By Chaud
In The Name Of Allah , Most Gracious Most Merciful
Note : I am aware there are spelling and grammar mistakes , I don't have enough time to review this since I am working on other research , if you find any please contact me.
Note : I am aware there are spelling and grammar mistakes , I don't have enough time to review this since I am working on other research , if you find any please contact me.
يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٲمِينَ لِلَّهِ شُہَدَآءَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِۖ وَلَا يَجۡرِمَنَّڪُمۡ شَنَـَٔانُ قَوۡمٍ عَلَىٰٓ أَلَّا تَعۡدِلُواْۚ ٱعۡدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقۡرَبُ لِلتَّقۡوَىٰۖ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ خَبِيرُۢ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ ,وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِۙ لَهُم مَّغۡفِرَةٌ۬ وَأَجۡرٌ عَظِيمٌ۬ وَٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَكَذَّبُواْ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَآ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ أَصۡحَـٰبُ ٱلۡجَحِيمِ
O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do , To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward. Those who reject Faith and deny our signs will be companions of Hell-Fire." [Sura 5 verse 8-9]
Before I begin I would like to quote Eng.Fadel Soliman (Director of Bridges Foundation) regarding the tragedy of Naj' Hamadi :
"I give my consolations to the families of the victims of the COWARDLY attack that happened yesterday in Naj' Hamadi , there is no Sharia' (law) , Deen (religion) , or ethics that endorses what happened yesterday , the Muslims of Qina and all of Egypt must show their support towards their christian brothers.....donate blood in hospitals.....we must remember that Allah (swt) says in the Holy Quran [Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them.] , to be kind and just is showing my support now" (Source : Time Slice 00:44 - 01:14)Although I wasn't going to do any recent writing regarding Islam until Anti-Islamic Evangelist Rachid ; Host of "Daring Question" on Al-Hayat Tv saw this tragedy as an opportunity to launch one of his absurd attacks on Islam in his episode entitled "The Hate Of Islam Towards The People Of The Book" , in which he argues that Islam teaches hate towards the people of the book , such a ridiculous episode in this time can not go unanswered , Inshalla I will do my best in refuting his claims.
This paper is divided into the following :
- Response to Rachid's introduction .
- Response to Rachid's main arguments.
- Commentary and Responses to other sections of the episode .
- Conclusion and commentary on Rachid's methodology .
- Verses from the bible in the light of Rachid's criteria.
Response to Rachid's introduction
In the beginning of the episode he makes the following statements :
"BBC reported that 6 Copts were killed and at least 10 were injured in gun shooting in Eygpt" (Time Slice 00:01:14-00:01:24)Of course Rachid would not DARE to quote the report correctly which shows that even a few of these victims were Muslims , BBC reported that 2 Muslim by-passers were among the injured and a security official was also killed during the attack (Source) , and according to the official statement the security official was Muslim (Source) , if these "Muslims" who supposedly did all this because Islamic teachings of hate , why did they kill and injure other Muslims as well ?
"Al-Alrabiya also reports that there are 22 victims , and one of the participants in the massacre is a Muslim by the name "Muhammad Ahmad Hussien" , I wonder what the reasons behind this killing against Christians ? " (Time Slice 00:01:38-00:01:55)I don't know about the number 22 , I searched for his source in Al-Arabiya Network and I would be grateful if he or anyone can actually show me that Al-Arabiya reported 22 victims , weather they did or not frankly it's irrelevant , we know what happened and we make dua' for and support all the victims and their families , what's relevant is why Rachid misquotes a news source AGAIN with a filthy cut and paste technique , why not report the whole thing and be fair ? Do you see any Muslims misquoting the event ?
His own SOURCE says that a Muslim got killed , this Muslim is the security official of the Church (If Islam teaches hate towards the people of the book , why is he guarding a Church?) I wonder why Rachid didn't mention this , yet had enough time to mention one of the attackers ? It's because he is trying to brainwash the viewers into believing a load of nonsense before he begins to hurl his falsehood.
I'd like to inform you all that the criminals have been apprehended and they face charges that lead to the death penalty , all of the criminals confessed of shooting randomly in 3 different locations ; 2 Churches and a shopping mall (Rachid , Do Christians gather and worship in shopping malls ? I don't think so ) , and all of them had former criminal charges , and in the end the total number of victims were 7 injured and 9 killed ,according to Rachid's own SOURCE .
"Why ? The Muslims will say as usual that this is a separated case , or they will say that the reason is that a Christian raped a Muslim female , or they will say that Al-Hayat Tv and their programs that criticize Islam is the reason , they will look for a thousand reasons , but the reason will NEVER be that Islam itself is the reason ; that hate has deep roots in The Quran and Sunnah , that what we see is nothing more than a reflection of these teachings " (Time Slice 00:01:57-00:02:35)Of course this is a separate case ! Which Islamic teaching endorses such actions ? and I already quoted a Muslim who CONDEMNS the actions , and the general Muslim community condemns the action.
At the time when Rachid made his episode , Not one Muslim report laid their case on a christian raping a Muslim woman , so why bring it up ? This is a STRAW MAN from Rachid.
There was a case a while back about a Christian raping a Muslim girl , which did instigate violence from both the Muslim and Christian side , but it can not justify this attack since Islam forbids taking revenge , I also have to mention that all the attackers committed felonies in the past , this doesn't sound to me like a bunch of "devout Muslims" doing the will of Allah (swt).
Yes , and I say it with boast , THE REASONS BEHIND THE NAJ' HAMADI MASSACRE IS NOT ISLAMIC and what Rachid said is falsehood .
Of course no christian will ever say that the crusades were a reflection of the old and new testament teachings , and they come up with all kinds of interpretations , yet I'm willing to listen to the Christian's case , but does Rachid listen to the Muslim case ? Based on what he brought up in the episode , I don't think so , continue reading and see for yourself .
"Did Al-Hayat Tv exist 1400 years ago ? Did Christians rape Muslim women 1400 years ago ? So why did Islam teach hate towards Christains 1400 years ago , from the time it started 'till this day ? " (Time Slice 00:02:36-00:02:53)If by "Al-Hayat Tv" you mean the act of instigating violence through bigotry , arrogance , lies and deception towards another faith , then YES Al-Hayat did exist 1400 years ago , in fact it existed since the time of Adam.
There is no need to address the 2nd part of the quote since its a STRAW MAN and live deception.
Rachid goes onward with another incident dealing with a Nigerian Muslim who tried to blow himself up on Christmas eve in an air plane (Time Slice 00:02:55-00:04:07) , not that I don't CONDEMN such actions because I do , and so does the Muslim community , but mentioning such incidents as an introduction is a clear message of what Rachid is intending to do , Appeal To Emotion .
Now since Rachid mentioned innocent women and children , and he condemns this man for his actions , this is a good opportunity to ask him if he condemns the actions of God in the following passages in the bible and prove to me that he is not a HYPOCRITE :
1- Ordered the DIRECT killing Women and Children (1 Samuel 15:3)
2- Ordered pregnant women to be ripped open (Hosea 13:16)
3- Had babies of Babylon dashed against rocks (Psalm 137:9)
4- Ordered women to be raped (Isaiah 13:16)
and list goes on and on and on......
The only reason I am mentioning this is to show Rachid's hypocrisy concerning condemnation .
And then he makes another arrogant remake regarding Hor Al-Ein , which doesn't even deserve a reply , but I do recommend Rachid to read this Martyrdom in Islam Versus Suicide Bombing: by Salafi Manhaj
"After that , Tv channels started wondering....whose fault is this ? what are the motives ? what is the relation between this action and Al-Qaeda ? and Annalists , Politicians and others went forth making arguments and interpreting what happened....A MINORITY SAID THE TRUTH , even in the western world unfortunately , THE REASON IS ISLAM , with bold font without any introduction , but it seems like the west will not learn until they pay a huge price , What is the reason that makes an educated Muslim youth to leave his future and try to blow himself up ? " (Time Slice 00:04:09-00:04:49)Then Rachid shows a video of Shk.Al-Qaradawi condemning western policy for the attack , and then continues :
Of course we will never admit that Islam is the problem because these verses you speak of DON'T EXIST , and Islam was never the problem , and will never be the problem.
"I agree with you (Al-Qaradawi) that we must identify the reasons and deal with them , but of course you will NEVER admit that Islam is the reason because its full of verses that promote hatred and enmity , and 1400 years of mass brainwashing which happens to Muslim populations is the reason behind this buried hatred towards Christians and Jews" (Time Slice 00:06:26-00:06:55)
Ladies and Gentlemen , I don't think I need to explain how bigoted and arrogant Rachid is being , What makes it worse is it's all talk no proof as you will see , up until now , Rachid made a great introduction which includes evangelical delusions regarding Islam , ad hominems , straw men , and ABSURDITIES about Islam being the reason behind Naj' Hamadi and The Nigerian Muslim case , with a 100% intention to brainwash the viewer , it's his way and the way of christian missionaries , we can't blame him for it .
Now to answer Rachid's questions which proves the position of Shk.Al-Qaradawi to be true .
Rachid in previous episodes brought in sub-human entities Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat to speak against Islam on his show (See Here and Here) , I will quote from their debate with Eng.Fadel Soliman which can be watched here and here , in this debate Eng.Fadel makes excellent points which I challenge Rachid with , Which Islam is Rachid talking about ? Because radical Islam is condemned by Muslims , so which Islam is he talking about now ?
"Which Islam, is it my Islam and the Islam of main stream Muslims or is it the Islam of Ayman al-zawahiri, Walid Shoebat and Nonie Darwish. Any scripture can be understood the right way or the wrong way, but if right wing fundamentalist evangelicals understand Islam the same way Al-Qaeda members do, then this is there own problem, but we can not defame a whole religion and demonize 1.5 Billion people because of their convoluted understanding.............I want you to read this book (“Dying to win”) it is “Dying to win” written by the American non Muslim researcher Robert Pape, he said that poverty is not the reason of suicide bombing as the number one person in Al-Qaeda is a Billionaire, and the number two member is a holder of two PHd’s, he found that the probability of having a suicide bomber increases 11 times in a country that has foreign troops on its land whether it is occupying or perceived as occupying force by some groups, so his conclusion was: if you want to end this terrible phenomenon, pull your troops back. " (Source)This quote answers all of Rachid's western propaganda influenced accusations concerning what would make anyone blow himself up , it is OCCUPATION , not Islam.
And I repeat what Eng.Fadel said to Rachid and any other delusional Christain : "IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND ISLAM THE SAME WAY AL-QAEDA DOES, THIS IS YOUR OWN PROBLEM NOT MY PROBLEM " .
I recommend you all to read "Dying to win" By "Robert Pape" , its a great book , and I hope Rachid reads and provides me with a logical case against it's conclusions and how Islam actually is the reason .
"Buried Hate" ??? Rachid here is using a very deceptive play of words , he is trying to show that even if you are a Non-Muslim living with Muslims who are peaceful to you , they secretly or unconsciously hate you .
"And this hatred transformed into a hatred to the West itself , because the West is the symbol of Christianity in their eyes" (Time Slice 00:06:56-00:07:02)
This statement is false !
Since when did the West symbolize Christianity in Muslim eyes ? Just because some Muslims say it doesn't make it true , the same thing can be said about Rachid , since its obvious that Al-Qaeda is what symbolizes Islam to him.
We do have Arab Christians that condemn western policies , even many devout Christians in the West are saying that their communities are not Christian communities , therefore there is no reason for a Muslim to see the west as a reflection of Christianity since they made themselves heard , Rachid is reflecting back into the days he was a STUPID Muslim (until this day I'm still trying to find out how he clearly deducted from the Quran that Muhammad (pbuh) is higher than Allah (swt) ) , he used to think that the West symbolizes Christianity , he said so in his many testimonies, and all he doing now is imposing his own views .
Not all Muslims are alike , but in Rachid's head they are all alike concerning this manner , in fact in any manner he wants !
Rachid continues on with a load of non-sense , I think his approach during the episode introduction is clear now .
" I want to remind you all , every time you go to an airport and you get inspected , you take off your shoes , forbidden to carry a bottle of water.....remember that this is all because of Islam" (Time Slice 00:07:34-00:07:49)Personal Response To Rachid : "REALLY RACHID ? And Islam is what promotes hatred ? this statement showed your true colors ! and if an ignorant christian actually did what you said , are you telling me he won't feel HATE inside him/her ??? "
This statement is clear cut HATE SPEECH against Islam and Muslims , 10 minutes of the episode haven't gone by and Rachid begins by failing his own criteria and started acting like Al-Qaeda memebers concerning their hate speech ,he even helps my case with this statement .
A few minutes ago he was wondering about the Muslim response regarding Al-Hayat Tv instigating violence , I'd like to know when such statements are being broadcast live to millions of brainwashed Christians , How will they feel about Islam ? Do I dare say "love" ? Does Rachid dare to say that a Christian who remembers his statement in an airport will not be instigated to future violence and hate speech against Muslims ? Allah (swt) Knows Best.
I'll deal with this accusation later on when Rachid brings up the hadith .
"Did America exist when Muhammad drove out the Jews and Christians from Arabia ? " (Time Slice 00:08:08 - 00:08:015)
Finally Rachid begins bringing up what he thinks is Islamic literature that supports his case , he is referring to Sura Tawba ,verse number 29 (The Famous Sura 9:29) .
"Did America exist when Muhammad taught his followers to fight the people of the book until they pay the Jizyah while they are subdued ? " (Time Slice 00:08:20 - 00:08:26)
Most Anti-Islamists will refer to the commentary by Ibn Kathir showing that Christians and Jews must be in the state of "humiliation" , in the end Ibn Kathir is a scholar and scholars have different opinions which can be wrong unless proven to be right.
Muslim Apologists have dealt with Sura 9:29 and successfully refuted all the missionary allegations concerning it , I don't need to reinvent the wheel and bring more evidence unless Rachid or any other objector still wants to argue their clearly refuted case , Please read the following articles :
1- Sura 9:29 Discussed By Sami Zaatari (Click Here)
2-Non-Muslims Paying Jizyah In a State Of Humiliation By Bassam Zawadi (Click Here)
Dr.Jamal Badawi says regarding Sura 9:29 :
"But they say that the Quran says that you fight even the people of the book until they pay the poll-tax (Jizyah) while they subdued and some people even say "humiliated" , YOU GET A NUMBER OF ERRORS HERE , First : What is the historical context ? Does it say that Muslims are obligated to fight all people of the book in the world until they come under the rule of Islam , pay the poll-tax and be humiliated or subdued ? The historical context is well known and that's totally ignored by people who write about these issues , The historical context is that ISLAM WAS IN GRAVE DANGER and the Muslim community was in great danger from within the hypocrites as well as elements that were hostile to Muslims even in the Arabian peninsula , some of the tribes in Madina that betrayed the Muslims and co-operated with enemies at the time of war which we call today high treason and harassed Muslims and undermined their religion by all means they can , the tribes in the northern part of Arabia because of their proximity to the byzantine empire , some of them accepted Christianity especially the Gasanites (Gasasinah) , and these people showed a great deal of aggressiveness and antagonism towards Muslims to the point that they committed an act that is regarded today as an act of war ; They killed the messenger sent by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to peacefully invite them to Islam. So when the Aya (verse) and the Sura (chapter) is dealing in , again its Sura 9 , in that context of enmity ; The Byzantines who gather a huge army in Taboq which is now the northern part of Saudi Arabia to wipe , remove Islam totally from existence . This is the circumstances where the necessity to defend that community from those great dangers would be TO FIGHT THEM , SUBDUE THEM TO STOP THE POSSIBILITY OF ATTACK AGAINST THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY. But then , there is big misconception toward the question of Jizyah , some people think that Jizyah is punishment for a person who did not accept Islam , or at best a "bribe" that when you become a Muslim you will not pay the Jizyah , THEY ARE MISTAKEN ON BOTH GROUNDS in fact if a Non-Muslim under the rule of Islam accepts Islam he will have greater financial obligations because he would be required to pay Zakah , he would be required to pay Zakah Al-Ftr , according to the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) he would be required to pay additional Sadaqa even if needed or taxes and voluntary Sadaqa so you're not escaping , you'll be paying more even , and then some people mistranslated the Quran also ; "An Yadin" ( عَنْ يَد) they think it means "humiliated" , on the contrary as Imam Safi'i explained , "An Yadin" means "ABILITY" , in the Arabic language "Yad" ( يَد) like they say "اليد العليا خير من...." "Yad" is actually a symbol of ability that means as Muslim scholars interpreted that you can not impose Jizyah on a woman , a child , an old man , a person who is poor , he must be able to pay that poll-tax. But what is purpose of poll-tax then ? In Islamic law all citizens Muslims and Non-Muslims alike are entitled to state services , to social security and they are not obligated to serve in the Muslim army , "Obligated" because it might contradict their feelings because there is a religous confrontation, so there is defense benefit involved in that . Some people might say "Isn't the secular system better ? Why didn't Muslims in the past say to Non Muslims : "You Pay Zakah equally with your Muslim brothers and sisters" " , but they miss one point , people think of Zakah only as tax in the secular sense where as for the Muslim and for those who know about Islam living with Muslims among Muslims that the Zakah is not just a tax in has a religious connection , and you must of heard about the pillars of Islam one of which is charity , actually it more more respect of their religious sensitivities to say "Don't pay Zakah which is religious , pay the equivalent , pay the Jizya " , by the way some scholars like Dr.Abdul Kareem Zaidan wrote an excellent book on the rights of Non-Muslims under the Islamic state and made it clear that this is not a religious duty on Muslims to have Jizyah if in the judgment of an Islamic government that you want to apply another system it is not really a must. Then finally the biggest misunderstanding , "Wa Hum Sagirun" (وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ) , they don't understand that the word "Sagirun" (صَاغِرُونَ) actually in Arabic could mean humiliated , but it has another important meaning referred to by Imam Safi'i , one the great scholars of Islam , "Sagirun" (صَاغِرُونَ) here means "accepting the authority of the Islamic state" , but let me ask you that question , when you make your tax return before April 1st and when you pay tax to the Canadian government you have the same "Sagaar" (صغار) , you're admitting the authority of Canadian government to impose tax on you don't you ? the same thing "Sagirun" (صَاغِرُونَ) that means accepting legitimacy of the Islamic government under whose protect they are living " (Source)It is clear now that Rachid's understanding of the Quran and history is quite embarrassing , using such a quotation to imply what he implied in the introduction is falsehood and another desperate attempt to brainwash the Christian viewer .
