lies mentioned in theSira, which was written two centuries after the death of the Prophet Mohammed, in which they depict the Prophet in accordance with the common image in their era with all the features of conspiracy, betrayal and assassination. Among such lies was the assassination of Kaab ben Alashraf, which the terrorists celebrate and use as a legitimate excuse to assassinate numerous innocents. Bin Laden now enters our era to announce this harm to the prophet and to give the chance for the enemies of Islam to call the seal of the prophets with terrorism and killing of people. Allah has ordered to the seal of the prophets ‘peace be upon them all’ to deal frankly and clearly even with traitors and those who violate agreements, because in Islamic legislation there is no space for making conspiracies even against those who conspire against you (Alanfal 58). Allah ordered the Prophet to go for peace and put his faith in Allah, and even if they were deceiving the prophet with peace, he should not act similar to them and rely on Allah (Alanfal 61,62). So was it truly his legislation to send a gang to assassinate a man, as that lie so boldly states?

Section 6

“Bin Laden has compared between Al-sahaba and the ones he called ‘today the beaten Sheikhs who went to the crusaders, not to fight, but to to discuss with them, dissolve the religion. Be aware of them. Yes, their religion contradicts with righteous methodology of the Prophet who thought it was necessary to kill Kaab ben Alashraf, and that everyone who had harmed Allah and his prophet must be killed as well. Yes. killing these people is a thing that Allah likes and so does his prophet. Allah has commanded it and urges the Prophet to do so. Allah said ‘If they violate their pledges after they have sworn to them, and they have denied the religion, fight the Imams of infidelity, and have no faith, might they be stopped’. So by fighting them they cease in assaulting the religion, Ben Elkayem - ‘may god have mercy on his soul’ - said about this verse: ‘everyone who assaults our religion is an imam of infidelity’. Bin Laden continued,  ‘Now let us go to complete this story. Mohamed Ben Mosallama took some of the Sahaba, and proceeded to kill the enemy of Allah, Kaab ben Alashraf. At that time, the Jewish population and the polytheists became fearful, so they came to the Prophet and said ‘Our friend was killed tonight, and he is one of the lords; he was killed for no crime that we know he did’, so the prophet simply replied stating that he had assaulted us with poetry, and anyone who does it again shall deal with our sword’”.

Comment 6

Here Bin Laden tells us his favorite lie about the assassination of Kaab ben Alashraf, promoting it as a legitimate reason for terrorism. He falsely cites the verse “If they violate their pledges after they’ve sworn, and denied the religion, fight the Imams of infidelity, have no faith, might they be stopped.” This is the verse number 12 in Altawba. The verses before it specify the behavior which defines ‘polytheism’ in the terminology of the Koran – we advise the reader to first read these verses of Altawba to know the meaning of ‘polytheism’ according to behavior. We summarize the Koranic facts below:

The meaning of infidelity and polytheism is the same; Allah addressed both of these groups in the same manner (verses 1-6 , 12).

The main behavior for polytheism and infidelity is aggression (verse 10), and therefore violation of the peaceful agreement and leads to the declaration war on those who made the peace agreement (8:10).

The reason that Altwaba came is to give the aggressor a time limit to renounce and cease the aggression, this inviolable time limit is four months (1-5).

 Since it is infidelity or behavior polytheism at the source of unjust military aggression against peaceful Muslims, if such individuals renounce and pray and paid zakat, they are no longer aggressors, they now become brothers for peaceful Muslims. Because one who is ‘peaceful’ to Muslims is considered peaceful according to his apparent behaviors, and the polytheism or infidel in the apparent behavior is the aggression (5, 11) and, on the other hand, the terms ‘keep prayers’ and ‘give zakat’ define the straightness in behavior, non-aggression, and stopping injustice as a result of keeping prayers and submissiveness in prayers, since prayer forbids injustice, fornication, etc. (Alonkabot 45). Furthermore, if they kept the peace agreement, you have to respect it in fear of god (7) and, in case of the aggressive war, if the enemy has stopped fighting, you have to save and return him safely to his home once he listens to the words of god in hope that he will find the righteous path (6).

If they continue to assault and aggress against the peaceful Muslims and keep violating their agreements, then it is an assault and violation of Islam as the religion of peace. There is no way other than to fight back so that they end their aggression, and if they do, then there no need to fight them. This is the meaning of what Allah said in verse 12 of Altawba: ‘If they violate their pledges after they have sworn, and they have denied the religion, fight the Imams of infidelity, have no faith, might they be stopped’, a notion which is confirmed by many other verses in the ruling of defense (Albakara 190-194 , Alanfal 38-39, Alhag 38-40). So does that Koranic context correlate with what Bin Laden has said in the assassination of peaceful children and civilians, both Muslim and non-Muslim? While contradicting Islam, he attributes this utter and absolute nonsense to Islam and speaks by its name. This is clearly a offense to Allah and the prophet; it is very clear that Bin Laden repeats what these aggressors had been doing to the peaceful Muslims in the age of the Prophet.

Section 7

In the review, Bin Laden states ‘It is the ruling of our prophet against anyone who assaults him and derides the religion. Oh you youth of Islam!, follow the command of Allah and the prophet. Kill; do as Mohamed Ben Mosallama and his Sahaba. I swear being in a grave under the land is better than being above the land; these apostates deride and mock our religion and our prophet, so fear god and be grateful and consult anyone of killing these apostates. Keep it low”.