Now what is wrong in the light of all I presented with Jizyah , and Muhammad (pbuh) teaching his followers to collect the Jizyah from the non-believers according to their ability in the Islamic state while they are accepting the rule of Islam ? Frankly I don't know , if this verse actually meant what Rachid was implying , then I'd agree with him , but unfortunately for him , this is not the case at all .
Other objections will be answered further on when Rachid brings up the other verses from Sura 9 .
"Is this enmity the creation of today , or is it an enmity that has historical roots dating back from the beginning of Islam 'till this day ? This is the Daring Question for today's episode" (Time Slice 00:08:26 - 00:08:39)And what a great question it is ! It is a legit question Muslims and Non-Muslims have the right to ask and question , but did Rachid answer it correctly ? Lets move forward and find out .
"Before this , Al-Qaradawi appeared to be sad because some Muslims were celebrating Christmas , teaching Muslims hatred towards all that is christian , even CELEBRATIONS ! yet he doesn't want to be held the responsibility of Islam in teaching its followers to hate Christians " (Timeslice 00:08:40 - 00:09:05)Now how does what Al-Qaradawi said have to with what Rachid is trying to promote ? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ! and in fact his own channel Al-Hayat is guilty of the same charge if this is case , double standard hypocrisy at its best !
Al-Qaradawi is not speaking in a hateful manner , he is warning the Muslim community about westernization , Islam does not forbid Muslims to congratulate their christian brothers and sisters in their celebration , but it does forbid taking action in them , did Al-Qaradawi state not to congratulate the Christians for their holidays ? NO ! He is instructing the Muslims to remember their identity and what Islam has to say about celebrations .
Now as for the double standards , if Al-Qaradawi speaking in his Khutba' about the Muslim identity and reminding the Muslims of what Islam says is "hate" , then whats the deal with Al-Hayat Tv ?
I remember last year around Eid Al-Ahda time , Al-Hayat did a rerun of their episode about the celebration , now how does this not "instigate hate" according to Rachid ? Muslims are celebrating , then an episode condemning the celebration airs on a Christian tv network , how is this any different from what Al-Qaradawi was doing ? If speaking against a certain holiday PRACTICES (not condemning CONGRATULATING) is the promotion of hate , then I think Al-Hayat Tv rerun schedules must shift a little bit .
and then Rachid shows a video of Al-Qaradawi and then continues to say :
"Yes , Muslims unfortunately say that they believe in The Messiah , and celebrating his birthday is HARAM according to Al-Qaradawi , Why is it Haram ? Don't you believe that The Messiah had a miraculous birth ? What is wrong with celebrating his miraculous birth then ? Don't you say you distinguish not between any of the messengers of Allah ? OK then ! Just like you celebrate the birth of Muhammad , celebrate Christmas so you don't distinguish any of Allah's messengers ?" (Time Slice 00:11:45 - 00:12:22)
This case is totally a hopeless argument from Rachid that is quite comical to a certain degree , I must remind everyone that just because some Muslims do it , doesn't mean it is Islam approves of it , for Rachid to make this claim , he must prove evidence that Islam teaches the celebration of the Prophet Muhammad's birthday.
Before I begin I'd like to ask when was the last time I saw a Christian CELEBRATING any Eid with a Muslim ? (emphasis on CELEBRATING , I do acknowledge that both Muslims and Christians congratulate each other in their holidays).
In Islam we have 2 holidays and Muslims celebrate in them , and not take the action of CELEBRATION in Non-Muslim holidays .
Hadith - Abu Dawood #1134, 1/675, Narrated Anas Bin Malik
The Prophet (pbuh) came to Medina with two days they played in.The Prophet said, ‘What are these two days?’ They said, ‘These are two days we used to play in, in our Jahiliyah.’ The Prophet (pbuh) said, ‘Allah has replaced them with two better days: Eid Al Adhaa and Eid Al-Fitr’.
Therefore I CHALLENGE RACHID TO BRING ME QURANIC OR SUNNAH EVIDENCE THAT MAKES THE BIRTHDAY OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH) AN OFFICIAL EID IN ISLAM .
If he does , then I gladly give him this argument , we Muslims must celebrate the birth of Jesus (pbuh) , IF HE CAN PROVE THAT PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S BIRTHDAY IS A "EID" ACCORDING TO ISLAM .
And since we do not make any difference between the prophets of Allah (swt) , and according to what I brought so far , how does not celebrating Christmas means I'm leaving Jesus (pbuh) out ?
Al-Qaradaqi himself stated HERE that celebrating the prophet's birthday the following :
"We all know that the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not celebrate the Prophet's birthday, Hijrah or the Battle of Badr, because they witnessed such events during the lifetime of the Prophet who always remained in their hearts and minds......So such celebrations were held as a means of reviving great events and the values that we can learn from them. Unfortunately, such celebrations include some innovations when they should actually be made to remind people of the Prophet's life and his call. Actually, celebrating the Prophet's birthday means celebrating the birth of Islam. Such an occasion is meant to remind people of how the Prophet lived. "Weather Rachid likes it or not , Muslims believe in Jesus (pbuh) and revere him way more than any christian would do in his/her whole life.
Now Al-Qaradawi said that these "celebrations" should be to remind of us of the Prophet (pbuh) , according to this criteria , my question is , HOW DOES CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS WITH CHRISTIANS REMIND ME OF JESUS (pbuh) ?
How does a Tree with lights remind of Jesus (pbuh) ?
Please keep in mind that I do acknowledge that Islam allows Muslims to congratulate others in their celebrations , BUT NOT TO CELEBRATE IN IT.
and there is NO SUCH THING AS A CELEBRATION OF ANY PROPHET'S BIRTHDAY THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE QURAN OR THE SUNNAH.
"Shk Al-Islam Ibn Taymiya said : Let every one know that the Believer must be aided and supported even if he does injustice towards you and attacks you while the Kafir must be hated even if gave you and did good to you " (Time Slice 00:12:34 - 00:12:51)
Can somebody please tell me when did Ibn Taymiya become the Prophet of Islam ? and why should I listen to this FALSE fatwa when it clearly contradicts the Quran ?
[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)
How many times do Muslims have to repeat themselves ? SCHOLARS CAN BE WRONG UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THEM RIGHT FROM THE QURAN AND HADITH !
I thank Ibn Taymiya for many of his great works and ideas , but this one a FAULTY ONE since its a clear cut contradiction of the Quran .
"The Messiah gave us a way to measure how we should deal with others , it is known as the "Golden Rule" "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12 " (Time Slice 00:12:54 - 00:13:13)
I have no problem with was Jesus (pbuh) said since I do believe that he said such sayings but what I do have a problem with is RACHID'S DOUBLE STANDARD HYPOCRISY !
Rachid is an evangelist , therefore deception is required in his job as Paul used to , and this is where I draw the line.
Rachid knows that he quoted Ibn Taymiya not the prophet (pbuh) , tried to pass it off as Islamic doctrine , in hopes of catching Muslim who do not know that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) preached the EXACT SAME THING .
"Hurt no one so no one may hurt you" (Prophet Muhammad's final sermon)
"That which you want for yourself , seek for man-kind" (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938) [English Title: Conversations of Muhammad] Wattles (192) Rost (100)
Donaldson Dwight M. 1963. Studies in Muslim Ethics, p.82. London: S.P.C.K )
Bukhari Volume 8 , book 74 , Number 273:
Narrated 'Aisha
".....Be clam ! O'Aisha , for Allah loves that one should be kind and lenient in all matters......"
There are many hadiths that teach Muslims the exact same teaching Jesus (pbuh) was preaching .
Add to that what I already mentioned and will mention from the Quran.
Now doesn't this sound EXACTLY like what Jesus(pbuh) was saying ? but there is no way Rachid would actually quote such sayings , he had to run away and hide behind Ibn Taymiya .
This is exactly what angers Muslims about evangelists , the FILTHY AND DIRTY game of cut and paste , along with propagation of Christian dogma as if its superior with no evidence whatsoever .
Rachid knew exactly what he was doing , and I really can't blame him , he is following his "Apostle" Paul and his teachings of lying to evangelize others using deceit ! and what greater deceit is there than this filthy methodology he is using ! refer to 1 Corinthians chapter 9 verses 19-22 and 2 Corinthians chapter 12 verse 16
If Rachid is trying to evangelize Muslims who do not know that Muhammad (pbuh) preached the golden rule , then this proves the validity of Shk.Ash-Sharawi's saying referring to evangelism :
"We get their wise one , and they take our IDIOTS"
Response to Rachid's main arguments.
Now Rachid explains the viewers that he will do a comparison between some verses and hadiths , and will replace the words to become about Muslims , and he asks us , HOW WOULD WE FEEL ? Indeed Rachid has the right to make this comparison , but did he succeed in making a valid case against Islam ?
Rachid's Power point slides can be downloaded HERE .
Lets move to his first point :
1- The Prayer (Time Slice 00:14:03 - 00:15:53)
In this section Rachid argues that Sura 1 verse 7 if referring to Jews and Christians , therefore this is teaching Muslims to hate through prayer , along with mass brainwashing since childhood.
Now this is new information for me ! Jews and Christians in Sura 1 !
I'd like to ask all my Muslim audience , DID ANYONE TEACH YOU AS A KID THAT VERSE 7 IS REFERRING TO JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ? WHILE YOU PRAY DO YOU VISUALIZE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS AND ACTUALLY HATE THEM DURING THE PRAYER ?
What is this brain washing he is speaking of ? this is ridiculous as me saying that the Lords prayer supports racism since it says "...Give US..." Us=Christians , again this Rachid's technique OF BRAINWASHING THE CHRISTIAN VIEWER.
This is why Rachid was arguing earlier that "Islamic Hate" is "buried hate" , this was an introduction to all this falsehood .
I do agree with him that some interpreters of the Quran did interpret "Those whose portion is wrath " are the Jews and "Those who lead astray" are the Christians (for example : Al-Jalalen ) , but does the Sura itself say that ? No ! in fact , for the sake of argument lets say it is , HOW DOES THIS INSTIGATE HATE ?
Notice that Surah 1 is what we begin our prayers with , it has spiritual meanings regarding which paths we want to follow in this life and on the day of judgment , and we as Muslim actually believe that Christians have gone astray , and that some of the Jews of the past deserved the wrath of God on them , we are asking not to follow both those paths , WHERE IS THE HATE ? How is God suppose to remind you of these false paths and the true path which is Islam ? how does this instigate hate when the Quran clearly teaches kindness towards People of the book who have not instigating any kind of violence ? and how does this instigate hate when this is clearly referring to something that will happen on the day judgment ? Allah (swt) knows best of what's in this missionaries head.
The Quranic verse doesn't make an explicit statement that it is the Jews and Christians , Rachid is relying on commentators .
and for the sake of argument lets say it does mention them by name , then according to the context , THIS IS A THEOLOGICAL CLAIM regarding Jews and Christians FAITH in this life and their ENDING in life after .
and how does a theological claim somehow brainwash people into hate ? I don't know .
Al-Qurtubi says in his commentary on the verse (sura 1:7) :
Note : I personally grew up with the idea that "Those whose portion is wrath" are those who do not read this Sura during their prayers , and "Those who lead astray" are those who turn away from the blessings of reading it .
" There is dispute among the people concerning who is are the "Those whose portion is wrath" "Those who lead astray" , an audience say they are the Jews and Christians (Based on a prophetic hadith , and then Al-Qurtubi lists some verses from the Quran please see the source for them ) . Others said : "Those whose portion is wrath" are the Mushriks , and "Those who lead astray" are the Hypocrites . Others said : "Those whose portion is wrath" are those who do not read this Sura during their prayers , and "Those who lead astray" are those who turn away from the blessings of reading it , but this judgment is not favorable . Others said : "Those whose portion is wrath" are those follow religious innovations , and "Those who lead astray" are those who lead away from the guiding Sunnah.
"Wa la Ad-daleen" (ولا الضالين) , "Dalal" in the speech of the Arabic means "Going astray from the true path)............etc " (Source)
Verse 7 can mean many different things , I will not go into detail in them , and if we take it along with verse 6 in its context , then its the prayer asking god not to follow the THEOLOGICAL WAYS of those whose portion is wrath and those who lead astray .
Who are those whose portion is wrath and those who lead astray ? Many claims have been made , and even if for the sake of argument I say it is the Jews and Christians , How does a Muslim asking God to keep on the straight path and not to follow the path of the Jews who angered God and the Christians who lead people astray teaches hate ?
Of course Rachid has to Appeal to Emotion , asking us how would we feel if the verse said the following and Christians use it in their prayers every day :
"Give us the the straight path , the path of the christian whom you blessed , not the path of Those whose portion is wrath of the Sunni Muslims , and not the path of those who lead astray of the Shiate Muslims "
The truth is , Rachid's question is not an accurate one .
Not only does Rachid fail in producing a decent verse , he puts COMMENTATOR CLAIMS in the verse .
The verse does not clear cut indicate that it refers to Jews and Christians , therefore I don't have any good reasons to believe it is , nor do I have any reasons to "hate" assuming that it is the Jews and Christians since the context is a theological claim , nor do I know any Muslim that can visualize Christians and Jews during their prayers and "buries hate towards them".
Rachid should have said "What if christian commentators said that......." , well this question has been asked before and this reminds me of another sub-human entity Rachid brought on his show to do some slandering of Islam and Shk.Ahmed Deedat , Dr.Anis Shorrosh (See Here) .
Dr.Shorrosh had a debate with Dr.Badawi on weather The Quran is the word of God of the word of Muhammad(pbuh) , and during the question and answer period he was asked to explain how he claims the first part of Sura 1:7 actually refers to Christians , he replied by explaining that " The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace" are the Christians since they experienced grace through Jesus (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) claimed to be the way , truth and life .
While "those whose (portion) is not wrath" , those whose is portion are the Jews since they rejected Jesus (pbuh) .
and "and who go not astray" , those who go astray are those who are lost , and everyone is lost without knowing God through Jesus (pbuh) .
and what was the Muslim response ? Dr.Shorrosh can't be taken seriously be any Muslim .
The debate can be downloaded HERE , It's debate number one , please refer to Time Slice (02:24:23 - 02:28:39) , and please make sure to see Dr.Jamal Badawi's response which is 100% valid response to both Dr.Shorrosh and Rachid .
So if Rachid actually puts forth the right question which is "What if Christian commentators said....." , then he might become a laughing stock like what happened to Dr.Anis Shorrosh , or since it's a logical theological claim based a certain view of God and history of religions , I wouldn't even take such a claim seriously .
Last point I want to make is that the only way Rachid can prove his case regarding Sura 1 is if any known certified Psychiatrist can do a study about Sura 1 and it's impact on Muslim-Jew/Christian relations and prove that Muslims are subconsciously hating Christians despite all the direct orders from Allah (swt) and the Prophet (pbuh) to be just and kind towards the People of the Book , because relying on Sura 1:7 ; then :
1-Claiming mass brainwashing through prayer.
2-Asking Muslims how would they feel if Christians had such verses when Muslims would have no problem if the verse is in it's context and the same religious parameters regarding practicing dealing with other faiths exist .
3- That when Muslims read this verse during their prayers they remember Jews and Christians.
4-That all this creates "Buried Hate" towards Jews and Christians .
is simply ABSURD
My answer to Rachid's question regarding "How would I feel ?" is that if Christians are saying "your verse" with no context and theological claims , then yes it is offensive , but unfortunately for you Sura 1:7 is not explicit to Jews and Christians , the verse has its context and theological claims which have nothing to do with hate .
2- The Greeting (Salam) (Time Slice 00:15:54 - 00:17:01)
In this section Rachid deals with a hadith for Saheeh Muslim which states :
"Do not initiate the salaam with the Jews and Christians and when you meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it"
and then Rachid makes claims (as usual) , wondering if this is love ? or is this pure hate ? and how would a Muslim feel if this Hadith said :
"Do not initiate the salaam with the Muslims and when you meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it"
Now here is another case of "ignoring historical context" which I already exposed Rachid doing with the Jizyah verse , and you will all see him doing it quite often during the following segments of this paper .
I would agree with Rachid that this Hadith is hate speech if there was no historical context that reveals a total different situation .
Sheikh Faysal b. Anwar Mawlawi writes in an excellent article dealing with this hadith :
I would like to add that this was also mentioned by Imam Ibn Qayim .
"……This hadith relates to “a state of hostilities” which had erupted at that time against the Muslims. It was, in fact, at the time of the campaign against Banû Qurayzah. This is established by another authentic hadîth where the Prophet [ peace be upon him ] said: “…We are going forth in the morning against a group of Jews, so do not initiate the greeting of Peace with them….” [ Musnad Ahmad 26695 and Mu’jam al-Tabarani al-Kabir 22 / 291. See also Musnad Ahmad 16844 and.17584.]. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani relates the same from al-Bukhari’s al-Adab al-Mufrad and from Sunan.al-Nasa’i.while.discussing.this.topic.in.“Fath.al-Bari”.[.11./.39.]….." (Source)
Why am mentioning this ? Because once you cross reference the hadith Rachid is using as "evidence" with history and other authentic narrations , it gives a total different understanding.
In Hadith literature , although Sahih Hadiths and authentic , there are different levels of Sahih :
1- Mutafaq Alyih .
2- What has been narrated by both Bukhari and Muslim .
3- What has been narrated in Bukhari .
4- What has been narated in Muslim .
Again I am not saying that Bukhari is better than Muslim or implying that what is Saheeh in Muslim should be rejected , what is Saheeh in Muslim is Saheeh and authoritative , but Bukhari puts more conditions on a hadith therefore I will cross reference what is narrated in Muslim with what is narrated in Bukhari .
In Bukhari , the wording is different it says :
"....do not initiate salam with the People of the Book, force them to the narrowest part of the road…." [ Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari, XDIII. The People of the Book, nr. 1103 ]
The term "People of the book" could mean :
1- Jews and Christians.
2-Christians only.
3-Jews only.
The hadith in Bukhari says "People of the book" , not "Jews and Christians" as Muslims narrates it , this could be because people traditionally ascribe the term "People of the book" to Jews and Christians together .
So what is the correct meaning to given to the hadith ? we need to see what is the historical context , according to the scholars mentioned in my previous quotation , this is referring the JEWS OF BANI-QURAYZA ONLY .
another authentic hadith supports this view :
"The Prophet (pbuh) said: “We are going forth in the morning against a group of Jews, so do not initiate the greeting of 'Salam' with them" (Narrated in Musnad Ahmad 26695 and Mu’jam al-Tabarani al-Kabir 22 / 291 )
Al-Qurtubi says :
and what did the prophet Muhammad say explicitly about the morals and ethics of a Muslim concerning the road ?
"This does not mean if you meet them in a wide road you must force them to the narrowest part of the road because then we hurting them for no reason , and the prophet(pbuh) taught us never to do such" (Al-Mufham ,volume 5 page, 490)
"The Prophet said, 'Beware! Avoid sitting on the roads." They (the people) said, "O Allah s Apostle! We can't help sitting (on the roads) as these are (our places) here we have talks." The Prophet said, ' l f you refuse but to sit, then pay the road its right ' They said, "What is the right of the road, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, 'Lowering your gaze, refraining from harming others, returning greeting, and enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil." (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 74, Number 248 ,Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri)
After considering the historical context , the meaning of the hadith is clear as the sun , and it has nothing to do with what Rachid is trying to promote .
Let me answer Rachid's question then , "Is this pure hate ? " and how would I feel if such a narration existed in Christain literature ?
If such a narration existed without any historical context , and with the word "Muslim" then yes I would be offended , but the hadith Rachid was pawning off as "evidence" has nothing to whatsoever with what he is trying to promote .
Now if a narration like the hadith Rachid came up with was dealing with a group of Muslims who betrayed the treaty with the Christians and co-operated with their enemies in an attempt to destroy Christianity , meaning that the time was a time of war , and the Christians were instructed not to greet those CERTAIN MUSLIMS , then would not feel offended .
3- Cursing because of taking the graves of their Prophets as Mosques . (Time Slice 00:17:01 - 00:18:50)
In this section Rachid argues that the hadith in Bukhari where the Prophet(pbuh) curses the Jews and Christians for taking the graves of Prophets as Mosques .
First of all I don't see how this hadith even instigates any kind of hate , it is referring to Jews and Christians did this action , and this hadith also implies a future prohibition to Muslims to such a DISGRACEFUL action , if any Muslim does this , then he/she is included , therefore there is no discrimination among religions from the Islamic point of view .
and the Prophet(pbuh) here is cursing those of the Jews and Christians who actually did take the graves of their prophets as places of worship , if there are Jews and Christians who did not and still don't do this action , then this isn't speaking about them.
Rachid launches a series of accusations during this section which includes :
A- Rachid asks us where and when did Christians and Jews take the graves of their prophets as mosques ?
"Aisha tells us that Um Salamah informed her that she had told the Prophet (pbuh) about a church in Abyssinia which she saw when she migrated there with her husband in which there were images. The Prophet (pbuh) then explained to her the significance of what she had seen: That the Christians, when a pious man from among them died, would build an edifice over his grave and place his image in it in order to remember him and be inspired by his piety; and he added that these people were the worst of people in the sight of Allah because they had combined two sins: The sin of building over graves which may lead eventually to the worship of their occupants; and the sin of making images of living creatures which may also lead to worship of those images when the original purpose of their making has been forgotten. " Narrated in BukhariI have no problem accepting this hadith unless someone brings me evidence that I shouldn't.
Personally I didn't do any study in this field , but many church of the different sects of Christianity have been built over what is supposedly the graves of the Apostles , and supposedly the grave of Mary (pbuh) , anyone correct me if I am wrong .
B- That Muslims allegedly took the grave of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a mosque .
Lets look into this absurd claim .
The hadith says "Took the graves of their Prophets as mosques" , indicating that first the prophet dies , then they take the location as a Mosque .
is this what happened ?
The Mosque was build when The Prophet first arrived to Madina , and the Prophet (pbuh) was buried INSIDE HIS HOUSE , which is a separate facility than the Mosque itself , and praying near a grave is not prohibited in Islam .
C- Islam "alleged" respect towards other faiths .
a number of verses from the Quran is sufficient to destroy this claim and Rachid's implication .
[ لَكُمۡ دِينُكُمۡ وَلِىَ دِينِ ] [ Unto you your religion , and unto me mine ] Sura 109 verse 6
[ لَآ إِكۡرَاهَ فِى ٱلدِّينِۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشۡدُ مِنَ ٱلۡغَىِّۚ فَمَن يَكۡفُرۡ بِٱلطَّـٰغُوتِ وَيُؤۡمِنۢ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسۡتَمۡسَكَ بِٱلۡعُرۡوَةِ ٱلۡوُثۡقَىٰ لَا ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَاۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ] [There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.] Sura 2 verse 256
Can any faith on earth be more explicit about religion freedom and tolerance than this ?
I hope no one brings up REFUTED cases like Abrogation to the table to try and prove these verses wrong .
D- What If Paul said such a thing ?
I'll be dealing with Paul's offenses later on .
To answer Rachid question , "what is your feeling ?"
I still can't find the offense to begin with ! I already showed that Muslims are included if they commit such an act , and I answered Rachid's objections , what is left for Rachid to do is again to bring me a proof that this hadith instigates hate .
In fact how does hadith explain Naj' Hamadi or Al-Qaeda ?
4- Cursing the Jews because of selling pork . (Time Slice 00:18:51 - 00:19:27)
In this section Rachid argues that a hadith that says "Curse be upon the Jews because pork was forbidden on them , yet they sold it"
Yet another hopeless case......
First of all God's curse on the Jews on if they broke the commandments and abandoned their covenant is well recording in the Old Testament , some are listed in Deuteronomy Chapter 28 verses 15-64
God gives an interesting number of reason why he CURSED the Jews.
45 All these curses will come upon you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the LORD your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. 46 They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, 48 therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.
God punishing the Jews with curses for this is also well documented throughout the Old Testament , for example , Malachi chapter 2 verses 1-2 :
"1 And now this admonition is for you, O priests. 2 If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the LORD Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me."Therefore God cursing is not something that is new or unique to God as depicted in the Quran only.
So I can see the prophet's hadith in many different aspects even without the Old Testament :
1- Condemning a practice which God explicitly prohibited in the Quran .
2- If a Muslim decides to sell pork like the Jews did , then the Muslim is cursed as well , again no religious discrimination .
If I include the Old Testament , then I'd say The Prophet is quoting past history which both Christians and Jews believe in .
The Jews were told my God not consume pork in Leviticus chapter 11 verse 7-8 which states :
"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. "and in various other passages like Deuteronomy 14:7-8 , and condemned in passages like Isaiah 65:2-4 & Isaiah 66:17.
Again ,God sending a curse to those who break his commandments is not something new , if the Jews sell pork then God's curse is on them , and it is stated again in the hadith , WHERE IS THE HATE ?
Of course Rachid has to invent a new hadith were he replaces "Jews" with "Muslims" , and appeals again to the viewers emotion , I think he is aware of how this argument is .
Now hypothetically speaking , if Muslims in the past were given a direct order from Allah(swt) not to deal with pork or Allah (swt)'s curse will on them , the Muslims break the law and deal with pork , and then a future prophet curses the Muslims for breaking the law , why should I feel offended ? Even if the Muslims do not believe in this prophet , did he say something wrong which is not confirmed in their own scriptures ?
Where is the offense and where is the instigation to hate ????
5- Kicking out Jews and Christians. (Time Slice 00:19:27 - 00:21:04)
In this section , Rachid argues using a hadith in Saheeh Muslim where the prophet says "I will drive out the jews and christians from "Jazerat Al-Arab" until I leave only Muslims . "
This hadeeh is a saheeh hadith and there's no need for a Muslim to be ashamed of it like some are , the problem with this hadith is that I can't find any commentary or historical application of it the way Rachid is promoting ! and by examining the historical application of the prophet and the sahaba , one can understand what the prophet actually meant .
First of all a historical narration of a group of Muslims lead by the prophet (pbuh) going door to door , village to village , tribe to tribe kicking Jews and Christians out does not exist , nor did any of the Khalifs after the prophet did such a thing , so how am I supposed to understand this hadith the way Rachid is trying present itif I can't find any application ?
Scholars differed on what is "Jazerat Al-Arab" is , but what they agreed on is that it doesn't represent the whole Arabian peninsula , but rather specific cities and areas like Madina , Mekka and Hijaz for example , there are many different thoughts given to this , but again my argument is based on the historical application of the hadith .
There is a not a single historical narration that states that the prophet (pbuh) was going around kicking jews and christains out , but history does give us examples of jews who got kicked out of Madina during the time of the prophet (pbuh) like Banu Kaynuka' ,the Jewish tribes of Madina who got kicked out deserved this for their betrayal and breaking of the treaty which the prophet (pbuh) established when he first arrived there .
The Prophet (pbuh) died and there was still Jews and Christians in Madina and in the Arabian peninsula , is this a "mission failed" ? if it is then I'd expect the Sahaba to do something about it , but here is what happened:
So what can we learn from history ? that the prophet (pbuh) was referring to jews and christians who break their treaties , this is well documented in Islamic history, it has nothing to do with what Rachid is implying .
Rachid brings up his modified verse which states replaces the Jews and Christians with "Muslims" , and asks us the same question , how would we feel ? well I'd be offended because that is what the Christians did in the Spanish inquisition , and I would be arguing against Christianity since this is what historically happened , but since the Muslim application through history doesn't suggest what Rachid implied , why should any Muslim take this argument seriously ?
Rachid spills out some interesting side blabber .
6-Instigating hate by "Takfir" (announcing as disbelievers) the Christians because they call Jesus(pbuh) God (Time Slice 00:21:06 - 00:22:11)
In this section , Rachid argues using a hadith in Saheeh Muslim where the prophet says "I will drive out the jews and christians from "Jazerat Al-Arab" until I leave only Muslims . "
This hadeeh is a saheeh hadith and there's no need for a Muslim to be ashamed of it like some are , the problem with this hadith is that I can't find any commentary or historical application of it the way Rachid is promoting ! and by examining the historical application of the prophet and the sahaba , one can understand what the prophet actually meant .
First of all a historical narration of a group of Muslims lead by the prophet (pbuh) going door to door , village to village , tribe to tribe kicking Jews and Christians out does not exist , nor did any of the Khalifs after the prophet did such a thing , so how am I supposed to understand this hadith the way Rachid is trying present itif I can't find any application ?
Scholars differed on what is "Jazerat Al-Arab" is , but what they agreed on is that it doesn't represent the whole Arabian peninsula , but rather specific cities and areas like Madina , Mekka and Hijaz for example , there are many different thoughts given to this , but again my argument is based on the historical application of the hadith .
There is a not a single historical narration that states that the prophet (pbuh) was going around kicking jews and christains out , but history does give us examples of jews who got kicked out of Madina during the time of the prophet (pbuh) like Banu Kaynuka' ,the Jewish tribes of Madina who got kicked out deserved this for their betrayal and breaking of the treaty which the prophet (pbuh) established when he first arrived there .
The Prophet (pbuh) died and there was still Jews and Christians in Madina and in the Arabian peninsula , is this a "mission failed" ? if it is then I'd expect the Sahaba to do something about it , but here is what happened:
Even the Sahaba themselves who knew the prophet (pbuh) the best weren't riding around kicking Jews and Christians out of Arabia, nor was there any recorded attempt to do such ."During the time of Abu-Bakr , the Jews were in Khaybar which was180 Kilometers away from Madina , the Christians of Najran in Najran , the Jews of Yeman stayed in Yeman and the polytheists of Ahsa in Ahsa , yet he (Abu Bakr) was the most knowledgeable of the prophet (pbuh) , the greatest of Ummah in glorifying the prophet and we find him :1- Ordered Osama's army to Ash-Sham .2-Fought the apostates all around the Arabian peninsula which was away from Madina.3- After that he sent an expedition to Iraq and The Sham area .
and he died while his armies are fighting the Persians and Romans , and yet they (Jews and Christians) were still there (Arabia) and he didn't drive him out .After Omar took over the khalifa , and he left the Jews of Khaybar in Khaybar , the Christians of Najran in Najran , the polytheists of Hjr in Hjr and occupied himself with fighting the disbelievers outside the Arabian peninsula , he finished the conquest or Persia and Ash-Sham , and then ordered an expedition to Egypt and Cyprus , the armies of the khalifa were fighting in the 3 continents (Asia , Europe & Africa) , while they (Jews and Christians) were still in their place in Arabia , Omar drove out only the Jews of Khaybar -when they broke the treaty and attacked his son Abdullah- to Tayma' , and the Christians of Najran when they broke the condition of peace with the prophet (pbuh) who set a condition (which they accepted) stating they should not deal with Riba (interest) , so Omar drove then out because they broke it , and kept the Jews of Yeman in Yeman 'till this very day , and the polytheists of Ahsa accepted Islam and blended into the Muslim community " (Ahkam Ahl Al-dimmah , Ibn Al Qayim , Page 175)
So what can we learn from history ? that the prophet (pbuh) was referring to jews and christians who break their treaties , this is well documented in Islamic history, it has nothing to do with what Rachid is implying .
Rachid brings up his modified verse which states replaces the Jews and Christians with "Muslims" , and asks us the same question , how would we feel ? well I'd be offended because that is what the Christians did in the Spanish inquisition , and I would be arguing against Christianity since this is what historically happened , but since the Muslim application through history doesn't suggest what Rachid implied , why should any Muslim take this argument seriously ?
Rachid spills out some interesting side blabber .
"Isn't this racism ? Isn't this hate ?"No , since history didn't confirm Rachid's falsehood , how was Muhammad (pbuh) racist if he didn't do what Rachid is implying , but he did what any political leader at his time would do ?
"So what is hate if its not this?"Rachid seriously needs to buy a dictionary , and perhaps take a course in historiography .
"I ask all Muslim and Muslima , ask the Shieks , Isn't this hate ? "Gimme a break ! who am I depending on in this paper ? , NO THIS IS NOT HATE .