Comment 7

The goal that Bin Laden desires is to kill all of the thinkers who oppose him after the injust accusation of being zendeeks and ‘apostates’, and to keep his war against the West and Judaism alive in all parts of the world, meaning death for all randomly and without prejudice. It is a war that he has created, and deemed it as a jihad attributed to Islam, although Islam is quite distant from such an injustice. He issued his ruling upon us and distributed the statement to all of his devils, both the shown and hidden ones. What he has said here, a list of his devils, was put forth previously by his followers in a statement that specified thirty person by name, and I was honored  that he put me along with my sons and wife on the top of that list. The miserable statement said “We are the defenders of the prophet of Allah, after our discussion and consultation with our brothers and leaders of other Islamic groups in the land of Islam, and after they saw what we have found in the shura council to judge the heads of sedition, apostasy, denial of religion, denial of sunna, etc. After they have strayed from the righteous path and sunna of our prophet, announce their infidelity and their missionary work, left the group of Muslims, stray from the religion to publicly support the Imams of infidelity and those Copts who worship the cross, and attend their conferences and support them against our Sheikhs and scholars, the miserable statement gave us a mere three days to renounce and apologize publicly. They added some human rights, liberal, and democratic activists to the list as well. Since the time limit has ended and none of us have renounced, Bin Laden issued a recommendation to his devils to ‘keep it low’; if the previous statement stated that they had consulted about us, then this one strictly opposes such a notion: “Do not consult anyone about killing these ‘zendeeks’ apostates”.

Later, he spoke of fighting the West, the Jewish population, and Christianity according to a belief that divided the world into two categories: an ‘Islam Category’ under his command, and an ‘infidelity category’ or the land of war ‘under America and the United Nation’s command’. He states that “we will start talking about those who assault the religion, the original infidels. The people of the Islamic Ummah from east to west have condemned this major crime; may god reward those who condemned it as we ask god to accept those who died as martyrs, and we promise Allah to take their revenge against the governments that took their lives”.

One simple comment left:

If Bin Laden attributes himself to another religion and not Islam, we would not need to discuss him and his actions. Unfortunately, he attributes himself to Islam, so we have to return to the holy Koran:

As a matter of Islamic belief, infidelity or polytheism is the classification of anyone other than Allah, and thus Bin Laden epitomizes polytheism when he equated the prophet to the god Allah, and he also has put himself in a position to judge among the prophets, a matter we have already discussed. Our accusation of his infidelity in accordance with what he himself has said, and that accusation is correlated to what he had said, in that there is not a fatwa to kill, a lie which they call the penalty of apostasy.

As a behavior, in which infidelity signals aggression and injustice, and there is no aggression worse that killing the innocent people, then that is what criminals do. The worst criminals are the ones who commit these crimes against innocents and claim that it is his jihad in the name of Allah. Here, he assaults Allah and his Prophet while he assaults the innocent people as well.

Bin Laden has fallen into the crime of terrorism, and he has admitted it proudly; he now announces his intentions to kill more innocent people. If the polytheism and infidelity belief is a crime that has no penalty in life, because only Allah can judge and decide on judgment day, but infidelity as a behavior of terrorism is a crime that violates the right to live, and such rights have penalty in Islam. As the crime of Haraba, according to what Allah said, “the penalty of those who fight Allah and his messenger and do corruption in the land is to be killed or crucified, and cut their legs and hands, or be exiled from the land. It is a shame for them in life, and in the afterlife they will have a great torture, but those who renounce before they are powerless know that Allah is merciful (Almaeda 33-34).

As a pure personal opinion, I do not like Bin Laden. He served the Americans and fought against communists, and he now retraces to fight the Americans in a low way. He used the open doors of America for extremists and their mosques, their sheikhs and organizations. He used these open doors to let his agents in, and uses the available facilities in American society to prepare for a sudden attack. Bin Laden did not attack a camp or soldiers, he attacked using civilian airplanes with thousands of peaceful innocents on board, killing thousands randomly. In such deed there is no heroism, it is just pure shame. That shame properly defines Bin Laden and all those like him, because he is only capable of killing women, children, old people and un-armed civilians. He cannot fight professional soldiers; and when he did have to fight true soldiers, he ran like a rat into the caves to hide ! What a shame. Furthermore, since he feels no such shame, he sent a message from his hideout threatening to kill us, and his miserable threat reminds me of when Garir said “Alfarazdak claimed to kill Morabaa, kill Morabaa, you will have a long life”.

I said in the reply to the previous threat, “It was not that he first threat to me and my family and Koranic brothers, and it won’t be the last. I consider it proof of our success and proof of their failure, astray, cowardice, and low morals. They hide in their holes and then try to threaten the brave guys. They couldn’t refute our proofs by other proofs, so they hide behind veils like women, and send naïve threats. My pen will always be painful to you, you dirty rats, even after I die. My death has been determined by Allah long ago before I was born, and no human power can change that date to force me to die before or after the time I was meant to die. I’m the one who demands your renouncement and apology, or else if you die in your astray, you will end in hell – and what a horrible destiny that is.” That is the answer I give to Bin Laden with my greatest contempt.

This article was published in Arabic in these web sites:

.http://www.arabtimes.com/ /http://www.metransparent.com/texts/ahmed_sobhi_mansour_reform_of_egypt_constitution.htmhttp://www.rezgar.com/debat/show.art.asp?aid=33305http://www.geocities.com/egyptian_civilization_party_ecp/index.htm
http://www.elaph.com/ /


The views and opinions of authors whose articles and comments are posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of IQC.