Any evidence to back this blabber with ? other than evangelical deceit and christian propaganda , This is brainwashing at its best ! and its all talk , continue reading and see for yourself , I already proved Muhammad (pbuh) and Sahaba never kicked any Jew or Christian out of Arabia unless they broke the treaty , and if any Christian or Jew has a problem with that then he/she needs to be honest with him/herself and join Rachid in the ranks of double standard hypocrites that fill this world."Suicide bombing doesn't begin from bombing , they begin these hadiths , from these verses , the killing of christians eventually begins from the intense Muslims prayers ,cursing , enmity....Muhammad kicked out the Jews and Christians , all of this becomes a ticking bomb in the Muslim which will blow one day because they brainwashed him/her and made him/her hate anything from the people of the book , Jews or christians"
6-Instigating hate by "Takfir" (announcing as disbelievers) the Christians because they call Jesus(pbuh) God (Time Slice 00:21:06 - 00:22:11)
In this section Rachid argues that the Quran teaches hate because of Sura 5 verse 17 which states
[ لَّقَدۡ ڪَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلۡمَسِيحُ ٱبۡنُ مَرۡيَمَۚ قُلۡ فَمَن يَمۡلِكُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ شَيۡـًٔا إِنۡ أَرَادَ أَن يُهۡلِكَ ٱلۡمَسِيحَ ٱبۡنَ مَرۡيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ ۥ وَمَن فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ جَمِيعً۬اۗ وَلِلَّهِ مُلۡكُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَمَا بَيۡنَهُمَاۚ يَخۡلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُۚ وَٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬ قَدِيرٌ۬] [ They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. ]
Again Rachid seems unable to distinguish between hate speech and THEOLOGICAL CLAIMS , but before I show the distinction , I need to reply to a comment Rachid made during this section , I bet a lot of Muslim viewers had a great laugh listening to Rachid making this statement because I surely did.
"What is your business regarding how Christians believe in the Messiah ? Why the hate ? Why are you instigating Muslim hate towards other people like in humanity ? At-Takfir....and this is the reason why Muslims denounce others as disbelievers"
WOW ! So Allah (swt) the creator of the heavens of the earth , the creator of all , has no say in Christian beliefs ?
If that's the case , why did he object against the Jews who worshiped the calf and other Pagan worshiping groups in the Old Testament ? According to Rachid he had no say whatsoever , and yet Rachid's own God fails Rachid's criteria .
How is Allah (swt) going to be fair and just if he did not make an explicit theological claim against the Christians to expose their falsehood ? If Allah (swt) didn't do this then we be finding Christians on the day of judgment when faced with truth objecting and saying "YOU DIDN'T TELL US ! "
More into this , Allah (swt) has no saying in condemning a heretical belief regarding himself ? There are masses of people worshiping a man as God and you expect Allah (swt) to stay silent ?
If that's the case , should hindus be offended every time God says in the Old testament "I am God , there is no God but me" , because this is exactly what is going on here .
What kind of God allows heresy on the earth , then claims he will judge the heretics without first making the claim of their falsehood ?
It's a well known fact that Jesus (pbuh) is not God , the Gospels can't prove it and its a later developed doctrine of man.
What kind of "final message to humanity" that doesn't condemn previous falsehoods ?
What's next ? God has no right to show Christians that Islam is the truth ? Based on this what authority does this God have to claim that he sent his "only begotten son" to die for my sins and don't believe this ?
And how does "Takfir" = "Hate" ? How do verses that deal with theology (not ethics and morals) = "Hate" ?
Rachid's objection is laughable , and does not help his case one bit.
Now the verse itself is a theological claim dealing with the person of Allah(swt) , certain people have claim the Jesus (pbuh) is Allah (swt) , then Allah(swt) condemns this , WHERE IS THE HATE ?
How does a theological claim instigate hate ? Does the verse say "because they said jesus is god you must hate them " ? How does Rachid jump from theological claim to hate speech against Christians ?
Yes , We do believe that those who believe Jesus (pbuh) is Allah(swt) are making Kufr , how does this contradict the ethics and morals set by the Allah(swt) in the Quran regarding dealing with others including the people of the book ?
Now Rachid brings up his modified verse where it states :
"They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah did Sallah on Muhammad: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy Muhammad and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. "
I would like to note that Muslims made it clear that Allah (swt) doing "Sallah" on Muhammad (pbuh) , means that Allah(swt) sends his blessings to the Prophet (pbuh) , not that he actually worships him .
Again , a theological claim , if such a claim existed in christian literature , then I would demand evidence for it , this verse actually stimulates religious dialogue more than "hate" , Why would I feel offended ? and if a Christian had a huge sum of scriptures and hadith that teach him/her to be kind and just towards people of other faiths , why should I see such a verse as hate speech ?
and I emphasis again , since when does God have no say in what we believe ?
7-Instigating hate by Takfir and Promise of Hell . (Time Slice 00:22:11 - 00:22:57)
In this section , Rachid deals with another verse that condemns the trinity in Sura 5 verse 73 which states :
[ لَّقَدۡ ڪَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلَـٰثَةٍ۬ۘ وَمَا مِنۡ إِلَـٰهٍ إِلَّآ إِلَـٰهٌ۬ وَٲحِدٌ۬ۚ وَإِن لَّمۡ يَنتَهُواْ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ لَيَمَسَّنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنۡهُمۡ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ] [ They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. ]
Again , another theological claim , and in this verse Allah(swt) promises hell towards those who claim he is a trinity , can some please show me again , WHERE IS THE HATE ?
Christians know for a fact that Jesus(pbuh) never preached trinity , God never said he is triune , there is no evidence for this later innovation from the bible , the only clear evidence is 1 John chapter 5 verse 7 which is has been widely accepted by the majority of christian scholars as a forgery .
Rachid brings up his modified verse that states :
" They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah did Sallah on Muhammad; when there is no God who does Sallah on any human being. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. "
and he asks how would we feel if such a verse existed in scared christian scripture ?
Muslims would die from laughter ! at least I did .
If the christian scriptures make certain allegations against the Islamic faith then I would ask for evidence for it again and again and again , in fact if Christians can prove God is triune , then they have disproved Islam ! what a great challenge Christian missionaries have failed over and over again .
Now lets discuss this "verse" Rachid brought up , Rachid argues that there is no God that does Sallah to a human being , what does he mean ? , he could be implying :
A- That there is no God that worships a human being .
And this statement is true , we read in the Quran over and over again that to Allah (swt) only is all prayers, he is to be worshiped alone with no partners , and Muhammad (pbuh) is no more than a messenger .
B- That God according to Islam worships Muhammad .
Not only Rachid make another absurdity regarding Islam and what it teaches , but it seems like he needs an lesson in the Arabic language , and perhaps one day he can bring on an ex-muslim on his show who makes the claim that he believed Allah (swt) was worshiping Muhammad (pbuh) .
Imam At-Tabari says regarding Sura 33 verse 56 which states :
[إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ وَمَلَـٰٓٮِٕڪَتَهُ ۥ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى ٱلنَّبِىِّۚ يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ صَلُّواْ عَلَيۡهِ وَسَلِّمُواْ تَسۡلِيمًا]
[Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.]
Note : The Word "Sallah" is mentioned in the verse .
"That Allah(swt) and his angels are BLESSING the Prophet (pbuh) , and it could be said that Allah(swt) is exalting his mercy on the Prophet(pbuh) and the angels make dua' for him " (Source)"Sallah" has different meanings depending on who is doing it and upon whom the Sallah is being made according to context.
Yet another theological claim that does not teach hate , only in the mind of Rachid it does .
Rachid's modified verse brings up a question , does he believe in a God that doesn't send blessings ?
8- Instigation of hate because Allah (swt) "fights" them (Time Slice 00:22:59 - 00:24:20)
Rachid in this section argues that Sura 9 verse 30 instigates hate , along with some other ad hominems I will address .
[وَقَالَتِ ٱلۡيَهُودُ عُزَيۡرٌ ٱبۡنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ ٱلنَّصَـٰرَى ٱلۡمَسِيحُ ٱبۡنُ ٱللَّهِۖ ذَٲلِكَ قَوۡلُهُم بِأَفۡوَٲهِهِمۡۖ يُضَـٰهِـُٔونَ قَوۡلَ ٱلَّذِينَ ڪَفَرُواْ مِن قَبۡلُۚ قَـٰتَلَهُمُ ٱللَّهُۚ أَنَّىٰ يُؤۡفَڪُونَ] [And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!]
Up to this point , the methodology used by Rachid is quite obvious to all of us .
Now I want to be honest with my Muslim audience , throughout my life I always thought that Allah (swt) means by "fighteth them" is that he fights these claims of falsehood with truth which is Islam , and this is not going back to any commentary , it was just what I had in mind , but lets see what Rachid had to say.
Rachid didn't object against The Jews claiming that Ezra is the son of God like many Jews and Christians who bring up this verse do , so I won't be answering it.
Rachid says that the "Allah fighteth" according to Muslim scholars means "La'nat" (curse) which is to a certain degree true , this is the best time to explain what "La'nat" mean in Islam .
""La'nat" means deprivation, and can be used in expressions such as "La'anatullah", "May (he/she/it) be deprived of God's (blessings)". So, the curse is not to be understood as gaining evil, rather of losing the blessings of God." (Source)and this is "curse" means in Islam , it was never understood as gaining evil or asking for evil to occur , if there is no evil involved , why should I assume this is hate speech ? Allah (swt) is saying that he will not send his blessings to the Jews and Christians because of their claims , does this imply any hate ?
The only way Rachid can prove this to be a verse that instigates hate in fact any verse he brought up so far is if he can bring forth a verse of a hadith that says we muslims must hate the people of the book , we must hate "cursed" people , we should hate , we should hate , we should hate......etc , and he knows that such literature doesn't exist , that's why he had to hide behind Ibn Taymiya in the beginning of the episode .
I didn't find among any of the commentary I read where a commentator says that "Allah fighteth" means "Allah will kill them by your hands" as Rachid explained , not that I'm saying Rachid is lying , but I would be grateful if someone can point it out for me for my future education.
I previously argued that God does send curses to those who do not follow his law according to the bible , even if I do assume this meaning for the sake of argument , How can this instigate hate ?
Rachid againt brings up a modified verse which says :
"And the Muslims say : Muhammad is a loved one by Allah , and the Ahmadiya say : Gulam Ahmad is the messiah of allah , that is their saying with their mouths . They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old . Allah (himself) fighteth against them . How perverse are they !"
Does the word "curse" in Christianity have the same meaning as "curse" in Islam ? If it does , then again this is another theological claim , these "Muslims" are deprived from God's blessing because of their claims , the same can be said about the Christians and Jews concerning the original verse of the Quran.
Now to list Rachid's blabber talk along with responses :
A- "If the Muslim finds in the Quran that Allah "fought them" and "cursed" them , then he finds himself applying the teachings of this God when he kills Christians and curses them and holds enmity in his/her heart , the Muslim is submitting to the God of Islam"
Are mainstream Muslims ignorant fools that do not see context , historical context , reasons of revelation , then randomly select verses to follow forgetting other verses and the Hadith of the prophet (pbuh) that are explicit dealing with ethics and behavior towards others ? because this is what I am hearing so far , What kind of non-sense is this ?
B- " In fact the muslim gets good deeds if he/she holds enmity to Jews and Christians , if the Muslim applies what Islam teaches"
Are you all really surprised with this statement coming out of Rachid's mouth ?
How about bringing explicit authoritative scripture that tells the Muslim to hate Jews and Christians along with its consequences that results into good deeds then making these claims ? Heck no !
The Prophet (pbuh) actually EXPLICITLY teaches the complete opposite .
The Prophet is reported to have said,“He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah” (At-Tabarani).
He also says, “Whoever hurts a dhimmi, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection” (Al-Khatib).
“On the Day of Judgment, I will dispute with anyone who oppresses a person from among the People of the Covenant, or infringes upon his right, or puts a responsibility on him which is beyond his strength, or takes something from him against his will” (Abu Dawud).
Along with what I already mentioned of the Quran .
These hadiths and verses I mentioned are dealing with ethics and morality towards the people of the book , and orders Muslims to do the exact opposite of what Rachid is trying to promote , non of what he brought up so far deals with the behavior of a Muslim , but what I brought up deals with his theological views along with some historical events.
9- Instigating hate by ordering not to take Jews and Christians as guardians ( mistakenly translated and brought up as "friends" ) (Time Slice 00:24:21-00:25:17)
In this section Rachid argues using Sura 5 verse 51 which reads :
[يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تَتَّخِذُواْ ٱلۡيَہُودَ وَٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰٓ أَوۡلِيَآءَۘ بَعۡضُہُمۡ أَوۡلِيَآءُ بَعۡضٍ۬ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمۡ فَإِنَّهُ ۥ مِنۡہُمۡۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يَهۡدِى ٱلۡقَوۡمَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ] [O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.]
The arabic word of "Wali" (ولي) is associated with different meanings like alliance , guardianship , friendship and others , but the best use of this term is "guardian" for the following reasons :
The Quran uses the word "Wali" with the meaning of protection and guardianship in regards to Allah (swt) in Sura 2 verse 257 and in Sura 3 verse 122 .
Other uses in the Quran include Sura 17:33 which deals with taking innocent lives , it uses the word "Wali"and translated as "authority" .
It's clear now that the word "Wali" has more of an explicit meaning and does not mean "friends" in this context as Rachid tried to claim during the segment .
Dr.Muzammil Siddiqi writes in regards to the historical context :
"It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians , so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people . This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians , but it is telling is that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other. In his Tafsir , Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse was revealed after the battle of Uhud when Muslims had to set back . At that time , a Muslim from Madina said "I am going to live with the Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madina ." , and another said "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madina" . So Allah (swt) revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others , but should protect each other (See Ibn Kathir , Al-Tafsir , Vol 2 page 68) "Muhammad Asad writes :
"As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or-in Quranic terminology-"allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60: 7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this Surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wall has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a -combination of two terms-is always dependent on the context." (Asad, The Message of the Quran)One explaination is that this is refering to the hypocrites : 'Oh ye who believe outwardly' , and they used to assit the polytheists and tell them about the secrets of the Muslims . Al-Suddi said that this verse came down during the Battle of Uhud when Muslims were afraid that they were going to lose the battle and wanted to ally themselves with the Jews and Christians (See Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 5:51 Source) (Source)
In light of the historical context and the context of the verse itself along with the Sura , How does this instigate hate in normal every day Muslim-Christian/Jew relations ? How does this created the "buried hate" Rachid was talking about in the beginning of the episode ?
Islam makes it clear that friendship and good relations with Christians and Jews (in fact with all man-kind) is allowed and advocated , we should co-exist peacefully , but we should not take them as close companions if it leads away from the path of Islam or to moral degeneration , and such a close companionship is recommended if by one's moral character you are leading your friend to the path of Islam .
Rachid displays his modified verse which reads "Muslims" instead of "Jews and Christians" , and begins demonstrating his Broadway acting skills , wondering what if Christians where preaching such a verse ?
Actually his bible does , and the Christian stance is similar to the Muslim stance :
"As Christians, we have to constantly face temptations and the attacks of the world around us. Everything we see, read, do, hear, put in our bodies, etc., affects us somehow. That's why, to maintain a close relationship with God, we have to put aside our old ways of doing things—the things we watch on TV, old bad habits (excessive drinking, smoking, etc.), the activities we participate in, and the people we spend our time with. People are divided into only two categories, those who belong to the world and its ruler, Satan, and those who belong to God (Acts 26:18). These two groups of people are described in terms of opposites all through the Bible; e.g., those in darkness/those in the light; those with eternal life/those with eternal death; those who have peace with God/those who are at war with Him; those who believe the truth/those who believe the lies; those on the narrow path to salvation/those on the broad road to destruction, and many more. Clearly, the message of Scripture is that believers are completely different from nonbelievers, and it is from this perspective that we must discern what kind of friendships we can really have with unbelievers.10 - Instigating enmity through fighting . (Time Slice 00:25:18 - 00:26:18)
The book of Proverbs has a few wise verses on believers befriending non-believers: "The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray" (12:26). We should stay away from foolish people (13:20, 14:7), from people who lose their temper easily (22:24), and from the rebellious (24:21). All these things represent those who have not been saved. "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). First Corinthians 15:33 tells us that bad company corrupts good character. Unbelievers are slaves to sin (John 8:34), and Christians are slaves to God (1 Corinthians 7:22). If we become deeply involved (either by friendship or a romantic relationship) with non-Christians, we are setting ourselves up for turmoil. It can (and does often) cause the Christian to stumble in his walk, fall back into a sinful life, and also turn others away from God (by misrepresenting God and Christianity). Another detrimental effect of closeness with unbelievers is our tendency to water down the truths of Scripture so as to not offend them. There are difficult truths in the Word of God, truths such as judgment and hell. When we minimize or ignore these doctrines or try to “soft pedal” them, in essence we are calling God a liar for the sake of those already in the grasp of Satan. This is not evangelism.
Although these close relationships are not recommended, it does not mean we turn our noses up and ignore unbelievers, either. Second Timothy 2:24-26 tells us that as servants of the Lord, we are to be kind to and not quarrel with anyone. We should gently teach those who oppose the truth, and be patient with difficult people. Matthew 5:16 tells us, “Let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly father.” We should serve unbelievers so that they may see God through us and turn to Him in praise. James 5:16 says that there is great power in the prayer of a righteous person, so bring your concerns for unbelievers before God, and He will listen.
Many people have been saved because of the prayers and service of Christians, so don't turn your back on unbelievers, but having any kind of intimate relationship with an unbeliever can quickly and easily turn into something that is a hindrance to your walk with Christ. We are called to evangelize the lost, not be intimate with them. There is nothing wrong with building quality friendships with unbelievers – but the primary focus of such a relationship should be to win them to Christ by sharing the Gospel with them and demonstrating God’s saving power in our own lives." (Source)
In this section Rachid brings back Sura 9 verse 29 .
I'm starting to notice how Rachid is trying to build a case by repeating "What if we were saying this is our prayers ? and in our churches?...etc "
If by cross examining the verses and hadiths with other verses and hadiths , historical context , context , reasons of revelation and seeing what they exactly mean in the light of honesty to find the truth or learn your religion , they give separate consistent meanings that do not insigate hate.......SO WHAT ?
In my response to his introduction , I already showed how Rachid has no regard to historical context ( in fact did he regard any historical context ? ) , and other Islamic teachings .
I also showed this historical context , and for more details please visit the articles I posted .
I will mention some additional points to Sura 9 :
A- Sura 9 in usually referring the Pagans of Mekka since it is a Sura giving instructions to the Muslims of the time
B-Sura 9 in its totality speaks of different types of Non-Believers and how to deal with them :
1- Sincere Non-Believers who honor their treaties , Sura 9:4 says :
[إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّم مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَنقُصُوكُمْ شَيْئًا وَلَمْ يُظَاهِرُواْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَحَدًا فَأَتِمُّواْ إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَى مُدَّتِهِمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ] [(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.]
Al-Qurtubi states in his commentary on this verse
"[(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance] here means that Allah is devolved from any obligation towards the pagans , but those you have an treaty with , then fulfill that treaty .2- Non-Believers who seek their who seek refuge and protection from the Muslims , Sura 9:6 says :
[ and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you] This shows that there were people who BROKE the treaty , and those who stayed faithful to it , so Allah allowed his Prophet (pbuh) to dissolve the treaty with those who broke it , and ordered him to stay faithful to those who stayed faithful to the treaty .
[nor aided any one against you] This means that they did not help those who broke the treaty " (Source)
[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ] [If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.]
3- Non-Believers who instigate violence .
and these are the Non-believers verses like Sura 9:29 is speaking about , if they declare war on the Muslims , then Muslims are obligated to fight back according to the regulations of war according to Sharia' law which includes never the kill non-combatants , never kill women and children , never destroy a house , never kill animals , never destroy plants...etc
and historically this is the verse where Allah (swt) ordered the Muslims to march to Tabuq .
I am aware that Rachid and many other anti-islamists came up with a fictive "4th stage of Jihad that states that Muslims should fight all those who do not believe , and this abrogates all the previous Jihad stages" and they base it on this verse, this is completely false , non-historical and not Islamic please read the following article Jihad: A War Against All Non-Muslims or Not?: by Kevin Abdullah Kareem .
Rachid makes another number of comments after he brings up his modified verse which uses the word "Muslims" instead of "Non-believers" :
1-" It means "FIGHT THEM" O'Christians !" , this is not considered hatred ? "
If it does not have the same context and historical context as Sura 9 verse 29 has , then Yes .
If it does , then NO .
2- " What is " Ada' "(enmity) then ? "
Do I need to answer this question ? I'm sure Rachid owns a dictionary .
3- How is "hate" defined in Islam if this is not hate ?
According to Islam : Hate and enmity deemed as haram since it goes against the Quran and the Sunnah .
11- Using a donkey to represent them in an analogy . (Time Slice 00:26:21-00:27:34)
Rachid uses Sura 62 verse 5 which states :
[ مَثَلُ ٱلَّذِينَ حُمِّلُواْ ٱلتَّوۡرَٮٰةَ ثُمَّ لَمۡ يَحۡمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ ٱلۡحِمَارِ يَحۡمِلُ أَسۡفَارَۢاۚ بِئۡسَ مَثَلُ ٱلۡقَوۡمِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُواْ بِـَٔايَـٰتِ ٱللَّهِۚ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يَہۡدِى ٱلۡقَوۡمَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ] [ The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of Allah: and Allah guides not people who do wrong. ]
and appeals to emotion again .
I fail to see the argument here , to claim that this verse is instigating hate is as saying Jeremiah (in the book of Jeremiah chapter 8 verse 8) was doing the same when he called the Jewish scribes lairs .
" 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? "Lets take a look at the Quranic verse , the Quranic verse is clearly speaking about the Jews who do not abide by their scriptures , and certainly there are Jews that do abide by their scriptures , therefore it's not a general state .
Imam At-Tabari says :
"The similitude is that the Jews were given the Torah , then they did not abide by it then lied against the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) although they were ordered to believe and follow it , is of a donkey who carries many books of knowledge and science , yet does not benefit by it and does not comprehend what is in it " (Source)
So this is dealing with the Jews who rejected and lied against the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) although he is mentioned in their Torah .
and here is live example of one of these Jews .
Do you bear witness that I am the Messenger of Allah? He said: No. The Prophet peace be upon him said: Do you read the Torah? He replied back: Yes. Then the Prophet peace be upon him asked: and the Gospel? The man replied: Yes. The Prophet peace be upon him then asked: The Qur'an? The man replied back: No. The Prophet peace be upon him replied back: By He Whose Hand my soul lies, if I willed I would read it. Then the Prophet peace be upon him pulled the man and asked: Don't you find me in the Torah and Gospel? The man replied back and said: We find someone who is similar to you and your Ummah (community) and from the place where you were brought up and we were hoping that you would be from amongst us. When you rose up (as a Prophet) we were afraid that it would be you. However, we looked and saw that it wasn't you. The Prophet peace be upon him replied back asking: Why is that? The man said: From him will be 70,000 of his followers from his community who will have no judgment passed on them nor punishment but you have a simple number of men following you. The Prophet peace be upon him replied back: By He Whose Hand my soul lies it is me and it is referring to my Ummah (community). And they are more than 70 thousand, 70 thousand, 70 thousand. (This hadith has been declared authentic by Sheikh Albani in Saheeh Al Muwaarid, page or hadith no. 1765)
Now Rachid brings up his modified verse which uses "Muslims" and "Quran" instead of "Jews" and "Torah" , and asks us how would we feel ?
Nothing , Rachid's argument is a miserable fairure and its doesn't even qualify as an argument.
Rachid asks us to put ourselves in the shoes of a christain who hears an Imam telling people to fight Jews and Christians , to hate...etc , then says "and they say they are the religion of peace ! WHAT IS THIS HYPOCRISY ? WHAT IS THIS DOUBLE FACE ? "
I humbly ask my christian and Jewish audience to find me that Imam so I can condemn him according to Islamic doctrine .
and in response I say : "WHO IS THE HYPOCRITE HERE ? WHO IS THE PERSON WITH DOUBLE STANDARDS AND A DOUBLE FACE ? Me or you Rachid ? DID YOU PROVE ANY KIND OF HATE SO FAR ? ALL YOU DID WAS SHOW US SHALLOW SCHOLARSHIP AND COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF ISLAMIC TEACHINGS , NO WONDER PEOPLE DON'T TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY "
12 - The idea of conspiracy 1 (Time Slice 00:27:33 - 00:28:30)
Rachid brings forth Sura 2 verse 120 which states :
[وَلَن تَرْضَى عَنكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلاَ النَّصَارَى حَتَّى تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَى وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءهُم بَعْدَ الَّذِي جَاءكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا لَكَ مِنَ اللّهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ]
[Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.]
This verse is addressing the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself , not the Muslim community .
Imam Al-Qurtubi says :
"Their objective O'Muhammad is that they would believe, in fact if you answers all their questions they will never be satisfied with you , the only satisfaction they will find is if you leave Islam and follow their ways" (Source)One can see that this is dealing with the mentality of the stuborn Christians and Jews who were having debates and arguing with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) , not with the mentality of Christians and Jews .
Even if I grant Rachid the assumption that this is a verse revealed for the Muslim community , this is dealing with the suborn Christians and Jews who debate and argue with them.
Rachid links this verse to the idea that the west and the people of the book are plotting against Islam , this verse have to do with that if we lived in fairytale land ,The western conspiracy is a political conspiracy that dragged religion to a certain degree in it , how does a verse that addresses the prophet or the Muslims in argument and debate have to do with this ?
In fact , with all the evidence the Muslims have given in response to all kinds of falsehood which Rachid brought in this episode , is he satisfied ? and what would satisfy him ? Answer : If Muslims leave Islam .
Rachid puts forth his modified verse which uses "Muslims" instead of "Jews and Christians" and asks us how would we feel if such a verse is being preached ?
Nothing
and he brings up brainwashing AGAIN , I'm failing to see who is brainwashing who in this episode.
13 - The idea of conspiracy 2 (Time Slice 00:28:31 - 00:29:17)
Another verse relating to the same topic Sura 2 verse 109
[وَدَّ كَثِيرٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَوْ يَرُدُّونَكُم مِّن بَعْدِ إِيمَانِكُمْ كُفَّاراً حَسَدًا مِّنْ عِندِ أَنفُسِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الْحَقُّ فَاعْفُواْ وَاصْفَحُواْ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَ اللّهُ بِأَمْرِهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ]
[Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah accomplish His purpose; for Allah Hath power over all things. ]
First point I'd like to make is , I'm wondering how did Rachid deduce from these 2 verses that there is conspiracy , and that Muslims are always assuming a Christian/Jewish conspiracy against them ? and where is the hate ?
I don't even need to quote anyone here .
The verse says "QUITE A NUMBER" , indicating that this is specifically speaking about a group of Jews and Christians not all of them .
There are 2 different types of envy in the Arabic language , in this case the specific group of Jews and Christians have what we called "mathmum" envy which is a result from hate or dislike .
How do "all jews and christians" fall into this category ? to fall into this category a jew/christians must have hate for Islam , certainly there are those who don't have such , and there are those who have , just go to the forum on Al-Hayat and see for yourself !
Not to mention this verse has nothing to do with the Muslim code of ethics towards others , the verse is a comment made by Allah (swt) on the person of those of the people of the book who hate Islam , but according to Rachid God has no right to make comments on anything , so in his head he might see this as hate .
Rachid in his modified verse uses "Muslims" instead of "Jews and Christians" , and again I must ask where is the argument ?
Rachid then says that Christianity doesn't teach conspiracy , I agree , NOR DOES ISLAM WEATHER HE LIKES IT OR NOT , where is the conspiracy to begin with ? how do these verse teach explicitly that there continuous plotting by people of the book against Islam ?
Rachid says that he only wants the Muslim to feel what the christian feels when he/she hears such verses that teach hate towards humans ?
If the christian took the time to do some proper investigation in these verses , and cross them with other teachings of Islam then uses rational to analyze them , he/she wouldn't be feeling what he feels (assuming that a christian who is insulted) , because the christian if he/she is honest will not come to conclusions Rachid came up with , and if the christian does , then join Rachid in my commentary in the end of this paper .
14 - Even Sins ! (Time Slice 00:29:19 - 00:30:41)
Rachid brings up a hadith which says that Muslims on the day of judgment will with sins the size of mountains , and Allah (swt) will put them on the Jews and Christians .
First of all I find it laughable to even think that this bottles up hate against Christians and Jews , but I will explain the hadith for the likes of Rachid .
A plain reading of the hadith will give a certain unjust idea which is totally rejected since that idea is a clear cut contradiction with the Quran when it says in Sura 39 verse 7:
[وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ۬ وِزۡرَ أُخۡرَىٰۗ]
[No laden soul will bear another's load. ]
Therefore there is not a Muslim on this planet who actually believes that a jew or christian will substitute a Muslim , according to Islam christians and jews are going to hell for other reasons.
Imam An-Nawawi gives several explanations in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim where he says :
" It means that Allah (swt) will forgive the sins of the Muslims , and puts alike them using the sins and blasphemy committed by the Jews and Christians hence Allah(swt) will put them (Jews and Christians) in hell for their (Jews and Christians) DEEDS (not for the sins of the Muslims)But not one of the explanations given is what Rachid was trying to imply .
in another explanation : Sins they were the reasons of it since they legislated it , so Allah (swt) forgives the Muslims and puts like them on the jews and christians [who were the reason] " (Source)
Rachid objects and tries to deceive the audience by saying that Allah(swt) will forgive the Muslims adulters just because they are Muslims , and all will be paid by the christians...bla bla bla
Not only is this false , I find such an objection to be hypocritical coming from someone who believes God sent his innocent begotten son to die for all the christian sinners .
Rachid objects again saying that "Allah will forgive them just because they are Muslims ! " , in response I say "and why are you objecting ? what are you trying to prove ? "
and Rachid brings up his modified verse , which isn't relevant whatsoever to the topic to begin with , and asks how would we feel ?
actually I'd be glad that a literature I don't believe in has such a contradiction since now I can prove the faith wrong , but unfortunately its not a contradiction , nor is it a belief mainstream Muslims have .
I concluded this segment of the paper by emphasizing that :
"IF YOU ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND ISLAM THE SAME WAY AL-QAEDA DOES , THIS IS YOUR OWN PROBLEM , NOT MY PROBLEM , NOT ISLAM'S PROBLEM , NOT ANY MUSLIM'S PROBLEM "
And there is no such thing as "In reality Muslims who kill Christians get good deeds according to Islam" as Rachid and other evangelists blabber all day and all night , such actions where never ordered , nor is it endorsed by Islam .
We examined all of Rachid's main arguments , and he didn't bring up any authoritative evidence that compels or orders the Muslim to hate jews and christians , rather its Rachid's evangelical non-sense and deception , and he says he studied Islam ! If Islam really teaches hate , why the appeal to emotion with no consideration for textual scholarship ? and where is a psychiatric research that proves these verses and hadiths to be a reason of "buried hate" ? and where are the verses and hadiths that deal directly with the ethics and morals of a Muslim that teaches him/her to hate ? such hadiths and verses don't exist
Please refer to the conclusion for more notes about this segment .
Rachid concluded his segment by saying
"Why do Muslims hate Christians ?....The Answer is in the Quran and hadith"
My response : Muslims do not hate Christians , you didn't prove it , nor can anyone prove it since hatred does not exist in Islam .
Commentary and Responses to other sections of the episode
Rachid's falsehood is not over yet , the episode is an hour and a half long , since I already answered all of Rachid's objections , I will be answering and commentating on other selected segments of the episode which includes Calls and email reading , of course I can't address every detail here like I did with the the previous half hour of the episode, there is some very important points to address and I will do so, although I already did what I was aiming to do when I first started writing this paper .
I'm surprised that Rachid and Al-Hayat Tv staff claims to be fair by allowing Muslims to call in , but as you all see , Rachid only spoke for 30 minutes and look how much I had to write ! How on earth is a Muslim who calls the show expected to refute all of Rachid's points in a few minutes ?
There are some Christian callers who called sympathize with the Christians who died in the incident , we sympathize with them as well.
Rachid said during his call with Ehab , referring to what calls "media bias" :
"In the News , they tried to attribute the incident to a man with a criminal record , when will we admit the true reason ? "
Its a well known fact know that this the man who committed the act has a criminal record, its not a media game or a justification .
The next caller is the ex-muslim "Yusra" from France who want to share a story about the hate of Muslims towards Christians , and relates a story I find quite funny , If someone can provide me a hadith confirming her statement I'd be grateful , and it seems like sister "Yusra" if what she said is true is another theological claim , assuming its true , Allah(swt) knows best .
Yusra was once walking with her Muslim fiance , and they walked besides a christian cometary , her fiance told her to hurry up , she asks why , and he replies because the angels are beating the Christians , and she says lets stand by to give the Christians a break , and the man tells her to hurry .
Yusra is surprised and questions "are we that unjust" ? and Rachid nods in agreement .
I personally don't know what goes on in the grave punishment in detail , I leave that for Allah (swt), but how does this teach hate ? how does knowing this assuming its true , leads to the realization that Islam teaches hate ? I have no idea , we in Islam are not encouraged to over thing matters of the unseen , and that's what I do, if someone is being punished in the grave , that's his/her own fault , Allah (swt) revealed the truth and allowed us to make the choice .
Next caller is Abdullah from Morocco , who is a great example "Muslim bad representation" , No wonder if Christians are exposed to such Muslim ignorance , they'd see Rachid as a truthful man , he asks Rachid why is he attacking the Quran ? Rachid replies :
"BECAUSE THE QURAN TEACHES HATE , Jesus has taught me love and cleansed my heart from all hate , listen to what Jesus said , and I already gave you some verses from the Quran"
The Quran does not teach hate and Rachid didn't prove it , nor did he disprove any of the other ethical teachings of the Quran that teach justice , love and kindness to all people .
There is not single verse in the Quran that says a Muslim must hate , but there are verses that says and orders the opposite , not one has been brought up by Rachid , I wonder why ?
Folks this is what we Muslims mean by evangelical deceit , were those verses that Rachid grossly misrepresent the only verses in the Quran ? when did he try to debunk other verses ? in fact when did he mention the other verses ? again I must ask , who is brainwashing who in this episode ?
Rachid quotes from 1 John Chapter 4 verses 7-8 , and verse 20
" 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.......20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. "
I wonder where can I find such a verse in the old testament ? If God is love , why do I find this verse in the end of the bible , not in Genesis ?
Now I don't dispute such verses , although I don't believe in the bible as the word of God , I do believe that all prophets brought such a message , and God is loving, the Islam-Christianity dispute is theological not ethical , both faiths have a great ethics to teach .
Now Rachid pulls a fast one as if we don't own bibles , he says that love here is for all humanity , not for a certain indivisual , later on you will see why I am answering this .
The whole chapter says "another" , "another" , "love one another" , "brother", I wonder how he deduced that the other is all humanity not only christians ? again , this is not my view of the verse , I don't sink to this level of argumentation, if a christian says its all humanity , I believe him/her , but you will see why I am mentioning this in a few .
Good thing Islam never told anyone to hate , nor does it teach hate , Allah says in the verse I quoted in the header of this paper "let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly" [Sura 5 verse 8] therefore Islam passes this test, I wonder why this explicit verse against hate was not quoted in the episode ? the answer is clear to anyone who read the response to Rachid's accusations.
Rachid says :
"I am not inviting you to change you religion , I invite every Muslim to change your heart , to ask God to change his/her heart , Islam only leads to hate in all of its forms , and the messiah is love incarnate , who only leads to a life full of love , take your life from hate into love , leave the religion of hate into the religion of love"What a load of non-sense ! If my heart is in Islam , why do I need to change it ? if I need a change of heart I'll ask Allah (swt) to change it , and changing my heart never meant accepting Christianity to me ! because then I'm going to have to accept all the hate and racism in the old testament , and I am not willing to insult God by claiming he revealed such a book .
The Quran always refers to good actions and love using the word "Bir" , which is the highest level of love and good behavior according to the arabic language , higher and better than the word "mahaba" which is used in the bible .
In Saheeh Muslim , the prophet said :
"Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! You will not enter Jannah until you believe, and you shall not believe until you love one another."In this Hadith, Islam has been regarded as the medium of mutual love. This is the reason Muslims have been enjoined to greet each other regardless of acquaintance. It does not, however, mean that a Muslim will be a true believer or entitled to Jannah, by mere greeting. What it really means is that his Faith will become meaningful only when it is supported by actions. Greeting is an Islamic custom and a practical form and demonstration of it. The combination of Faith and its practice will take a Muslim to Jannah.
Now where was this hadith in the episode ? perhaps among the other hadiths Rachid doesn't want to bring up.
The reason why I mentioned the "another" in Rachid's quote was for this , if Rachid says the "another" in the bible is all humanity , what stops me from believing this is the same case ?
Love by feeling and action is emphasized in this hadith , and by crossing it with Sura 60:8-9 which says :
[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.]
It is clear that love is to all, by feeling and action .
speaking of hate , what's the deal with this ?
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
I am aware that Christians interpret this verse the same way I do , by crossing it with other verses and commentary , and they interpret this verse meaning that you must love the lord more than your mother,father,wife....etc , If an honest christian was saying this then I accept it and I don't mind , but I'm not dealing with an honest christian , I am dealing with Rachid .
The next caller is brother "Botros" , and he is a unique brother ! He challenges Rachid to a debate regarding the crucifixion , and Rachid asks him about his religious status...etc
What makes this brother unique is that he told Rachid the following :
"Last month I held both the Quran and the Bible , the bible said he was crucified , the quran says he wasn't , and I'm telling you the quran is correct !"
Now Rachid in his episodes always tries to insist on certain points he doesn't want to lose , although he doesn't know he already lost them 1400 years ago .
Rachid keeps telling him "either the quran is correct or the "injeel" is correct" Botros said they are both correct , the reason is that a Muslim believes in the Injeel , which was the revelation given to Jesus (pbuh) , and never says the injeel is wrong , while Rachid keeps implying that the injeel is the bible , the bible has its word in arabic "Kitab Al-Muqadas" , why didn't he use this term ?
Injeel means good news , what kind of good news does the bible have ? the insulting claim that God came down as a man and died for ours sins because he can't forgive them ?
The bible has 4 "injeels" in them , not one , non of them are attributed to Jesus (pbuh) .
The bible has 4 "injeels" in them , not one , non of them are attributed to Jesus (pbuh) .
Botros challenges Rachid quickly to tell him where did Jesus (pbuh) say "I am god" , and a fast breakaway by Rachid .
Next caller is another ex-muslim christian propagandist , Mahmood , who claims all of what Rachid said is true and is well recorded in Islam , seems like Mahmood doesn't know what a book looks like or how to read one .
Rachid again tries establish his points by asking him "Then my claims are true" , and the puppet agrees with him along with some blabbering which is not even worth addressing .
Next caller is another ex-muslim Michael , Rachid again spill out his falsehood, but what I was shocked by was his claim that all the text is brought was "explicitly teaching hate" , keep dreaming Rachid ! the validation of a brainwashed Christian doesn't help !
Michael says that he was an everyday Muslim but he never hate anyone .
That's because Islam teaches that Michael , please find me the verse that explicitly teaches hate since you agreed with Rachid .
Michael says why don't they look at these verses and compare them ?
I just did that , and I'm still not convinced .
The 2 keep speaking falsehood , and compare what anger does to a Muslim and anger does to christian , for a complete refutation of what they said and to see how the prophet Muhammad instructed us to be strong and not become wrathful please visit this website :
http://www.islamawareness.net/Anger/anger.html
unfortunately many Muslims now a days get angry about every small detail , forgetting the teachings of our beloved prophet (pbuh) , when he was provked by the Jews when they told him "As-samu alyk" and Aisha got angery , the prophet replied back and said :
".....Be clam ! O'Aisha , for Allah loves that one should be kind and lenient in all matters......"
".....Be clam ! O'Aisha , for Allah loves that one should be kind and lenient in all matters......"
More falsehood has been spilled out by the next ex-muslim caller Mahmood, he mentions a good point about women and children , do I need to bring up the old testament ? and the new testament that validates it ?
Islam never told anyone to go blow himself up in a bus , nor did Islam ever tell anyone to kill innocent women and children , the bible does .
Again , I'm not going to address all of the points every caller and Rachid is raising in this episode since most of them are non-sense in my eyes which I can't find any Islamic teaching endorsing them.
But Rachid does bring something questionable :
"The west has been formed based on Christian values , that's why we find democracy there"
Or should I be saying that's why we had the dark ages and the crusades ? I won't go into detail now , this deserves an article , I think I'll schedule it for another time .
Rachid now goes into reading emails
Rachid makes certain claims during the reading of the email by Marwan, basically he is implying that the God of Islam is ognorant and Muhammad's Quran was for its time and environment only because the Quran was speaking and condemning Abrahamic faiths of Arabia (Judaism and Christianity) along with Paganism , because the Quran does not speak about Hinduism and Buddhism .
I believe that is because the Quran is not a book of apologetics for it to address every claim on earth in detail , it's God's message to man-kind , every prophet had to deal with his environment , but the Quran does address Idol worshiping which the Hindus and Buddhists fall under.
Christianity and Judaism were the only faiths claiming to be Abrahamic , and that is why most of speaking was about them .
In the email by Boulis , Boulis mentions the hijab martyr Marwa , and claims that Muslims use double standards since this incident was used to prove that Muslims are oppressed in Europe , and there is no reasoning with Muslims
And of course the greats of the double standard hypocrites Rachid has to agree with him and claims the following :
1- The Muslim's brother is a Muslim supports him when in commits or suffers injustice .
Response : Quote the whole hadith you double standard hypocrite .
The Prophet's (pbuh) said: "Support your brother when he commits or suffers injustice". A man asked the Prophet (pbuh): "Messenger of God, I understand that I should support him when he suffers injustice. How do I support him when he is the committer of injustice?" The Prophet (pbuh) answered: "You prevent him from doing injustice. That is the best support you give to him".
Now this hadith makes sense ! and does not imply Rachid's claim .
2- The Christain is a Kafir even if he is oppressed and there is no need for him/her , does not exist according to then Muslim .
Response : Which Muslim you double standard hypocrite ? Show me that Muslim so I can condemn him/her , Where is the text that supports your claim ? it doesn't exist , and he says he studied Islam !
This is also a response to the next Email , it claims the same thing .
The email following from Ahmad asks Rachid why does he keep attacking Islam when Islam respects all faiths ?
Rachid says
"You are still persistant in this view after all the evidence I brought up ? "
Response : Yes , and what valid evidence did you bring up ?
Ahmad says he has a loving friendship between him and a christian , Rachid tells him the following :
"If you loved your christian friend you are not following Islam , a while ago I gave you that you can't greet the Jews and Christains , you not supposed to greet your friend , so how can you love him ? "
I already addressed that , the prophet was telling the Muslims of his time not to greet the Jews of Banu-Qurayza because they are going to march towards them , this had nothing to do with not greeting Jews and Christains for all eternity .
Rachid then quotes a hadith which says :
“The most dependable handhold on faith is: love for the sake of Allah and hatred for the sake of Allah.”
and says :
"You must hate them for Allah , you are doing a favor for the God of Islam if you hate them"
Response : Rachid knows that the word "yubgid" is the same word used by Jesus in the verse I quoted earlier , if this is context of that word , then Jesus (pbuh) preached hate according to Rachid !
Now why should I understand this hadith to promote hate ? there is no reason to.
This hadith has been widely acknowledged by Muslim scholars as a criterion of a guardian (wali) over a Muslim , not as an action towards human beings .
and how am I supposed to hate and deal kindly and justly and love all man-kind according to Islam at the same time ? this doesn't make sense .
I always understood this hadith to mean that I must love for Allah(swt) all that he loves and try as much as I can to do it , like being kind , and I must hate for Allah(swt) that which he hates , in the Quran Allah(swt) refers to a certain sin by referring its doer , for example he says "Allah does not love those who do injustice" , meaning that he does not love injustice , therefore I must hate injustice , and I must try my best to stay away from it and so on .
I'm no scholar and if my understanding is wrong then I'd like to some evidence .
Rachid says (allegedly) regarding the same topic that Muslims should not take christians as friends , using the same word "wali" , I already addressed that .
Ahmad accuses Rachid of instigating fitna among Christians and Muslims , and Rachid strikes back with more refuted falsehood against the Prophet (pbuh) by saying :
Any evidence so far ? NO !
"The one who created Fitna was Muhammad himself , he created enmity between Muslims and non believers especially Jews and Christians , Al-Hayat Tv didn't exist at the time of Muhammad , yet he said do not greet Jews and Christians therefore the enmity began with Muhammad and his teachings , not from me , the program or the channel"
I do agree that AL-Hayat didn't exist at the time of Muhammad (pbuh) , but double standard hypocrites and lair did exist from the time of Adam (pbuh), what Al-Hayat represents existed for a long time now.
The greeting has already been addressed .
Rachid takes another call from Bin-Yameen , nothing not addressed or worth addressing .
Next caller is Muna , same as Bin-Yameen .
What I do agree with Rachid is this "Darkness has its time , and it's bound to perish" , I agree 100% with this statement , time is the factor now .
Now Rachid makes the most absurd claim in this episode , seriously , what the hell ? Am I supposed to believe one bit that Rachid is an honest person ?
Islam didn't come to eliminate other religions , it came to show truth from falsehood , and call all man-kind back to the religion of all the prophets from Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all.
First of all Muhammad (pbuh) acknowledged all people , Jews , Christains , Mushriks...etc , if this was a man who doesn't acknowledge others , why did acknowledge the prophets who came before him ? if loved only himself , why didn't he claim he wrote the Quran ? why didn't he ask for worship ?
please refer to the following articles because these claims are too big for me to address here .
as for racism , Islam actually is the solution of racism not the cause of it , please read this :
http://www.islamanswers.net/moreAbout/racism.htm
http://muslim-responses.com/The_Final_Sermon/The_Final_Sermon_
After reading these , can anyone please provide me evidence of any trace of racism in Islam ?
Narcissist ????? Is Rachid speaking for real ?? The last thing anyone can attribute to the prophet (pbuh) is narcissism, please read this :
http://muslim-responses.com/Narcissist/Narcissist_
Next caller Mumina has something interesting to say :
Was this woman watching the same episode I am ?
Only 2 Muslims called , 3 if we count the debate challenge , while most of the time was given to the ex-muslims , the 2 muslims weren't as bright as I'd expect , and based on this she conculded that what Rachid is saying is true instead of hitting the books and seeing for herself ?
You all remember the verse about Christians and Jews who hate Islam ? here is a nice example .
Rachid says regarding evangelism to Muslims what every evangelist repeats over and over again , that Islam is trying hard to stop the ministry to Muslim using man-power , because if the imprisoned minds of Muslims are set free , then the Muslims will come realize the truth .
Evangelism using standard christian methods is a filthy and disgusting way of leading people astray , that is why it is fought , Evangelists are trained to lie and deceive the normal Muslims using arguments that are clearly refuted , why should we allow such to happen ? and who said a Muslim's mind is imprisoned ? Islam is the only faith I know of that encourages rational thinking and acquiring of knowledge , if a Muslims decided not to follow that it's his/her problem .
a quick response to another claim regarding Muslims who burn churches , Islam prohibits this action and therefore any Muslims who commit such injustice is in fault , Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) forbade Muslim armies to destroy churches and synagogues. the Quran says in Sura 22 verse 40 :
[They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, "Our Lord is GOD." If it were not for GOD's supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.]
Therefore no Muslims is allowed to burn a church or destroy it because the name of Allah(swt) in mentioned there .
as for Muslims "allowing the blood of others" , this woman who claimed she studied the Quran in school forgot this verse that Allah(swt) revealed to the children of Israel , and reminding the Muslims of it , that they should follow it , Sura 5 verse 32 which says :
and what about this hadith ?
“He who kills a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Heaven, though its scent can be traced to as far as a march of 40 years” (Imam Ahmad and Al-Bukhari in Al-Jizyah, among others).
The next caller is brother Idrees , who is a good example of what happens to Muslims who knows his ways in and out of Islam and Christianity , he gets shut down once he tries to bring up his evidence and they mask it with something else , Idrees who publicly condemns the tragedy of Naj' Hamadi and quotes the prophet when he said " When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts " , this brother is sharp and lets Rachid know that he took every single verse and hadith out of context , Idrees keeps mentioning that the bible is corrupt , and once he tried to quote the bible , it seems like they suspect something from the Old Testament , so they shut him off while Rachid tries to mask it as if he was trying to argue that the bible is corrupted , a good listen can show that he was going to quote a verse, keep this idea in mind because it will expose Rachid's double standards in a few.
Idrees is very sharp , Rachid first challenges him regarding Sura 1 in a very FALSE WAY , which I see as brainwashing the christian viewer , Rachid says :
Idrees responds back by saying
which is a true , I already provided a number of explanations to the verse as well as its context in my response to his argument, I'd like to add to Idrees's point the following :
Can someone please show me evidence that they are the Jew s and Christians for sure ? and if it is how does it create hate since I'm reminding myself that I don't want to follow the theological falsehood of Jews and Christians ? and how did Rachid come to the 100% conclusion that its the Jews and Christians when I gave numerous explanations according to Muslim scholars which I'm sure he read , Rachid uses the word "Mention" which is supposed to be explicit , I challenge anyone to find where it explicitly says "Jews and Christians" in Sura 1, it doesn't , period.
Idrees continues :
Rachid interrupts (and he does this often with Muslims who know their material) and says
Ladies and Gentlemen , allow me to introduce one of the most common used MYTHS about Islam by evangelicals , the abrogation myth .
The myth Rachid is relying on alleges that Sura 9:29 abrogates all the religious tolerance in the Quran , based on a doctrine in Islam known as abrogation , I do admit that some Muslim scholars have abused this concept and came up with the abrogation myth , and you will see the anti-islamist qouting from the same scholars over and over again not matter how much evidence and other scholars you bring up , but the facts given by other scholars during that time or who came later along with the Quranic verse of abrogation itself proves my case , not the abrogation myth.
Abrogation in Islam means the replacement or cancellation of one Shria' concept , law or ruling with another , this was used because Allah (swt) in his wisdom was training the early Muslims to leave their pre-islamic prepositions a little by little until they are able to receive the final judgement regarding the Shria' issue , for example drinking wine and the punishment for adultery, for more info , please visit this website .
Now the promoters of the abrogation myth either quote the same scholars who misunderstood the Quran over and over again with a deaf ear to whatever you have to say , or just bring up this verse from the Quran
Sura 2 verse 106
[ مَا نَنسَخۡ مِنۡ ءَايَةٍ أَوۡ نُنسِهَا نَأۡتِ بِخَيۡرٍ۬ مِّنۡہَآ أَوۡ مِثۡلِهَآۗ أَلَمۡ تَعۡلَمۡ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬ قَدِيرٌ ]
[ Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?]
Imam Al-Qurtubi says :
The verse came down in answering to these Jews , and the word used in the verse is "Aya" which could mean verse , but in this context it means "sign" or "ruling" .
Now back to the call between Idress and Rachid , Rachid asks him a straight forward question
"If you meet a Jew or a Christians in the road , can you greet him ? "
Idrees replies back :
Rachid interrupts again , at this point he realizing Idrees knows his material , he says
Do you all remember a few paragraphs ago when I was answering Rachid's narration from 1John chapter 4 , where he was saying that love is for all ? yet the words used their are "another" , "another" , "brother" and "beloved" in the beginning is referring to the Christians , I'd like to know how Rachid deduced that 1John chapter 4 is dealing with all humanity and if so how can he broadcast his live deception and yet have the audacity to say that Idrees's narration is dealing with Muslims only ? Where did this come from ? where is the sources to back this up ? There isn't .
If I meet someone I don't even know , and I am supposed to greet him/her , how do I know if this a Jew , christian or Muslim so I can know how to greet ? What kind of inconsistency is Rachid trying to create ? Idrees's narration is 100% valid , while Rachid's answer is double standard hypocrisy AGAIN (I'm not surprised)
This replay is a well known Christian Apologetic technique , when ever a Muslim quotes a hadith that backs up the Muslim position , the Christians replies "Its only refers to Muslims!" , where do they get this from ? I have no idea , yet I challenge any christian to apply the same standard to his/her bible , and we already saw Rachid doesn't do that .
Rachid keeps interrupting , and still insists its only Muslims with a big fat smile on his face thinking he refuted the Muslim , and accuses him of not following Islam (like most Christians do when facing a Muslim who knows their material , again visit the forums on Al-Hayat and see for yourself) , and gets cut off for a while so Rachid can speak about the greeting using points I already refuted.
Rachid says :
Idrees says
Rachid KNOWINGLY interrupted the man and didn't allow him to finish his point to the full extent , if he did he would've refuted Rachid's case , and I bet Rachid knows that this hadith is related to war , but chooses to ignore the historical context.
Who says its related to war ? The prophet him self said so :
"The Prophet (pbuh) said: “We are going forth in the morning against a group of Jews, so do not initiate the greeting of 'Salam' with them" (Narrated in Musnad Ahmad 26695 and Mu’jam al-Tabarani al-Kabir 22 / 291 )
Idrees objects and says , while Rachid is still interrupting and objecting , trying to shut him down :
Now Rachid shifts the argument again , notice that he changed the argument twice 'till now , he was trying to find a verse or a hadith which Idrees can't respond to in order to embarrass him, that's why Rachid keeps interrupting and changing the point in question , Idrees barely got 10 seconds on each point , DOES THIS SOUND FAIR ? while Rachid uses his Broadway level acting skills , he switches to the point where he claims Muhammad was kicking out jews and Christians , and during that switch he spills out a lie which states:
That is a lie , and an embarrassing one , which Muslim or Muslim scholar doubted this narration ? I personally don't know of any , I'm looking for them though and I still can't find them , and if I do , I want some evidence.
This narration was mentioned in multiple sources like Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Umam wa’l-Muluk,( 4, 228) , and there is no proof that this narration is not authentic , all historians of the life of Muhammad (pbuh) weather Muslim or Non-Muslim accepts this narration to be historically accurate in both teaching and application , and I challenge anyone to find one historian that disputes this narration , yet Rachid tries to imply that this is a weak narration and says :
and this is true , it is a saheeh hadith , but Rachid already failed this argument, historically this never happened during the time of the prophet (pbuh) or the time of the khilafah, Rachid continues and says :
Idrees finally comes back with a great statement :
Rachid gets the urge to interupt again before the brother completes his statement (AGAIN) and says :
"Then resist Muhammad because he kicked out the Jews and Christians...."
Idrees during Rachid's interruption says :
Rachid says :
Idrees says :
Rachid interrupts again and says :
I wish Rachid had a mirror in his face when he said that ! because he is the one that broke every rule of analyzing text and history , and he had a whole episode of blabbering while a Muslim who knows his material didn't get 10 seconds if continuous air time to speak ! , the fear of getting exposed is a deep one indeed, and his sarcastic tone doesn't help at all, what kind of rebuttal is this ?
and like I said earlier , the scholars specified "Jazeerat Al-Arab" with specific cities and areas like Mekka and Madina , not the whole Arabian peninsula , and history confirms my position not his , unless the Sahaba can't read Arabic.
What happened to Idrees is just one of many cases like this.
Next caller is Murad , who says the same speech most christians say ; The Shieks say this and that in Al-Jumaa' prayers and no Muslim can reply back , they only listen , and Rachid agrees , yet no Muslim agrees ! a shiek that speaks falsehood is condemned by Muslims , and Muslims have the duty to condemn such a person .
Murad says :
Rachid asks Murad a question :
Notice the hypocrisy on the side of Rachid , now since a Christian is online he wants to speak about bible corruption , just a few minutes ago he prevented Idrees from making a similar statement .
What kind if question is this ? the Muslim position regarding bible corruption doesn't have to do with the ethics taught in the new testament , its with which statements are from God or not ? weather this book is inspired or not , its easy to write a book about love , but does that make it inspired ? what about the contradictions , forgeries , interpolations , time of writing , questionable theological teachings , the pick and choose methodology concerning which books to add or not , Paul , the fact there is no original new testament , the authors are unknown , historical mistakes , the hidden agendas....etc this is what we mean by bible corruption , in Islam we are taught that the "Injeel" was given to Jesus (pbuh) , and non of gospels are written by him , but by people who never saw , prayed , walked , or even suffered with Jesus (pbuh) , so how can Rachid skip all this and speak about "love" ? and where is this love in the old testament which if I became a christian I have to accept ?
They loose the connection with Murad so we don't get a chance to listen to his answer .
Khalid is next caller , he speaks the Moroccan accent of arabic , which I highly don't understand , but from what I understood they spoke about secularism ,and Khalid asks why isn't their any christian evangelism going on in Canada , Rachid responses that there is , and that he does missionary work to Muslims .
WOW ! if this is what he means by missionary work to Muslims , I can confidently say this is why I'm not a christian yet , and inshalla I'll never be .
Now Khalid says all religions call for peace and love , Rachid objects and says Islam does not teach peace and love (which he didn't prove) , Khalid responds back by saying there are verses that teach peace and love , and it all depends (according to him , I don't agree with him) on exegesis , by Rachid says something very interesting now
and where is the open invitation to kills Jews and Christians ?
Khalid responds back by saying we must relate this to its time (meaning historical context) , Rachid says yet another gem :
and is it supposed to be interpreted like Rachid and other Non-Muslims want it to be ? this is dishonesty on the part of Rachid.
Rachid seems to be spilling out lots of treasures at the end of the episode , he says :
and why is Rachid appealing to the statements by prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when I clearly used many of his statements against him ? is this a game of pick and choose .
In conclusion Rachid says the following :
By Allah ! If I knew Rachid was going to say such a statement I would've never wrote this paper ! this is an open invitation to doubting Muslims to discover his falsehood ! I can't believe how confident he is , who was I relying on through out this whole paper ? the same source he is encouraging us to use in our investigation , therefore I refuted Rachid even using his own criteria .
Before I conclude , I would like you to watch this great lecture by Dr.Jamal Badawi entitled "Muslims/Non-Muslims Relations: Misunderstood Qur'anic Texts" , which can be downloaded HERE , file number 15 , it is a great presentation that shows many different aspects of the Muslim - Non-Muslim relations which I didn't address , and some other points that address the same arguments Rachid brought forth .
I conclude based on what Rachid asked us Muslims to do in the end of the episode that he didn't prove anything , nor was this episode worth listening to , I only saw and heard what every critic of Islam has been saying for last 1400 years along with some new arguments.
Are mainstream Muslims fools that don't understand how to read and analyze text ? If any Muslims leaves Islam because of such arguments , then I'm not ashamed to say that he/she falls under this category ! a crucial element of examining text weather religious or non-religious is context and historical context , non has been provided by Rachid and in reality he took every single quotation he made out of context and teachings of Islam.
Islam is the only religion I know of that encourages critical thinking ,rationality and honest scholarship , therefore all I did was follow Islam to reach my conclusion , nor should any objector to my paper be surprised that mainstream Muslims use their intellect in analyzing their scriptures which implies taking other factors like context , historical context and history into consideration .
Rachid's deceptive methodology and actions during the episode consists of the following (according to my notes) :
A- Logical Fallacies :
C- Complete Dismissal of Historical Context along with Ignoring History.
D- Double Standard Hypocrisy.
E- Assumptions with No Proof.
F- Conclusions with No Valid Arguments To Begin With.
G- False Reporting.
H- Broadway Level Acting (Or Should I Promote Rachid to Hollywood Level ?)
I- Misrepresentation of Islamic Doctrine.
J- Confusing Theological Claims with Hate Speech.
K- Failing His Own Criteria.
L- Public Lies and Deception.
M- Appeal to The Wrong Person.
N- Shutting Down Muslims Who Know Their Material .
O- Repeating The Same Falsehood Over and Over Again to Deceive The Viewers.
P- Cut and Paste Through Misquotation.
Q- Ignoring KNOWINGLY Other Islamic Teachings.
R- Character Assassinations Against The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) With No Proof.
S- Claims Of Brainwashing Although He is Doing All The Brainwashing .
T- Appeal To Refuted Absurdities .
U- Shallow Scholarship .
Next caller is Muna , same as Bin-Yameen .
What I do agree with Rachid is this "Darkness has its time , and it's bound to perish" , I agree 100% with this statement , time is the factor now .
Now Rachid makes the most absurd claim in this episode , seriously , what the hell ? Am I supposed to believe one bit that Rachid is an honest person ?
Yikes ! even I didn't think Rachid sinks this low ! seems like I'm going to have to grant him the title "sub-human entity" soon .
"....The Islamic world being the victim of racist religion that grew in Arabia that wanted to eliminate all the other religions , and keep only the religion of Muhammad that only acknowledges himself and no one else , and was a narcissist who only loves himself...."
Islam didn't come to eliminate other religions , it came to show truth from falsehood , and call all man-kind back to the religion of all the prophets from Adam to Muhammad peace be upon them all.
First of all Muhammad (pbuh) acknowledged all people , Jews , Christains , Mushriks...etc , if this was a man who doesn't acknowledge others , why did acknowledge the prophets who came before him ? if loved only himself , why didn't he claim he wrote the Quran ? why didn't he ask for worship ?
please refer to the following articles because these claims are too big for me to address here .
as for racism , Islam actually is the solution of racism not the cause of it , please read this :
http://www.islamanswers.net/moreAbout/racism.htm
http://muslim-responses.com/The_Final_Sermon/The_Final_Sermon_
After reading these , can anyone please provide me evidence of any trace of racism in Islam ?
Narcissist ????? Is Rachid speaking for real ?? The last thing anyone can attribute to the prophet (pbuh) is narcissism, please read this :
http://muslim-responses.com/Narcissist/Narcissist_
Next caller Mumina has something interesting to say :
"I feel sad because no Muslim has called to agree with what you said , the Muslims are calling and talking about other matters , and this proves that they live in another world full of hate in which they allow blood for themselves , they don't drink alcohol but they drink blood , they don't eat pork but they allow for themselves the lives of others "
Was this woman watching the same episode I am ?
Only 2 Muslims called , 3 if we count the debate challenge , while most of the time was given to the ex-muslims , the 2 muslims weren't as bright as I'd expect , and based on this she conculded that what Rachid is saying is true instead of hitting the books and seeing for herself ?
You all remember the verse about Christians and Jews who hate Islam ? here is a nice example .
Rachid says regarding evangelism to Muslims what every evangelist repeats over and over again , that Islam is trying hard to stop the ministry to Muslim using man-power , because if the imprisoned minds of Muslims are set free , then the Muslims will come realize the truth .
Evangelism using standard christian methods is a filthy and disgusting way of leading people astray , that is why it is fought , Evangelists are trained to lie and deceive the normal Muslims using arguments that are clearly refuted , why should we allow such to happen ? and who said a Muslim's mind is imprisoned ? Islam is the only faith I know of that encourages rational thinking and acquiring of knowledge , if a Muslims decided not to follow that it's his/her problem .
a quick response to another claim regarding Muslims who burn churches , Islam prohibits this action and therefore any Muslims who commit such injustice is in fault , Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) forbade Muslim armies to destroy churches and synagogues. the Quran says in Sura 22 verse 40 :
[They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, "Our Lord is GOD." If it were not for GOD's supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.]
Therefore no Muslims is allowed to burn a church or destroy it because the name of Allah(swt) in mentioned there .
as for Muslims "allowing the blood of others" , this woman who claimed she studied the Quran in school forgot this verse that Allah(swt) revealed to the children of Israel , and reminding the Muslims of it , that they should follow it , Sura 5 verse 32 which says :
[On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.]
and what about this hadith ?
“He who kills a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Heaven, though its scent can be traced to as far as a march of 40 years” (Imam Ahmad and Al-Bukhari in Al-Jizyah, among others).
Seems like the Naj' Hamadi guys are really not following Islam !
Can I be any clearer than this ?
The next caller is brother Idrees , who is a good example of what happens to Muslims who knows his ways in and out of Islam and Christianity , he gets shut down once he tries to bring up his evidence and they mask it with something else , Idrees who publicly condemns the tragedy of Naj' Hamadi and quotes the prophet when he said " When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts " , this brother is sharp and lets Rachid know that he took every single verse and hadith out of context , Idrees keeps mentioning that the bible is corrupt , and once he tried to quote the bible , it seems like they suspect something from the Old Testament , so they shut him off while Rachid tries to mask it as if he was trying to argue that the bible is corrupted , a good listen can show that he was going to quote a verse, keep this idea in mind because it will expose Rachid's double standards in a few.
Idrees is very sharp , Rachid first challenges him regarding Sura 1 in a very FALSE WAY , which I see as brainwashing the christian viewer , Rachid says :
"for example you pray 5 times a day , your prayer is not accepted unless you badmouth the Jews and Christians, you remind yourself at least 17 times a day that the Christians are led astray and the Jews are those whose portion is wrath"
Idrees responds back by saying
"even if that is true , it doesn't mean that Muslims should be out killing and robbing Christians "
which is a true , I already provided a number of explanations to the verse as well as its context in my response to his argument, I'd like to add to Idrees's point the following :
Can someone please show me evidence that they are the Jew s and Christians for sure ? and if it is how does it create hate since I'm reminding myself that I don't want to follow the theological falsehood of Jews and Christians ? and how did Rachid come to the 100% conclusion that its the Jews and Christians when I gave numerous explanations according to Muslim scholars which I'm sure he read , Rachid uses the word "Mention" which is supposed to be explicit , I challenge anyone to find where it explicitly says "Jews and Christians" in Sura 1, it doesn't , period.
Idrees continues :
"That is why Allah (swt) says "Let there be no complusion in Religion" "
Rachid interrupts (and he does this often with Muslims who know their material) and says
"This verse is ABROOOOOGATED ! because it came before Sura At-Tawba , verse 29 abrogates it "
Ladies and Gentlemen , allow me to introduce one of the most common used MYTHS about Islam by evangelicals , the abrogation myth .
The myth Rachid is relying on alleges that Sura 9:29 abrogates all the religious tolerance in the Quran , based on a doctrine in Islam known as abrogation , I do admit that some Muslim scholars have abused this concept and came up with the abrogation myth , and you will see the anti-islamist qouting from the same scholars over and over again not matter how much evidence and other scholars you bring up , but the facts given by other scholars during that time or who came later along with the Quranic verse of abrogation itself proves my case , not the abrogation myth.
Abrogation in Islam means the replacement or cancellation of one Shria' concept , law or ruling with another , this was used because Allah (swt) in his wisdom was training the early Muslims to leave their pre-islamic prepositions a little by little until they are able to receive the final judgement regarding the Shria' issue , for example drinking wine and the punishment for adultery, for more info , please visit this website .
Now the promoters of the abrogation myth either quote the same scholars who misunderstood the Quran over and over again with a deaf ear to whatever you have to say , or just bring up this verse from the Quran
Sura 2 verse 106
[ مَا نَنسَخۡ مِنۡ ءَايَةٍ أَوۡ نُنسِهَا نَأۡتِ بِخَيۡرٍ۬ مِّنۡہَآ أَوۡ مِثۡلِهَآۗ أَلَمۡ تَعۡلَمۡ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ۬ قَدِيرٌ ]
[ Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?]
Imam Al-Qurtubi says :
" The reason of revelation is that the Jews envied the Muslims when they prayed towards the Kaba' and attacked Islam for it , saying that Muhammad commands his companions to do something then prohibits them afterward , so the Quran is from him , and it contradicts itself , so Allah revealed [If we substitute an aya in place of an aya] (Sura 16) and this verse "(Source)
The verse came down in answering to these Jews , and the word used in the verse is "Aya" which could mean verse , but in this context it means "sign" or "ruling" .
, "Abrogation deals with temporary rulings, and "Let there be no compulsion in religion" is a EVERLASTING teaching of Islam , therefore it can't be abrogated by a verse that came for a specific situation like war , in fact Sura 9:29 doesn't abrogate anything according to scholars ." [Rd Iftra' Al-Munsreen Hawl Al-Islam Al-Azeem , Response to Missionaries falsehood about the great Islam : Abrogation (Nasikh w Masookh) : page 255]I'm not going to go into every single detail regarding abrogation since its a huge topic , but in short Sura 2 verse 256 is not abrogated and only a desperate anti-islamist would think so, and quoting scholars doesn't help Rachid's case of abrogation .
Now back to the call between Idress and Rachid , Rachid asks him a straight forward question
"If you meet a Jew or a Christians in the road , can you greet him ? "
Idrees replies back :
"Yes , I greet him , and this is sunnah of the prophet when he says "Greet those you know that those you do not know" "
Rachid interrupts again , at this point he realizing Idrees knows his material , he says
"This is referring to Muslims only"
Do you all remember a few paragraphs ago when I was answering Rachid's narration from 1John chapter 4 , where he was saying that love is for all ? yet the words used their are "another" , "another" , "brother" and "beloved" in the beginning is referring to the Christians , I'd like to know how Rachid deduced that 1John chapter 4 is dealing with all humanity and if so how can he broadcast his live deception and yet have the audacity to say that Idrees's narration is dealing with Muslims only ? Where did this come from ? where is the sources to back this up ? There isn't .
If I meet someone I don't even know , and I am supposed to greet him/her , how do I know if this a Jew , christian or Muslim so I can know how to greet ? What kind of inconsistency is Rachid trying to create ? Idrees's narration is 100% valid , while Rachid's answer is double standard hypocrisy AGAIN (I'm not surprised)
This replay is a well known Christian Apologetic technique , when ever a Muslim quotes a hadith that backs up the Muslim position , the Christians replies "Its only refers to Muslims!" , where do they get this from ? I have no idea , yet I challenge any christian to apply the same standard to his/her bible , and we already saw Rachid doesn't do that .
Rachid keeps interrupting , and still insists its only Muslims with a big fat smile on his face thinking he refuted the Muslim , and accuses him of not following Islam (like most Christians do when facing a Muslim who knows their material , again visit the forums on Al-Hayat and see for yourself) , and gets cut off for a while so Rachid can speak about the greeting using points I already refuted.
Rachid says :
This is one of the most ridicules questions I ever heard in my life , if you are struggling with a hadith , why not do some further study ? see the context , historical context , cross it with other teachings , how about ASKING KNOWLEDGEABLE MUSLIMS ? , the role of this hadith is well known and totally ignored by Rachid and likes of Rachid , it's relating to us how the Prophet (pbuh) dealt with the Jews of Banu-Qurayza after their betrayal , what can a Muslim learn from this ? If you are going to meet to number of people who betrayed the Muslims in war , do not greet them . Simple as that .
"Should we throw away this hadith ? What is the role of this hadith is Saheeh Muslim ? "
Idrees says
"I will answer , this hadith is related to a specific time of war ....."Rachid interrupts and says
"Who told you this ? Who said it's related to war ? There is no..... "are you all seeing what I am seeing ?
Rachid KNOWINGLY interrupted the man and didn't allow him to finish his point to the full extent , if he did he would've refuted Rachid's case , and I bet Rachid knows that this hadith is related to war , but chooses to ignore the historical context.
Who says its related to war ? The prophet him self said so :
"The Prophet (pbuh) said: “We are going forth in the morning against a group of Jews, so do not initiate the greeting of 'Salam' with them" (Narrated in Musnad Ahmad 26695 and Mu’jam al-Tabarani al-Kabir 22 / 291 )
Idrees objects and says , while Rachid is still interrupting and objecting , trying to shut him down :
"Can I answer ? Can I answer ?......You are weird case Rachid ! "Idrees is saying this because up until now he was interrupted by Rachid numerous times and wasn't able to finish a whole point and give a full case , and this happens quite often on Al-Hayat Tv , Muslims who know their material get shut down .
Now Rachid shifts the argument again , notice that he changed the argument twice 'till now , he was trying to find a verse or a hadith which Idrees can't respond to in order to embarrass him, that's why Rachid keeps interrupting and changing the point in question , Idrees barely got 10 seconds on each point , DOES THIS SOUND FAIR ? while Rachid uses his Broadway level acting skills , he switches to the point where he claims Muhammad was kicking out jews and Christians , and during that switch he spills out a lie which states:
"You know that hadith which says " When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts " , alot of Muslims disputed his hadith "
That is a lie , and an embarrassing one , which Muslim or Muslim scholar doubted this narration ? I personally don't know of any , I'm looking for them though and I still can't find them , and if I do , I want some evidence.
This narration was mentioned in multiple sources like Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Umam wa’l-Muluk,( 4, 228) , and there is no proof that this narration is not authentic , all historians of the life of Muhammad (pbuh) weather Muslim or Non-Muslim accepts this narration to be historically accurate in both teaching and application , and I challenge anyone to find one historian that disputes this narration , yet Rachid tries to imply that this is a weak narration and says :
"The Saheeh Narration is that I will drive out the Jews and Christians"
and this is true , it is a saheeh hadith , but Rachid already failed this argument, historically this never happened during the time of the prophet (pbuh) or the time of the khilafah, Rachid continues and says :
"Is this an attribute of a religion that says it is a religion of love , this is hate ! someone saying "I am in this country..." for example you live in Britain and the president of Britain says "I will kick out all the Muslims , I will only leave the Christians" , how would you feel brother Idrees ?"If such a thing actually happened then I agree with Rachid , this would be offensive , but it didn't happen and the hadith implied something else , of course Rachid needs to appeal to emotion because he has no case .
Idrees finally comes back with a great statement :
"I would feel that injustice was committed against me , as I say to any Muslim that says that the Jews and Christians are banished from Muslim lands because of their faith , I will resist him...."
Rachid gets the urge to interupt again before the brother completes his statement (AGAIN) and says :
"Then resist Muhammad because he kicked out the Jews and Christians...."
Idrees during Rachid's interruption says :
"RACHID LET ME SPEAK !"and he has a right to , because Rachid didn't allow him to speak 10 continuous seconds so far !
Rachid says :
"Last change for you to speak , didn't Muhammad kick out the Jews and Christians from Arabia and said he will only leave Muslims"
Idrees says :
"I will answer and please do not interrupt me , the prophet (pbuh) didn't kick them ALL OUT , he only kicked out those broke their treaties and betrayed him..."
Rachid interrupts again and says :
"It seems you have pay no attention to the text , this is my last comment , he said "I will only let the Muslims" , he did not single out and christian , he didn't say "I will only kick out those ugly Christians and Jews and will leave the beautiful Christians and Jews " , So Idrees , please review the episode , think , you still have a chance to leave the religion of hate with the love of Christ"
I wish Rachid had a mirror in his face when he said that ! because he is the one that broke every rule of analyzing text and history , and he had a whole episode of blabbering while a Muslim who knows his material didn't get 10 seconds if continuous air time to speak ! , the fear of getting exposed is a deep one indeed, and his sarcastic tone doesn't help at all, what kind of rebuttal is this ?
and like I said earlier , the scholars specified "Jazeerat Al-Arab" with specific cities and areas like Mekka and Madina , not the whole Arabian peninsula , and history confirms my position not his , unless the Sahaba can't read Arabic.
What happened to Idrees is just one of many cases like this.
Next caller is Murad , who says the same speech most christians say ; The Shieks say this and that in Al-Jumaa' prayers and no Muslim can reply back , they only listen , and Rachid agrees , yet no Muslim agrees ! a shiek that speaks falsehood is condemned by Muslims , and Muslims have the duty to condemn such a person .
Murad says :
"When Muslims say the "Injeel" is corrupted , I do not understand their logic"Perhaps because Murad didn't read the the bible then evaluate Muslim arrangements and what main stream christian scholarship say concerning the bible , it is a corrupted book and that's a fact .
Rachid asks Murad a question :
"Do you believe using logic that people corrupted this book so it could say "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" , the corrupted the book to put love in it ? while the correct book teaches hate towards humanity , is this possible ?"I'd like to take back my earlier statement about the "most ridicules questions I ever heard in my life" , because this is most ridicules questions I ever heard in my life !
Notice the hypocrisy on the side of Rachid , now since a Christian is online he wants to speak about bible corruption , just a few minutes ago he prevented Idrees from making a similar statement .
What kind if question is this ? the Muslim position regarding bible corruption doesn't have to do with the ethics taught in the new testament , its with which statements are from God or not ? weather this book is inspired or not , its easy to write a book about love , but does that make it inspired ? what about the contradictions , forgeries , interpolations , time of writing , questionable theological teachings , the pick and choose methodology concerning which books to add or not , Paul , the fact there is no original new testament , the authors are unknown , historical mistakes , the hidden agendas....etc this is what we mean by bible corruption , in Islam we are taught that the "Injeel" was given to Jesus (pbuh) , and non of gospels are written by him , but by people who never saw , prayed , walked , or even suffered with Jesus (pbuh) , so how can Rachid skip all this and speak about "love" ? and where is this love in the old testament which if I became a christian I have to accept ?
They loose the connection with Murad so we don't get a chance to listen to his answer .
Khalid is next caller , he speaks the Moroccan accent of arabic , which I highly don't understand , but from what I understood they spoke about secularism ,and Khalid asks why isn't their any christian evangelism going on in Canada , Rachid responses that there is , and that he does missionary work to Muslims .
WOW ! if this is what he means by missionary work to Muslims , I can confidently say this is why I'm not a christian yet , and inshalla I'll never be .
Now Khalid says all religions call for peace and love , Rachid objects and says Islam does not teach peace and love (which he didn't prove) , Khalid responds back by saying there are verses that teach peace and love , and it all depends (according to him , I don't agree with him) on exegesis , by Rachid says something very interesting now
and this confirms all of my charges of dishonesty ! I don't know if I should thank Rachid for this statement , Rachid KNOWS that there are contradictory teachings in Islam to what he was promoting , and hid behind emotion and shallow scholarship to prove his case , he knows about the other teachings of Islam and didn't take the time or effort to cross reference his falsehood with those teachings ."But what will you do the verse that contains hate and invitation to kill Jews and Christians ? "
and where is the open invitation to kills Jews and Christians ?
Khalid responds back by saying we must relate this to its time (meaning historical context) , Rachid says yet another gem :
"The Quran isn't explained according to you desire brother Khalid , and I ask you to refer back to these verses"
and is it supposed to be interpreted like Rachid and other Non-Muslims want it to be ? this is dishonesty on the part of Rachid.
Rachid seems to be spilling out lots of treasures at the end of the episode , he says :
"Jews and Christians were kicked out by Muhammad , and he ordered the killing of them , Sura At-Tawba is the last sura revealed to Muhammad according to his statements , even "Bismilla Ar-Rahman Ar-raheem" isn't written in it because he said there is no mercy in it , it is an order to fight the Jews and Christians , I hope you go back to the tafsir , the Quran and hadith"His beginning statements are historically false , and Sura 9 is not an order to fight jews and christians all around the world as Dr.Badawi explained .
and why is Rachid appealing to the statements by prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when I clearly used many of his statements against him ? is this a game of pick and choose .
In conclusion Rachid says the following :
"I sincerely from the bottom of my heart ask of every Muslim and Muslima who saw this episode , to review the contents of this episode , go to the verses , go to the tafsir , I am leaving the choice to all the viewers to go to the tafsir and what they said , what the hadith books said , how they interpreted the hadith , you will find my statements to be true , I invite all to reevaluate his/her dogma , because a dogma that tells us to hate others is not needed in this world , we need what changes our hearts and teaches us love , who is Christ "
By Allah ! If I knew Rachid was going to say such a statement I would've never wrote this paper ! this is an open invitation to doubting Muslims to discover his falsehood ! I can't believe how confident he is , who was I relying on through out this whole paper ? the same source he is encouraging us to use in our investigation , therefore I refuted Rachid even using his own criteria .
Conclusion and commentary of Rachid's methodology
Before I conclude , I would like you to watch this great lecture by Dr.Jamal Badawi entitled "Muslims/Non-Muslims Relations: Misunderstood Qur'anic Texts" , which can be downloaded HERE , file number 15 , it is a great presentation that shows many different aspects of the Muslim - Non-Muslim relations which I didn't address , and some other points that address the same arguments Rachid brought forth .
I conclude based on what Rachid asked us Muslims to do in the end of the episode that he didn't prove anything , nor was this episode worth listening to , I only saw and heard what every critic of Islam has been saying for last 1400 years along with some new arguments.
Are mainstream Muslims fools that don't understand how to read and analyze text ? If any Muslims leaves Islam because of such arguments , then I'm not ashamed to say that he/she falls under this category ! a crucial element of examining text weather religious or non-religious is context and historical context , non has been provided by Rachid and in reality he took every single quotation he made out of context and teachings of Islam.
Islam is the only religion I know of that encourages critical thinking ,rationality and honest scholarship , therefore all I did was follow Islam to reach my conclusion , nor should any objector to my paper be surprised that mainstream Muslims use their intellect in analyzing their scriptures which implies taking other factors like context , historical context and history into consideration .
Rachid's deceptive methodology and actions during the episode consists of the following (according to my notes) :
A- Logical Fallacies :
- Appeal to Emotion. (The Most Used In The Episode).
- Straw man.
- Appeal to Consequences of a Belief.
- False Dilemma.
- Begging the Question.
- Hasty Generalization.
C- Complete Dismissal of Historical Context along with Ignoring History.
D- Double Standard Hypocrisy.
E- Assumptions with No Proof.
F- Conclusions with No Valid Arguments To Begin With.
G- False Reporting.
H- Broadway Level Acting (Or Should I Promote Rachid to Hollywood Level ?)
I- Misrepresentation of Islamic Doctrine.
J- Confusing Theological Claims with Hate Speech.
K- Failing His Own Criteria.
L- Public Lies and Deception.
M- Appeal to The Wrong Person.
N- Shutting Down Muslims Who Know Their Material .
O- Repeating The Same Falsehood Over and Over Again to Deceive The Viewers.
P- Cut and Paste Through Misquotation.
Q- Ignoring KNOWINGLY Other Islamic Teachings.
R- Character Assassinations Against The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) With No Proof.
S- Claims Of Brainwashing Although He is Doing All The Brainwashing .
T- Appeal To Refuted Absurdities .
U- Shallow Scholarship .
V- Dismissing Explicit Islamic Text Dealing With Ethics And Morals.
W- False Appeal To Psychology.
Very Impressive !
Can someone now please tell me why should I believe anything Rachid said if this is the kind of methodology he is using ? Is this how Christian Missionaries want me to me accept Christ as my lord and savior ? This is shameful, is this what Jesus (pbuh) taught ? DISHONESTLY TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL ?
Verses from the bible in the light of Rachid's criteria .
Note : If I offend any Christian in this segment , I sincerely apologize , this is not what I intended to do , what I want to do is demonstrate how Rachid's criteria and methodology in dealing with the Islamic text is bias , unfair , shallow , and intellectually bankrupt , I do not hold this stance in regard to many of these verses , I'm just applying Rachid's Methodology , I do acknowledge and believe that Christianity , just like Islam , is a peaceful and ethical faith , the difference we have are theological not ethical, if you find this segment to be silly , then you should be honest and re-evaluate Rachid and his claims.
I will not accept context , historical context , common practice , theological beliefs , reasons of X and Y , or anything of the 23 points against the presentation of the episode I mentioned from Rachid or any of his fans , basically if I don't like the verse , it teaches hate .
The Old Testament IS FULL OF HATE ! hundreds of verses that promote killing and murder ,and the New Testament confirms it in 2 Timothy 3:16 :
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
and since there was no New Testament at the time of Paul , he was referring back to the Old Testament, I will limit myself to these quotations only , Anti-Islamic Christian Missionaries can have fun with the other HUNDREDS OF VERSES LIKE THIS ONE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT .
Doesn't this teach hate towards seven nations ? and what's the deal with DESTROY THEM TOTALLY , MAKE NO TREATY WITH THEM AND SHOW THEM NO MERCY ??
Jesus (pbuh) is supposed to be the incarnate of this tyrant ? Love they say.......
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7)
kill , kill , kill.....have no pity ! Here is the source of the crusades and it's reason ! and don't tell me Jesus brought a new covenant !
Where is the respect to other beliefs ??? God ordering the Jews to defile the temple ? doesn't this teach hate ?
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)
Love and Peace ?
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.(Isaiah 13:15-18)
According to Rachid when Muslims read the Quran hate bottles inside them , if that is the case....WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ??? a whole book over and over again , God ordering to kill this guy and that guy , rape women , kill children , why ? because they are unbelievers , because they fought his "chosen people" , because this and that .... bla bla bla .
What about these verses from the New Testament :
Hate my mother ? hate my father ? my wife and children ? How am I supposed to love all people if I hate my own mother ? THIS TEACHES HATE AGAINST ALL , and divides families !
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword , For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:34-35)
What a lovely verse ! Jesus didn't come to bring peace , I couldn't care less what the sword is , he didn't come to bring peace , and followers of this "Jesus" should not bring peace.
"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! " (Luke 12:49)
Do a favor for the biblical "god" and start some fires around here , commit arson like Anis Shorrosh did , hate at its best ! why does this god teach such to his followers, burning people's homes and property.....
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." 17"Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
Love all humanity , but don't let them in your home ! what kind of love is this ? why am I being called "wickedness" and "darkness" here , In fact why am I being compared to the devil ? As an unbeliever I am offended !
Dogs and Pigs ? ALL GENTILES ARE DOGS AND PIGS ???? HATE ! HATE ! HATE !
Jews are sons of the devil ! they carry the devil's desire ! and they say the Quran promotes hate against the Jews......
"You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34)
Brood of vipers....doesn't sound like love to me.....when a christian reads that his LORD was walking around INSULTING Jews , how does it make him/her feel ? hmmmm , then he/she must be compiled to insult Jews ! and insulting = hate .
These verses should be enough to establish the point I am trying to make , again I repeat , if I offend any Christian brother or sister I sincerely apologize , but I had to show others how dishonest Rachid is being , because what I just did to the bible is exactly what he did to the Quran and other Islamic text .
